I had to take a minute to remember this article I wrote so long ago now. You bring up an interesting point Nitro. I was wondering where you were in the discussion as I looked over a few of the pages to refamiliarize myself with the subject matter.
First, sorry KFC I should have been clearer in my inital comment. It was a comment by Chuck that led me (back) to your article (his comment, not his article, it yours). After re-reading my my comment it just plain comes off wrong, even though it is clearly visibly your article.
I never commented on this issue back in 2008, I really didn't have anything constructive to add. I comment now, just to see how people feel now that the role is slightly reversed. Were the comments make by those posting in support of fairness, against unfairness, in support of homosexuality, or against it. It's really about people. Rarely do we get an opportunity where an issue is reversed as this one is. That's why I resurrected it, this particular issue still doesn't interest me much, but the dynamics of two opposite stories with the same commenter's does. Hope I explained that clearly.
So what is your opinion?
Well for me, I look at it this particular issue this way. One could take the gayness out of the equation entirely. It boils down to one group threatening a company to pony up an equal amount of money in support of their cause, because of a contribution made to someone they don't like, or face a boycott. It almost sounds like extortion to me. I would imagine it would be difficult for one to buy many of the things they need if they followed that line of thinking. Not saying a boycott is never appropriate (I'd like to see one on Venezuelan oil), but not domestic businesses as impact on US workers should be minimized as much as possible.