Cinemark Boycott Extends Specifically to 'Milk'

$10k is really small potatoes. They can achieve that with no real effort.

I usually think boycotts are useless, but in this case, it also seems odd that the theater chain should profit from a pro-LGBT rights film given their political stance. Thus is capitalism I suppose. Money trumps scruples almost every time it seems.

Reply

Thanks for telling me this! I will make sure and support Cinemark from now on and go to their chain over any other! I can't believe how intolerant and hate-filled homosexuals have become, and it is good to know that even a theater chain can stand up for something good in this day and age!!!

Reply

Oh, I do hope this boycott is a BIG success!! We can accept an African-American President...but, Oh hell no we can't accept two peopl in love of the same sex who want to share that love and get married!!

Reply

Did I have this right?
The CEO of Cinemark makes a private donation using his own money to the Yes on 8 campaign?

How is that "open support by Cinemark" for prop 8?

For the record: I don't think government should say who can or can't get married.

Reply

The intolerance to gay people in America is appalling. These people should grow up, all the gay people I know are really nice people, their difference makes the world all that more rich and interesting.

I find it funny that the gay-bashers in the USA are probably the same people who are afraid of Iran the most - the most gay-bashing country in the world. But that's just one of many contradictions.

Reply

Christopher, you do realize, don't you, that the African-American president-elect ran on a platform opposing same-sex marriage?

Reply

I don't get either how the CEO making a contribution, no matter how hateful it is, is Cinemark supporting Prop. 8. Do we really want companies controlling what causes their employees contribute to? I think we should all go see "Milk," and encourage our straight friends to do so, whether it's at a Cinemark theater or another.

Reply

Gina, not exactly, Obama publicly opposed Prop 8 and officially advocates a states rights stance on the issue (although he doesn't put it in those exact words).

Reply

I love the idea of boycotting a theater chain whose owner supported Prop 8, and it makes perfect sense to especially encourage "Milk" fans not to see the film in a Cinemark theater. The success of Prop 8 disgusts me.

But Cinematical's graphic to go with this story is highly misleading. It makes it look like a group is boycotting the "Milk" film, which is exactly the opposite of what is going on here. Your graphic should have the word Cinemark with a red bar through it.

Reply

In a free and democratic society everybody has the right to support, by any means they choose, any cause. Alan Stock is allowed to donate money to support prop 8 because you have a constitution that gives him that right. Anybody who has a problem with that ultimately has a problem with free speech.

Of course if you feel strongly about the same sex marriage issue then you too have every right not to watch it in one of Mr Stock's cinemas. But the idea of exercising your rights to boycott a company just because their CEO also exercised his rights to support a cause just gets messy and a bit childish to be honest.

As Ric has rightly said, people should go and see MILK and if possible go and see it in a Cinemark cinema, fill every seat is possible. On you way out you could even flip the bird at the spotty kid scooping popcorn.

When Hawkeye said "If there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance" he was not referring to intolerant people as such, he was being satirical. It seems that most people today are happy to fight for their own right to free speech and yet refuse that same right to people who disagree with their own stance.

The Christians who will tell us it is their right to spread the word of god and yet are happy to try and ban anything that goes against their beliefs. This is what Hawkeye was talking about.

Let Alan Stock put his money anywhere he wants to, good luck to him. Supporters of same-sex marriage should find a more positive message if they want to gain more support. Going negative might sound like fun and get a few headlines but it never did McCain/Palin that much good did it?

Reply

Gary, you summed up my answer perfectly:

"But the idea of exercising your rights to boycott a company just because their CEO also exercised his rights to support a cause just gets messy and a bit childish to be honest."

As a gay man who does not support Proposition 8, I find this boycott to be somewhat ridiculous. This man used his right to express his own opinion and made his choice. His choice had nothing to do with Cinemark.

Reply

Thanks for the clarification of the Hawkeye quote, Gary. Since it came from M*A*S*H, my presumption was that the humor/irony was as self-evident as the truths in the Declaration of Independence, which appears to be a document some Americans/Californians have never read or at least applied. However, the quote's level of satire might have been similarly lost on those, wherever they are on the spectrum, who tend toward the level of knee-jerk hysteria and self-righteousness that isn't the sole province (though it often seems like it) of the zealots on the right. Maybe a more apt quote would have been Dorothy Parker's comment about horticulture.

Reply

Well, having read your posters here I continued to be amazed at how right wing they are, but then I remember this is site primarily run through AOL.

In the right wing mind set, I have learned that free speech is a) only something that they get to exercise or b) if I do get the right to exercise my right to not spend money where I do not want- then it's only according to what right wingers consider appropriate.

As I have written elsewhere, if you believe either a) or b) you do not believe in free speech. You believe in dictatorships. Only in dictatorships are such rules so enforced. Speech without criticism is not free speech. Your posters have a lot in common with Sarah Palin. When reporters criticized her for negatively campaigning against Obama, her response was that they were trying to destroy her right to free speech.

Whatever ideas the right once had to pretense of being about the American way is lost.

Reply

I agree with Ric, Taylor, Gary, and others who said it's wrong or even childish to hold Cinemark responsible for the actions of an employee.

I don't see how it's "right wing" to support someone's right to free speech - especially if it's speech you do not agree with. We want to have our right to free speech, but we're not willing to let others (Stock, for example) have the same if they disagree with us? Cinemark and Stock are not synonomous - to think they are is naive.

Reply

Cinemark could as well decide to pull out all their ' Milk ' movies altogether, and that would be that.

Whoopie-doo. No ' pro-gay rights ' anything for anybody.

It's rather apparent that all these sort of efforts and postures & such would be counter-productive .

Reply