I only had thirty cents in changes on me.

~

Coat

Stephen–Depepnds on where you live.

Here’s an idea: take the $100 you had budgeted for overpriced drinks or that mint copy of AMAZING CRUSTYMAN #812 and donate it to Equality California.

Or impress yourself and your friends by your self-righteous boycott of a hotel.

Whatever, its not like denying equal rights to the Gays really impacts your daily life, does it?

I’m not being a moral relativist when I point out that Manchester is doing the same thing that we are doing. It is a free country, thank God. There are layers of meaning here. Is it wrong for Manchester to give money to a cause he supports? Not really, sorry. Is it wrong for me to do that? No. Is it wrong to deny people their civil rights? Yes. Manchester’s actions ultimately support that, just as anyone’s decision not to drink at the Hyatt ultimately lowers the bottom line of (depending on who you ask) Doug Manchester, the Hyatt corp. or the staff of the Hyatt.

I won’t eat at Carls Jr or Dominos or Dennys (any more) because of their corporate decisions, I refused to buy SPIN when it was published by Bob Guccione for various reasons, and I have lots of other little pet peeves that I observe. Right now I’m trying to find a way to blow up AT&T, and I’m sure I’ll have lots of support on that one. Will this boycott of the Hyatt have any honest real practical effect on making Doug Manchetser realize that gay people are people who deserve every protection of the law? I doubt it. Will it raise awareness — it already has. Any other effects are debatable, which is why this seems to go on and on.

Sean, I think it’s a fine way to absolve myself of responsibilities for which I bear no culpability. Not such a good way to absolve myself from responsibilities that are real though. I can’t use that argument, for instance, to free myself from doing my laundry, paying my bills, taking care of my family, loving people, et cetera. Plus, I do believe that there is a point to “donating a little cash to a charity, recycling, turning off the light when you leave a room, turning off the water while you brush your teeth”—a point beyond just feeling good about oneself. And my argument doesn’t touch those responsibilities either.

My argument was wholly involved in the question of financial participation and whether it is just to indict those who stay at the Hyatt or order drinks from its bar as participants in the misanthropy of its owner.

Kind of a fun idea! And brave, I think - there’s still a lot of anti-gay sentiment among comics fans.

And the notion that “we’re all making choices” is pure moral relativism that you can’t possibly actually mean, right? Right?

As for the Dane, i wouldn’t even know where to begin, other than by repeating that this is a fine way to absolve yourself of responsibility for anything you ever do.

How did that happen?

Good lord.

You know, the one thing about this mini-debate that didn’t need 10 seconds of discussion is that it’s made me feel less angry and confused about exploitation in comics.

Actually… going to a bar or staying at a hotel is not a financial participation in the owners personal life. Instead it’s a participation in the bar or hotel.

Imagine if we were responsible for all the hateful lifestyles that we very indirectly supported by our purchase of goods and services. Every time we fly, we would be responsible for the life choices of all those employed by the airline. Every time we purchase groceries, we’d be held responsible for the decisions of grocery store employees, the owners, and those who work for the brands we purchase (since minute fractions of our dollar would go to support each of these lifestyles).

By the same token, our use of bars and hotels could be seen as a participation in alcoholism and cheating husbands, for it is our use of those establishments that contributes incrementally to the continued operation of places that enable impoverished lifestyles. We are, in this sense, participating financially in alcoholism and adultery.

Of course, we don’t really operate like this. No one actually places onus for another’s activities on those who “participate financially” in a business such person runs. And the more one damages a business whose owner is a tastleless bastard, the more that owner’s employees will suffer. So really, it’s a question of weighing the working stiff who you’ll cause harm to for not being as quote-unquote enlightened as you vs. the owner who you’ll cause harm for not being the kind of human you’d prefer.

And that’s where it comes down. It’s not a question of doing good but a question of whom you would prefer to harm (and how much harm you’ll be doing them, I suppose).

Which is just what Doug Manchester did, BTW, so we’re all just making choices.

And even better if you can wear a t-shirt advertising your stand. Which is why most of my comicbook t-shirts are either from CBLDF or AIDS Walk NY.

How soon before people start tatooing icons on their bodies to advertise their opinions and beliefs? And how soon thereafter will someone sport a Red Cross Blood Donor tatoo?

I didn’t understand what Mark Evanier was talking about when he seemed to be suggesting you do something because it will be effective or to make you feel better about yourself, but it was kind of depressing.