and there is probably more and more every day that could be added
Pepsi has been on my perma boycott since 9/11 when that CFO from Pepsi expressed an opinion that the U.S deserved it.
I have no doubt the list is huge - trying to boycott all of them would basically mean to stop eating, sleeping, using a computer, a phone, driving, etc, etc - i.e. committing suicide. That’ll never work.
The effective way to do this is to do it the way the left does it - use Alinsky’s rules for radicals on them.
We have to pick one or two high profile companies, maybe Apple, Home Depot, NBC, Starbucks... isolate them and have a coordinated, sustained boycott, including protests in front of their headquarters and inside their stores. Once that one cries uncle we move to the next one, until a sufficient number of example have been set that the remaining businesses will know what to do.
The reason businesses are pro gay-issues is not because they love gays, it’s because they want to avoid at all costs gays (or blacks, or us) getting in their faces and causing vandalism, pandemonium, and negative publicity.
Our side has to do the same and more, to let businesses know that picking sides is not to their benefit and that they should remain completely neutral.
To pull this off requires leadership - leadership to choose the target, rally the supporters and coordinate the attack. Most of all it requires that we the vast majority that way outnumbers the 2% that are gay get off our asses and actually do something - become activists.
We have done this in the past - remember all the tea party protests of just a few years ago that put the fear of god into a lot of politicians and media types? That’s what we have to do again.
I’ve heard many people wonder in disbelief how gays who only represent 2% of the people, could be so successful at establishing their agenda.
The answer is easy - they have 2% more people willing to actively fight for their beliefs, agenda, values than we do.
Who will lead us? I think having a single leader is not good - it would be too easy for the opposition to pick him off. I think the tea party model works best, where the leadership is diffuse. Perhaps the leaders of the various tea party organizations still existing can get together and selects a couple of targets and coordinate the attack.
Any one has any other suggestion?