Gay-group founder slapped over John McCain

A simple $2,300 donation to presumptive Republican nominee John McCain from a founder of a local gay hookup Web site has gays and politicos alike recoiling from the eyebrow-raising alliance.

Jonathan Crutchley, co-creator of the Cambridge-based Manhunt.net, stepped down as chairman of the company yesterday after a whirlwind of events that began with his maximum allowable donation to McCain.

“Politically, it was just off-base, with the whole feeling over here at Manhunt,” said site co-creator Larry Basile yesterday, pointing out McCain’s views against adoption by gay couples and same-sex marriage.

“Boy, was I embarrassed when I found out he gave $2,300,” said Basile, who asked Crutchley to step down after several patrons of the gay hookup site cancelled their subscriptions.

McCain’s camp seemed just as eager to distance themselves from the brief alliance. McCain spokesman Jeff Grappone didn’t return multiple phone calls on the subject, and Crutchley has apparently been informed that his $2,300 will be returned.


Read more:

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1113253

especially with Republicans, you CAN get co-opted and end up being USED as a token by a power structure that you are not and NEVER WERE a part of.

Even if you're the co-creator, you can still be fired for your political beliefs. I can understand why the Basile asked him to step down and why the patrons were upset enough to resign in protest, but in the end, he was basically fired (or at least removed from taking an active roll in the company) because of his political beliefs and that tends not to sit right with me (not that my opinion matters to anyone else).

From what I read (the OP) he was asked to step down based on the many cancellations as a result of his actions. The danger for the company was if they kept him, they would have been contributing to the creation of a competitor website.

It's all about the market share.

But the fact still remains that it is a result of nothing other than his political beliefs. As I understand it, many radio stations claimed to have received many protest calls and boycott threats as a result of playing the Dixie Chicks after their comments, and made what many claimed was a "business decision" not to play their music anymore.

I'm glad you compared this to the music industry. Believe me, there is nothing worse than the music industry--country music in particular--for following the most unscrupulous business practices.

But, back to our guy here, I don't pity him at all; he made his bed, he can lie in it.

As I see it, most likely, this guy knew that donating to McShame wouldn't be popular among his customers, but felt compelled to do it anyway. Yes, he created this mess in the first place. I suspect that Larry Basile knew what his political affiliations were as well and was less "surprised" to see the donation than he let on. Given the situation, though, Basile was left with little choice to play ignorant to Crutchley's political leanings and ask him to step down as the chairman.

Crutchley did create this issue, and Basile did what was necessary from a business standpoint. I'm not angry, nor am I expressing any outrage at someone who I feel is in the wrong, here. I just think if starts to become more common for employers to fire people for their political beliefs and justify it by claiming it will impact the bottom line, it sets a dangerous precedent for us all.

Maybe they threatened him? There's no way to know, and I'd rather not speculate. He gave the money, his reasoning is his own.

Basile had two choices, as I see it, play ignorant (your words) to Crutchley's politics, or play ignorant to what the consequences would be for his business.

I disagree, however, with your assertion that Basile claimed it effected the business' bottom line. The effect was not imaginary, it was real: customers were leaving.

I guess that's the difference between this mess and the Dixie Chicks one. Manhunt.com's boycott was a grassroots campaign, whereas the boycott against the Dixie Chicks came from the top.

(or at least I wasn't trying to), just that while Basile can easily show that it did (very easy with a subscriber service) others can claim it is affecting their business and have a business model (like radio) where it's more difficult to prove.

My fear is that others may see this as an example and make the same claim whether they can back it up or not. As far as the difference between the sources of the campaign, if a grassroots campaign becomes an effective way to force management into making decisions, you'll see the repukes rolling out the "astroturf" whenever they want something (and perhaps sometimes at the request of management, who just wants justification and political cover to do something they've been planning to do anyway).

... I just realized another difference between the Dixie Chicks crap and this Manhunt thing: in the first instance, GOPhers are exercising their rights, and the latter they're victims.

I have to agree with you that the GOP will spin any situation to benefit their ideology.