Sometimes Mob Rule Can Be a Good Thing
---
There are two high-profile cases of anti-gay bigotry in the form of shareholder proposals demanding that major corporations cease to be gay-friendly in one way or another.
Sorry, make that only one high-profile case:
Of course, there's a fundamental difference between the bigot shareholder proposal of Ms. Meyer and the bigot amendments being submitted in states across the country -- besides the outcome, that is. Ms. Meyer is now free to sell her shares, leave the community of Kraft shareholders and sulk in the privacy of her own hatred, no worse off than she was had she never bought Kraft stock in the first place.
Gays in states with bigot amendments can make no such claim. Yes, they can theoretically relocate to Massachusetts or Vermont or Canada or wherever. But even doing that would not make them "no worse off" than had the bigot amendments never been enacted. Ms. Meyer didn't lose anything she was truly entitled to. Gays lost quite a bit that they were truly entitled to.
The very definition of a corporation is that shareholders have little or no input in the operations of the business. The very definition of "equal protection" is that the majority does not have absolute input in the operations of society or government.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge these self-evident truths really does have a mob mentality.
Sorry, make that only one high-profile case:
Kraft Foods Inc. shareholders Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a proposal that the Northfield-based food and beverage giant cut sponsorship for the Chicago-hosted 2006 Gay Games and future competitions.Wow.
Saying the event promotes gay activity that increases the likelihood of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and is inconsistent with the company's health-focused initiatives, shareholder Marcella Meyer of Chicago presented the proposal before the annual meeting in East Hanover, N.J. She saw 99 percent of the votes cast against the proposal, as company directors recommended.
Of course, there's a fundamental difference between the bigot shareholder proposal of Ms. Meyer and the bigot amendments being submitted in states across the country -- besides the outcome, that is. Ms. Meyer is now free to sell her shares, leave the community of Kraft shareholders and sulk in the privacy of her own hatred, no worse off than she was had she never bought Kraft stock in the first place.
Gays in states with bigot amendments can make no such claim. Yes, they can theoretically relocate to Massachusetts or Vermont or Canada or wherever. But even doing that would not make them "no worse off" than had the bigot amendments never been enacted. Ms. Meyer didn't lose anything she was truly entitled to. Gays lost quite a bit that they were truly entitled to.
The very definition of a corporation is that shareholders have little or no input in the operations of the business. The very definition of "equal protection" is that the majority does not have absolute input in the operations of society or government.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge these self-evident truths really does have a mob mentality.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
29 April 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.