‘Teacott’ Works- Tampa Inn Drops Tea Party Group After Threat Of A Boycott
July 6, 2011
By Matthew Desmond
Share

Image from http://teacott.com

Champions of the Tea Party and Libertarians like Ron Paul and Rand Paul tout the merits of the ‘free market’. A portion of what they believe regarding the free market is that businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, even if it’s racially motivated, and that if enough people are offended people will boycott the business until they either change their policies or go out of business. How would they feel if those same principles were applied to a business, because of the fact that it hosts and sponsors a tea party group?

That’s exactly what happened in Tampa, Florida. The website Teacott.com, which lists businesses that cater to, sponsor, or provide services to tea party events, recently listed the ‘Vista Inn & Suites’ on their website when they found out the hotel was hosting meetings for, and sponsoring, the ‘Tampa 912′ group, a local tea party faction.

Vista Inn & Suites responded promptly, stating that they do “not endorse any political causes and [maintain] a neutral stance”. Shortly after the ended their sponsorship of the ‘Tampa 912′ group, and cancelled all future meetings at their hotel.

Via Teacott.com;

We recently posted a listing for the Vista Inn & Suites of Tampa which was listed on the sponsors page of the Tampa 912 Group’s website. The group was also hosting a weekly meeting at the hotel’s meeting facility. Last week we were contacted by the parent company of this property asking us to remove the listing. We explained our position on the matter and Vista Inn & Suites of Tampa decided that rather than tarnish their reputation by providing facilities for a group that is working against the best interests of the majority of the country, they would like to focus on what they do best, providing a home away from home for weary travelers. Vista Inn & Suites of Tampa is no longer a sponsor for the Tampa 912 Group and has also cancelled all upcoming meetings that were scheduled at their property.

To read more, and see the correspondence between Teacott.com and Vista Inn & Suites, go here; http://teacott.com/2011/07/vista-inn-suites-of-tampa-does-the-right-thing/

Beautiful!

Nice!

I do not see any problem with this. I am pro property rights, pro freedom. That means on your private property you can tell me to get lost for whatever reason you want.

However I am free to make sure every person in the world knows that your business discriminates against [fill in the blank here].

I do not see how that point is being refuted here, in fact this appears to be the way things should and most of the time DO work.

It is odd that this is what you tout against Ron Paul, or [random libertarian], I think like myself they would endorse the owner of the companies ability to make that decision regardless of the outcome, that does not mean we would not boycott.

Protected group status should apply to governments and government services only, this is a group [the government] that cannot be boycotted.

I would love to hear why the government should be in the business of telling private owners who they should service when why and how, and what makes that free, fair, and right?


(Not that any of this is really what libertarians run on, it is absolutely 180 degrees away from what is important, you will never see Ron Paul give a speech where this is even remotely interesting to him, if asked he will provide his philosophy of small non-interfering government [hardly something people can argue fairly against] which in part means hands off to how businesses engage the public when it comes to private business and free markets. If we as citizens want non-discriminating businesses to patronize, it is irrefutably true that we would boycott companies with track records we do not like, history has shown this as effective many examples even now . . . Just type company boycots into google)

Here we go with the teaparties racist again. Just like Republicans are racists but the Democrats are the party of the KKK, Segregation and Jim Crow.

If you think Ron Paul is racist then just take some time to research some of the 4K babies he as a physician brought into this world. Race did not play a role there . . .
It is not like anyone can find a single solitary example of racist behavior from this man.
You can try to connect the dots between small non interfering government and race, but its a huge stretch, spin on top of spin.

The reality is that government has overstepped its bounds on a hundred different fronts, this particular one being almost a silly parody of his actually stance and having nothing to do with allowing companies to discriminate as if that is a good thing.

THE REAL POINT, is that government CANNOT effectively monitor companies anyways, we spend tons of money just for a larger more corrupt government that pockets kick backs to ignore the companies anyways. We have put the fight into the court room, where it costs more than it is worth when the real people with the power to put discriminating companies out of business is "we the people" and no amount of legislation will ever change that, it is true beyond the shadow of doubt: irrefutable.

Giving more money to lawyers, bankers and politicians is the only goal of laws that seek to enforce anti discrimination laws at the private business level. This is true of many many laws on the books these days. No one ever fixed a large bloated thing by making it larger and more bloated, right now we need to cut government, and really spot lighting on these issues which are not even a focus for libertarians is not even remotely close to the fix.

I myself am a libertarian and I am not interested in discrimination laws right now, what is important is entitlements, war, and cronyism/corporatism. Nothing should be too big to fail, that is not the American way.

Of course, white folks see the advantages to the government not being able to govern against discrimination throughout the nation.

I guess it is hard to see outside of themselves.

It is very important that this government govern the business practices of individuals as well as corporations.

As to the teacott, gotta love it when their own philosophy is used against them. I wonder if they are applauding it as they should be since it is one of their own ideals.

If the teaparty is racist they woudn't have African Americans and Hispanics in their groups and leadership. Hell, Senator Byrd would have been a founding member of it if it were racist.

You guys slap Ron Paul for something that might be linked to him but defend Byrd and other Democrats when they make comments or write letters or make statements like:

Byrd wrote to segregationist DEMOCRATIC Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:

“ I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

Or

Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan

Not to mention he was a TOP leader and recruiter in the Klan, recruiting over 150 people in a few months.

