Travel Ban to Arizona

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Who do these government entities think they'll be hurting by stopping official travel to Arizona?

Here is a short list of who will most logically be hurt by such policies:
- Hotels and their employees.
- Restaurants and their employees.

Does anybody have some to add to this list?

It seems that they'll be most punishing those people who they are trying to support by their government enforced boycotts.

Another question...

How many of these people refuse to do business with companies from Mexico because of their far more draconic immigration laws? What about refusing to do business with any Chinese entities?
 
there are much better options than racist central AZ.
Remember when they would have lost the superbowl when racism was rampant years ago.
 
They are attempting to put economic pressure on the government of AZ. If there policies adversly affect the financial interests of businesses and citizins of AZ, those people and companies may in turn apply political pressure to the government to change the policies.

Thats your answer Damo.
 
Jarod said:
They are attempting to put economic pressure on the government of AZ. If there policies adversly affect the financial interests of businesses and citizins of AZ, those people and companies may in turn apply political pressure to the government to change the policies.

Thats your answer Damo.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. They are, in effect, punishing the very people they say they want to support.
 
Az is kkk capital of the us, travel should be avoided by non tea baggers.

They knuckled under when the same pressure was applied to them being the last hold outs on MLK day.
 
Damocles said:
Rubbish. They are, in effect, punishing the very people they say they want to support.
Click to expand...

When the Black people of the south wanted to affect change during the civil rights movement, they stoped using the bus. Many bus drivers were black and lost work. Most of those who refused to ride the bus lost work because they had no alternative transportation. Sure at first they hurt themselves, but eventually they effected great social change.
 
Jarod said:
When the Black people of the south wanted to affect change during the civil rights movement, they stoped using the bus. Many bus drivers were black and lost work. Most of those who refused to ride the bus lost work because they had no alternative transportation. Sure at first they hurt themselves, but eventually they effected great social change.
Click to expand...
LOL. It wasn't stopping use of the bus that effected change, nor will putting (largely) immigrants out of work (if it is even that effective for Denver Public Schools to stop official travel... as if they ever officially travel there).
 
Its called sacraficing for what you believe in.

They full well know it who it will impact.

EVERY boycott involves sacrafice of the people doing it.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. It wasn't stopping use of the bus that effected change, nor will putting (largely) immigrants out of work (if it is even that effective for Denver Public Schools to stop official travel... as if they ever officially travel there).
Click to expand...

The bus boycott certantly affected change.
 
Damo, you dont belive that if Marriott sees a 20% drop in revenue from its mulit million dollar hotel that they will start to pressure the government to make some changes?
 
Other questions I'd ask would be:

Wouldn't this be exactly like a government entity officially celebrating a religious holiday and expressing their religious views? How is it we try to get them to stop that expression, but stand for this type of expression?

Again I ask, how many of them boycott Mexico itself because of their far more draconian immigration laws? What about China? Shouldn't our government entities long ago began boycotting China due to their horrible human rights stances?
 
Damocles said:
Who do these government entities think they'll be hurting by stopping official travel to Arizona?

Here is a short list of who will most logically be hurt by such policies:
- Hotels and their employees.
- Restaurants and their employees.

Does anybody have some to add to this list?

It seems that they'll be most punishing those people who they are trying to support by their government enforced boycotts.

Another question...

How many of these people refuse to do business with companies from Mexico because of their far more draconic immigration laws? What about refusing to do business with any Chinese entities?
Click to expand...


Stereotype much, Damo?
 
Jarod said:
Damo, you dont belive that if Marriott sees a 20% drop in revenue from its mulit million dollar hotel that they will start to pressure the government to make some changes?
Click to expand...
I don't think Marriot will see any sort of drop. My point was, IF it was effective at all, the people who will most likely see job shortages are those you say you want to support. It would be better to boycott product from AZ rather than travel within AZ.
 
Damocles said:
I don't think Marriot will see any sort of drop. My point was, IF it was effective at all, the people who will most likely see job shortages are those you say you want to support. It would be better to boycott product from AZ rather than travel within AZ.
Click to expand...

They wont unless others jump on the travel boycott bandwaggen, but if the trend catches on, they will see a drop and the boycott will work.

If you want to affect change, hurting the pocketbook of those with money is the way to do it.


Many black people lost jobs and made sacrifices to force changes in the civil rights movement. When Southern towns were boycotted by blacks and white simpathisers, many gave up profitable jobs and the opertunity to shop at the less expensive more convienent stores.
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
They wont unless others jump on the travel boycott bandwaggen, but if the trend catches on, they will see a drop and the boycott will work.
Click to expand...
Boycotts work if there is large public support. IMO, this will be a wash (people will go there that otherwise would have gone elsewhere to "support" the law they think is "good").

What is happening now isn't a stand for ethics, as they don't equally boycott other entities with even worse records on the exact same issue. It makes it obvious that they are willing to prostrate themselves to attempt to drive a wedge for party politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top