The magazine Consumer Reports has done good service for a long time, and I've been willing to support them by subscribing to their print edition and also their on-line service. Like most organizations in the field of consumer activism, they have a somewhat left-wing image, and occasionally, they endorse or lobby for legislation I don't agree with, but I haven't been bothered much. Until now.
This year, they bought the blog consumerist.com, formerly owned by Gawker; it has a flock of writers spewing out several short pieces a day, some of them on legitimate consumer issues, and some on irrelevancies. Since the writers at Consumerist tend to be a snarky opinionated bunch, I figured their style might eventually become a problem, in comparison with the restrained, generally fair and factual approach of the magazine.
In recent weeks, they've given a lot of coverage to some gay group's protest against Target stores after Target gave a donation to a political cause in Minnesota. The donation was ostensibly given because the cause agreed with Target's business interests, but it benefited a conservative politician who's against same-sex marriage. Since then, Consumerist has published several pieces about protests:
- July 28: "Target Angering Gay Customers..."
- August 5: "Target CEO Explains Support of Anti-Gay Politician..."
- August 8: "Target and Best Buy's Support of Bigots Is Going To Change The Way You Shop"
(Yeah, actually it will change the way I shop: I like Target more now. Their foundation used to support Planned Parenthood, but they stopped. God bless 'em.)
I figure the first story was reasonable; the second understandable; but the third insulting.
Does Consumers Union, the parent organization of Consumerist.com, endorse that sentiment: that opposition to same-sex marriage makes you a "bigot"? I don't want my subscription money going to pay for a blog that's going to spread incivility like that.
So I called Consumers Union, spoke with the customer relations department, and explained my concern a week ago. I haven't heard any response yet, so I cancelled the magazine subscription. I'll give 'em another chance this week; I'll call again and ask if they have taken a stand to disassociate themselves from the offensive message from the blog. And if not, I'll cancel the on-line subscription.
Anybody else feel the same?
Sadly, the reason both sides ( pro-family and contra- family) resort to targeting Target or any other retailer is because we now define ourselves by our consumerism culture. I applaud boycotts of offending stores, mind you. It is simply a "sign of the times" that the battleground is Commercial USA.
Great article!
Definition of Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.
So yes, by definition your intolerance of same sex marriage does make you a bigot.
What Would Jesus Do?
Thanks for your comment. Of course, I disagree: my opposition to same-sex unions is a difference in public policy and not a matter of personal intolerance.
So, you're ok with gay marriage personally but oppose it as matter of public policy? Is that the No Homo Doctrine?
As long as the government's not involved. If it were, then they're looking for the approval of the state and it becomes a matter of public policy.
If two guys or two gals want to take vows in their Protestant church or whatever, I'm not making a fuss about it. I don't believe it's really a marriage, but tolerance means putting up with things you don't approve of. And my approach fits the definition of tolerance.