Then theres Bilbo who proposed an amendment to the federal work-relief bill on June 6, 1938, proposing to deport 12 million black Americans to Liberia at federal expense to relieve unemployment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_G._Bilbo

How about Democratic Governor Ross Barnett, a staunch segregationist and Democrat, became noted for his tumultuous clashes with the U.S. Civil Rights Movement.

In 1962, he actively opposed James Meredith's efforts to desegregate his alma mater, the University of Mississippi. As a result, Barnett was fined $10,000 and sentenced to jail for contempt but never paid the fine or served a day in jail.

The following year, he also actively tried to prevent the Mississippi State University basketball team from playing an NCAA Tournament game against the racially integrated team from Loyola of Chicago. The team defied Barnett by sneaking out of the state and playing the game, which they lost to the eventual national champions.

Shortly after he left office, Barnett's looming presence was clearly evident at the first trial of white supremacist (and Democrat who ran for and won various elections including Lt. Governor)Byron De La Beckwith in February 1964. De La Beckwith was on trial for the murder of African American civil rights activist Medgar Evers, but an all-white jury was unable to agree on a verdict in both this and a subsequent re-trial. In the second subsequent re-trial, former Governor Ross Barnett interrupted the proceedings—while Myrlie Evers was testifying—to shake hands with Beckwith. De La Beckwith was eventually convicted at a subsequent trial three decades later, a case that was chronicled in the movie Ghosts of Mississippi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Barnett

What did Republicans do? Oh yeah we FREED the slaves! What did Democrats do? Fought for slavery(Including a war!), fought for Segregation, Jim Crow, racism and relocating blaks back to Africa. And they call Republicans racist.

You accuse Ron Paul(A person I HATE by the way) of being racist for something that MAY be linked to him but I have just given you exact words, letters and actions of High Ranking and High Profile Democrats!

Nobody accused anyone of being racist....lol

We know that the republican party is the home for all the white racists in this day and age so no need to bring up the past it is irrelevant.

Really? You did in the OP and youd in just about EVERY thread you post in. It's always Racist, fear monger, war monget, hate monget. It get's old.

AND

Democrats have and still are the Party of racism and were for over 200 years. If it wern't for Republicans there would sill be slavery in the US. GET OVER IT.

Nobody accused anyone of being racist even in the OP.

Republican party is the home of the white racistS of this day and age.
That is a fact.

You are so right it does get old, SO TELL PEOPLE TO STOP DOING IT SO I CAN STOP TALKING ABOUT IT.

Anyways Just keep running your mouth. History shows what Democrats are and so does the current enviornment. Robert Byrd kept getting relected until the day he died recently in a heavily Democratic state. Democrats still fund and promote racism. GET OVER IT. People automatically forward over your posts the moment you start it, it's exactly like the boy who cried wolf.

The republican party is the home for white racists of this day and age.

It is a fact.


Now back to the OP. I hope the teacott continues in other places so the teahateourcountry party will learn an important lesson.

The hell it is, and I have proven it time and again.

You haven't 'proven" anything except you defend the word racist like it belongs to you.

The OP is about boycotting the party that believes boycotting is what should be done when you don't like what people do and the boycotting is working well.

You're saying this as if you were there.



Actually ...

First off, do some research. Before 1960, Republicans were more like Democrats and vice versa, so Republicans were progressive liberals (anti-slavery was an liberal and progressive idea back in those days) ... the opposite of what they are today.

Secondly, why are your bringing up examples of racist democrats from 70 years ago to compare to Ron Paul, who is alive and active today? That's kind of counter intuitive. If you regard my previous paragraph (since it was pre-1960), these "Democrats" you're citing were yesterday's "Republicans", so you're still off the mark.

And no, I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, nor do I see any claims otherwise in this thread.

Racist was a word that at one time had a serious impact when hurled at someone, but due to lack of class and wisdom by liberals the word racist to me is as shocking as good morning!

Rhetoric, just rhetoric.

I would love for someone to respond to my post with something other than rhetoric. Actually acknowledge the ideas, explain why they are wrong. Show examples of modern business discriminating against races and not having there bottom line effected.

It is one thing to point fingers and name call, I think we all learned how to do that early in grade school, but actually having an intelligent conversation about the philosophy of supply/demand, the economics of the best and most successful businesses in the world being color blind, and how boycotts WORK.

Labeling the tea party as a group of people who hate our country really just shows you are not interested in an intellectual conversation, that your only goal is to make the people you do not like look bad.

NAA NAA NEE BOO BOO.

WOW and we wonder what is wrong with politics today when this is the conversation we are having.

What government should do is protect the rights of all citizens, nor enforce morals on groups of people.

If a group of people like the members of the west boro bapist church want to call you a fag enabler, that should be there free speech right.

If a business wants to exclude you for whatever reason and they own the property and all of the possessions associated with it, it should be their right, if a group of people want to put up posters explaining how this company goes about excluding people who would honestly bring them more revenue, it should be your right. That is what government should protect.

THAT is what you should try to argue against, not just name call and pretend to have made a point.

How can you possibly argue against the idea that color blind business will out compete race exclusive business is beyond me, but I would sorely love to see someone try.

Right and it works, and you have no argument, you are just here to say. HAHA NAA NAA NEE BOO BOO, I do not like you.

Sooo intelligent . . .

same with Warmonger, Fearmonger and Hatemonger!

Racism seems to be the only thing these people want to talk about. Even when they get it backward. There wasn't any thing about it in your original post. It's about boycotting, which is rarely effective, but I like the concept.