I notice that once again, to no-one's surprise, the free speech defence that I've shot down before has come crawling out of the woodwork.
Donation to same-sex marriage opponents draws boycott calls.
This is a slight wrinkle on the endlessly recycled fallacy that free speech is the right, not to say whatever one wishes, but to say whatever one wishes without fear of any negative consequence. Ricky Bobby's unique interpretation of the Geneva Convention notwithstanding, of course, this is a pretty idiotic argument, as I've said before.
It's patently ridiculous to argue that the paying money in the hopes of curtailing other peoples freedom is free speech, but calling for a boycott in opposition to those payments is a “bullying” tactic . If the flow of money for political purposes is free speech, then the withholding of money for political purposes is also free speech. Frankly I'm not sure I subscribe to the former anyway, although I recognise that in this case the aim is to fund a signature drive to force a vote on the issue, rather than to bribe anyone into taking a given direction. Still, short of trying to put together a similar drive on the other side (which I'm not sure would even work, I'm not up on the methods used for amending the California constitution, and would certainly be hard for anyone who doesn't have $125,000 lying around the house for a rainy day), what options do opponents have but to remind these high-level donors that choices have consequences? No-one's talking about bombing the hotels, or roughing this guy up, or even suing him. They're just saying "This guy is a dick, don't give him money which may end up being used to constitutionally disenfranchise a group of citizens".
Nope. If this guy gets to do what he wants with his money, then so do his customers, and everyone else gets to pass comment on both if they want to. That's free speech.
 This is skipping over the fairly obvious point that there are a lot more people opposed to gay marriage (to varying degrees of strength) in California than there are gay people, which makes the former hoping to tell the latter that they cannot marry under the threat of legal consequence a lot closer to the definition of bullying that a bunch of people refusing to use your hotel does.
Update: I just realised that this was my ninety-ninth post. What can I do for the one hundredth, I wonder.
Oh, and my computer still isn't fixed.