Google's recently launched Legalise Love campaign works towards decriminalising homosexuality and[b] eliminating homophobia in all countries in which the company operates[/b]. By supporting grassroots movements and mobilising other organisations, Google is using its global influence to create inclusive workplaces, and by extension societies, for LGBT people around the world.

Awesome, yes? Not so awesome if you're a member of the American Families Association, however. Buster Wilson, the general manager of the AFA's radio network, has announced that the group may boycott Google products. A tricky task, he admits. Much trickier than the AFA's threatened boycott of Oreo for showing an image of rainbow-filled treats for Pride, of Ford for advertising in gay magazines, or of the musical We Will Rock You for being glam rock fabulous (OK, so I made the last one up).

But actually this news is also awesome. Because the fewer intolerant rightwing zealots able to effectively utilise global communications the better, I say. Google here has scored a double whammy – promoting gay rights globally and freeing cyberspace from crazies who believe that gay people will be posthumously tortured by monsters with spiky tails. In fact, could someone please inform the AFA that Microsoft publicly supports gay marriage in America? Oooh, or that the chief executive of Apple is homosexual. No, wait – just tell them that Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science, was a gay man, and advise them that it's probably best for AFA members to avoid modern technology completely unless they want to catch gay cooties.

But let's imagine that the AFA ignores the fact that boycotting Google without also boycotting Nike, Ernst & Young, Ben & Jerry's, Microsoft and countless other companies that publicly support gay rights, is a bit pointless. Let's imagine that they continue in their witchhunt of Gayglers (Google's term for its gay employees and their supporters). How will the AFA continue to spread homophobia and intolerance on the web? What did we do before Google? Oh yes – I remember. We asked Jeeves.

I have spent my morning experimenting with the antiquarian butler's effectiveness in the promulgation of anti-gay propaganda. The results are promising. I asked Jeeves "How best to deny rights to gay people?" In answer, the butler offered a link advising me on ways to deny a father's visitation rights. I asked Jeeves "Gay Rights: What would Jesus do?" In answer, I was given information about the time in Bal Gaye right now. Finally, I asked my butler pal another, slightly more leading question: "Do gay parents mess up their kids?" Jeeves, who had obviously been at Sir's brandy, sent a link informing me that a "hodgepodge" is not only a disorderly mass of things, but also a type of mutton soup.

At this stage, your average AFA member might be tempted to return quietly to Google, tail between legs. This is a boycott that, as Wilson says, will test the meat of their convictions. But what kind of meaty substance is informing this protest? Google isn't lobbying for gay marriage in America. In fact, a spokesman at the first Legalise Love conference in London said: "This really doesn't affect the US or most of the countries where we have offices." Can it be so important to the AFA that faraway gays in Singapore and Poland continue to be oppressed? Singapore isn't even a predominantly Christian country – they're all going to the fiery monster place when they die anyway. Or limbo. Or something.

To afford the AFA credit which it probably doesn't deserve, we could perhaps root the boycott in discomfort with a global conglomerate, the representatives of which nobody has elected, openly pushing for legislative and social change. About this, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it's refreshing to see a major company distance itself from the profit motive and take a stand on ethical issues. This was certainly my feeling when Google pulled out of China in 2010 in response to the country's censorship practices and alleged hacking of email accounts of political dissidents. While some have tried to paint Legalise Love as an economically motivated move (insofar as the company wants to employ the best and brightest and some of these are, of course, LGBT), it's very hard to see Google's actions in China in a similar light. Taking the moves in tandem, it seems that Google is not just a financially motivated institution, but also a morally and politically motivated one.

Here's the dilemma: I'm shouting "Google rocks!" from the rooftops because the company is using its power to initiate change that I believe to be humanistic, tolerant and ethical. But what if it wasn't? What if an equally powerful company tried to lobby governments to curtail gay rights for the benefit of its anti-homosexual employees, or to limit maternity rights based on libertarian principles, or to suppress affirmative action programmes based on the totally excellent "it's discrimination against rich whities" argument? If this were the case, I'd have to seriously consider ways in which to change my consumer behaviour. I'd have to take a long, hard think about the powers corporations have, the powers they should have, and about the logic of democracy. More challenging still, I'd have to ask Jeeves.

maclatunji: Later, people will come and say, the West is a "secular" society. It looks more like the "devil-run" society to me. I have no apologies for this.

chioma134: God have mercy! This too shall surely pass away,but the word of God will endure forever. I'm against killing and hating gays because they are also humans and can decide what they want,but I'm against using the media,and social media to corrupt the minds of the vulnerable ones like kids and teenagers who don't know their right from their left. I think homosexuality is not natural and has an evil spirit behind it, the spirit that is working hard through the social media/media to convert everyone to their way of reasoning. God help us all.

BetaThings: This is the type of company we will be happy to see move its operations to Ghana

ochallo:
if not for the west, you would not even be able to type this stupid comment of yours.

NigeriaKwenu:
That's exactly it. If it is publicized the way they are doing, kids growing won't see it as big of a deal to become gay.

ebamma: being gay is another form of being mad,i hope goggle is not supporting this madness.

Delafruita:
been intolerant of another person's private bedroom business is another form of been insane.i hope you are not supporting this insanity

maclatunji:

If it is private, we won't know or care about it but if it is brought to our knowledge in the open, we will condemn and resist it because we live a communal life and can't afford to have the social distortion that homosexuality creates. We have more than enough problems already.

maclatunji:

If it is private, we won't know or care about it but if it is brought to our knowledge in the open, we will condemn and resist it because we live a communal life and can't afford to have the social distortion that homosexuality creates. We have more than enough problems already.

justwise:

If you kept your nose out of it you will not be forced to accept it.

Delafruita:
when you were ignorantly applauding your idiotic senators for passing their ridiculous homophobic law,you didnt know then that it should have remained a private affair

Delafruita:
did you comprehend the message in the article at all?google isnt trying to "convert people",its campaigning for their rights to be legally married.whats so wrong with that?this discrimination against the LGBT is inhumane and has gone on for too long

Delafruita:
did you comprehend the message in the article at all?google isnt trying to "convert people",its campaigning for their rights to be legally married.whats so wrong with that?this discrimination against the LGBT is inhumane and has gone on for too long

maclatunji:

Not very smart, once it is in the open, it is no longer private and it affects everybody. Imagine, it will now be worrying about whether your teenage son is being molested by his male teachers in secondary schools as if the job of protecting our daughters is not hard enough.

We know the ways of the West, everybody must follow its ideology even if it means destroying everything that is important to you including family values.