Wednesday, May 12, 2010

update on UUs boycotting Arizona

From “Please come to Phoenix,” but we said, “No.”:
...apparently Unitarian Universalist ministers in Arizona and Las Vegas voted unanimously to oppose this move. They would like us all to come to Arizona and engage in public demonstrations against the law instead. As an extra added incentive to listen to the Arizona ministers, I would point out that the cancelation fees alone would cost the UUA something like $650,000 (to say nothing of the added expense of finding another venue at this point).
People have noted that the cancellations fees may just be gravy to bookers if they find people to take those rooms instead of UUs, and if hotels suffer from a boycott, their workers will suffer also. I was initially on the side of boycotting, but I think coming and protesting makes more sense for people who have already booked conventions here.

That said, I applaud the Republicans for choosing to have their convention in Florida instead.


  1. I don't know whose idea it was to boycott Arizona but it was far from brilliant in my opinion. For starters the situation in Arizona may be quite different two years from now. Showing up and making one's presence felt through protest or other means makes a lot more sense, as I thought I made clear to the UUA Board of Trustees just a few weeks ago. . .

  2. On the one hand, boycotts are always done knowing that the situation may change; it can be an effective way to make your opinion felt in someone's pocketbook. On the other, this situation is very fluid. I'm hoping the legal protests will be successful.

  3. "it can be an effective way to make your opinion felt in someone's pocketbook."

    I am sure the convention center etc. will positively *love* the feel of the cancellation fees in their pocket book Will. . . The only one's who will *really* feel it in the pocket book are the UUA and U*Us more generally.


  4. If you're against all boycotts, we'll just have to disagree. Sometimes they're a useful tactic.

  5. I am by no means against *all* boycotts, far from it. I just think that *this* boycott is poorly advised on several different levels. Clearly I am not alone in that assessment either. . .

  6. This boycott has Arizona pretty anxious, seems to me.

    The question isn't "should there be a boycott." There is a boycott. The question is "should the UUA participate?"

    I still tend to say "No" as far as our participation goes, but I certainly don't think the entire boycott is poorly advised. Hell, Arizona's biggest industry is tourism and it worked last time.


  7. CC, ditto. I wish people would distinguish between the parts of Arizona that have embraced the resolution and those where the local government has rejected it. As in, I'm proud to be from Tucson and proud that I lived in Bisbee.