Boycotts over differences of opinions

It was recently revealed that a co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus, contributed to Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Almost immediately, liberals called for a boycott of Home Depot. In other words, because one of the many people connected to a business had a differing opinion from liberals, they wanted to punish the business



There is so much wrong with this. He co-founded the company, but he is no longer actively involved. He clearly does not speak on behalf of Home Depot. To punish a company and everyone involved on the basis of what one individual thinks is absurd. Similarly, anyone who intends to increase shopping at Home Depot as a result of this revelation is embracing the same absurd logic.

The most concerning aspect of this threatened boycott was the heavy-handed intolerance. Bernie Marcus made it clear that he didn't support all of Trump's policies. He merely indicated that he preferred Trump over the Democrats. When an individual promotes a boycott on the grounds that someone else's opinions don't match, that individual is effectively arguing that American's should be deprived the right to their own opinions.

There are times when boycotts are justifiable. For example, our schooling system deprives children of fundamental human rights and freedoms. If a business pushed to drastically expand the role of our schools, I might consider a boycott. If someone involved with a business donated to a political candidate that promoted forced Pre-K or forced college (a position embraced by an overwhelming majority of the Democrats), I would not argue that this would be grounds for a boycott.

The Home Depot story was not an isolated incident. It has become a common threat from the Democratic party every time a business can be tied to a statement that is not a perfect match for their views. I could explain some of these, but I want to address a major oversight in the Home Depot saga.

Democrats were not just showing intolerance towards an alternative viewpoint. They were also showing intolerance towards Home Depot's lack of intolerance. Keep in mind that we are only talking about one person with ties to the business. The only way that they could prevent this sort of backlash is to ensure that nobody in their company deviates from the strict liberal narrative. They would have to embrace intolerance of people whose opinions are different.

Since the Home Depot fiasco, a similar story emerged surrounding gyms. Stephen Ross announced a fundraiser for Trump. Stephen Ross is the chairman and 60% stakeholder in the Related Company. The Related Company is considered the parent company of Equinox Fitness. As a subsidiary of Equinox, SoulCycle was also dragged into this story. Members of these gyms started discussing a boycott. Like Mr. Marcus, Mr. Ross clarified that he didn't agree with all of Trump's position. Like Home Depot, Equinox distanced their views from those of the lightning rod.

I have seen some of the same journalistic standards that have become far too common in this country. Some sources refer to equinox as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Related Company. Others say the Related Company has a majority stake. Others have called it a minority stake. Admittedly, I still have not nailed down which version of the truth is accurate. One thing that I can say with confidence is that any source that says Mr. Ross owns Equinox is misleading its readers.

There can definitely be a stronger argument to make with Equinox than Home Depot, but my core argument remains valid. The businesses themselves have done nothing worthy of a boycott. These businesses have numerous individuals involved including multiple investors and employees. All of the backlash relates to one single person tied to the business. Due to a difference in political beliefs, liberals are calling for a boycott.

Let me make a couple things clear. First of all, I do not want any intervention against these liberals. They should not be forced to maintain memberships just because they don't like one individual involved in the ownership.

I also want to make it clear that I don't oppose the idea of boycotts. If people have a legitimate issue with a business, they have every right to keep their money away from that business. Intolerance of diverging viewpoints does little more than fuel the division that has become such a big problem in this country. That is why I find these threatened boycotts to be so misguided and concerning.