MaxedOutMama agrees that the Christofferson resignation and the Dixon firing are legal, but calls them morally dubious. I agree. M_O_M's conclusion also is correct:
Must the broad mass of Americans be forced to chose between extremes? Isn't basic civil tolerance getting lost here? Don't such cases tend to support the arguments of those who claim that it is necessary for Christians to oppose further legal endorsements of gay civil rights because such laws will be used to deny others their rights?/ UPDATE
Marjorie Christofferson was the manager, member of the Board of Directors, and apparently co-owner, of the El Coyote restaurant in LA. She contributed $100 to the Prop 8 movement. No one says either Ms Christofferson or the restaurant ever treated gays differently than anyone else.
That didn't stop the anti-Prop. 8 forces from boycotting the restaurant, saying that "[s]omeone here . . . made the decision to take away our civil rights." On Monday, Ms Christofferson resigned.
Boycotting a business over political differences is legal. NAACP v. Clairborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-16 (1982) (First Amendment protects non-violent boycott of business designed to influence governmental action). As far as I know, boycotting a business to protest the the political activities of an employee or owner also is legal. It superficially resembles a "secondary boycott" (where a union refuses to purchase from a business with which it has no dispute in order to pressure a supplier or customer of that business), but only unions are barred from secondary boycotts. Cf. 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(B). Speech and association designed to influence governmental decisionmaking outside the context of labor unions is legitimate. See Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127, 138-39 (1961) (First Amendment protects lobbying campaign notwithstanding anti-competitive intent or effect).
That being said, the anti-Prop. 8 boycotts are a huge overreach, says National Review's Maggie Gallagher:
This is a totally new tactic by the way. Boycotts against businesses who donate to a cause or mistreat their customers have long been an accepted part of the American democratic practice. But targeting an entire business because one person associated with it made (in their personal capacity) a donation to a cause is brand new. It’s essentially McCarthyite in spirit. Gay-marriage activists hope to make you unemployable if you publicly disagree with them.The unfairness, it seems to me, is targeting protected political activities, not conduct. Ms Christoffersen, remember, is not accused of treating gays differently; indeed, she is said to have been kind to the gay community. So this isn't about discrimination. And leftists would leap into full moonbat mode were the situation reversed: imagine the tumult had Bush voters four years ago announced a boycott against businesses with owners or managers who contributed to John Kerry.
I'm sure many ordinary gay-marriage supporters deplore what happened to Marjorie. But this is now the face of their movement: agree with us, or we will hurt you.
Again, I'm not saying that actions by Prop. 8 opponents are unlawful. Just that the boycotts, like lawsuits, show little commitment to the political process. Gay marriage proponents in California talk tolerance but prefer pressure in terrorem to persuasion. If the goal is a future constitutional amendment reversing Proposition 8, I question whether over-broad economic sanctions could ever be effective. After all, isn't it an article of faith among lefties that boycotting Cuba only entrenches Castro-communism?