Kim Kardashian has gotten herself involved in the ongoing Beverly Hills Hotel protest.
But not on the side taken by most celebrities.
A number of celebrities have been boycotting the famous destination due to the views of its owner, the Sultan of Brunei. His outspoken take on homosexuality includes approving the death penalty for same-sex sexual acts.
In a blog post titled “My Thoughts,” however, Kardashian explains that she initially agreed with this response because the Sultan’s actions are “completely against everything [I] believe in.”
Kim has now changed her mind, explaining why thusly:
For a sultan that has 20 billion dollars, this loss of business doesn’t even make a dent in his fortunes. But the hotel staff are being negatively affected every day with the boycott that has gone on for weeks now...
"... We shouldn’t punish the amazing hard-working people who have been so good to us for years!"
Kardashian visited the hotel with her father as a child and said the establishment was her “safe haven” during her pregnancy, adding that she actually connected well with an expectant employee there.
"There must be other ways to express our views without punishing the workers, some who I know personally have families at home and depend on the city’s business and tips to survive,” writes Kardashian.
This is a complex issue, of course.
Kim's stance could be admirable... but has the boycott actually led to staffers being fired? This would be useful information with which Kardashian could back up her argument.
Moreover, what's the point of having principles if you simply cave the minute any challenge against them arises?
But on the other hand... at what point should a principal-based protest end and practical issues, such as those Kim mentions here, come into play?
These are tough questions. There are no easy answers, except to say that the person who sky-rocketed to fame by starring in the Kim Kardashian sex tape probably should be the focal point of any real debate.