I love the free market and our ability to choose where to shop. If we get bad service or don’t like the worldview of the seller, we don’t have to give them any money. Or we can steer our spending to companies with great service and similar beliefs.
I’m not aggressively into boycotts, but when companies are in your face with their dogma and I can conveniently go somewhere else, I will. But I have to concede that even though the pro-”same-sex marriage” people are hopelessly on the wrong side of the issue, part of their point here is valid:
It should be no surprise that many companies would succumb to political correctness for profit, just as many people will say the opposite of the truth to be more popular. I used to work for HP and they gave into to the “gaystapo” lobby and their boycott threats along with the pressures of some LGBT people in the company.
But you really will need to live in a cave if you think you can survive by only shopping where people completely agree with your worldview. Feel free to go where you like, but most of the time you’ll just be going where someone hates your worldview and you just don’t know it (yet).
Obviously, their “wrong side of history” bit is wrong, especially considering that 99% of people with that view are also pro-abortion.
I just choose to remind people that if you are going to use an equal sign, then the things on each side need to actually be equal. In this case, they are not. The notion of “marriage equality” it is false because it implies that any union of two people is equal to real marriage. Or that the number of people in the marriage isn’t important.
But there are two very important things that same-sex unions can’t do.
1. By nature and design, 100% of children are produced by one man and one woman. That doesn’t mean marriages have to produce children, just that they are only produced by one male and one female, and that the government is interested in those relationships because of that possibility.
2. Only male/female relationships can provide a mother and father to a child — the intuitive ideal supported by countless studies.
Those are the reasons the government has traditionally been involved in marriages. No one is preventing gays from associating with each other (the government won’t even shut down bath houses!).
The Sola Sisters make some good points as well in To Starbucks or Not to Starbucks, That Is The Question.
And yet, at the risk of inflaming many of my Christian friends who often exercise their American right to choose to boycott a company that makes this or that anti-Christian statement, here is just some food for thought:
Should we as Christians expect lost people to act in any other way than lost people generally do?
That is to say, should we expect lost people to not have animosity toward Christians? Can we look at history, perhaps, to help us get our bearings on this? The fact is that the world in which the very first Christians found themselves was a world that was incredibly hostile to biblical Christianity, and filled with wickedness and depravity, including rampant homosexuality. And yet, I feel certain that the Christians of that time interacted in the business world. And I do not see Scriptures exhorting Christians to not buy from this or that leather craftsman or olive purveyor, based on that person’s presumably anti-Christian views.
And also, lest we forget, the Bible makes it clear that the world will have animosity toward both us and God’s Word:
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing….” (1 Corinthians 1:18a)
“You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)