The purpose of this diary isn't so much to offer a solution as it is to pose a question.
Extreme right wing organizations such as Focus on the Family, American Family Ass'n, Center for Arizona Policy, Alliance Defense Fund, etc. are all engaged is some form of proactive warfare against anything that doesn't toe the line of the ultra-conservative social mores of the Religious Right. In the late 90s these groups began not just trying to promote an agenda, but to attack, in any way possible. Their successes in overzealousness have given them the method, money, and motivation to go after just about everything.
::More::
The AFA recently proclaimed victory in boycott of Proctor & Gamble, initiated because P&G advertised on shows like "Will & Grace" and "Queer Eye." Religious zealots in Washington state succeeded in pressuring Microsoft into dropping support for, and thereby killing, a Washington sate bill that would have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation.
These organizations go after companies, politicians, and private citizens in an effort to enforce their belief system upon the entirety of America. We now have the head of the New York Christian Coalition suggesting that gays and lesbians should be wearing warning labels (kind of like we had to do in Nazi Germany).
The result is that they have created a 10,000 ton juggernaut that feels it can now act with impunity. The biggest obstacle is that the kinds of organizations don't debate with facts or objectivity (or even in reality). Yet I don't see anyone going after them, putting them on the defensive, forcing them to publicly justify their actions.
Granted, the organizations mentioned above are all non-profit organizations. That makes them much more difficult targets than a typical company. How do we impact their bottom line? Legally? They don't sell anything as a line of revenue, so organizing a product boycott isn't a viable response. Have they left exposed some aspect of their organizations that could subject them to legal action?
The primary question I see is "How do we hold non-profit and/or issue-advocacy organizations accountable when they indiscriminately pollute the public discourse with lies, hyperbole, and histrionics?"