Travel is supposed to be an escape, but for many LGBTQ people, the decision of where to go has become political. With more states and countries introducing anti-LGBTQ laws, the debate has intensified: should queer travelers boycott these destinations, or should they keep showing up as a visible and defiant presence? The tension between protest and presence raises hard questions about safety, solidarity, and strategy.

This discussion is not new. In the past, activists have called for boycotts to send an economic message, while others have urged continued engagement to avoid isolating local queer communities. North Carolina’s infamous bathroom bill and Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law show how tourism boycotts can generate headlines and pressure lawmakers, but also how they can leave LGBTQ locals feeling abandoned. What’s at stake isn’t just dollars, but dignity and visibility.

For travelers, the decision carries personal weight. Choosing not to visit may feel like standing on principle, while going anyway can feel like defiance. Either way, your presence—or absence—sends a message. The challenge is figuring out which message matters most in each context, and whether it helps or hurts the people already living under discriminatory laws.

The Case For Boycotts

Boycotts have long been a tool for protest, and travel is no exception. When North Carolina passed its bathroom bill in 2016, conventions and performers canceled events, costing the state hundreds of millions in lost revenue. That financial backlash helped push lawmakers to partially repeal the legislation. Similarly, Florida has faced calls for tourism boycotts in response to the “Don’t Say Gay” law, with some organizations redirecting conferences to other states.

The argument here is simple: withholding tourism dollars denies governments the economic boost they rely on. If lawmakers are seen as costing their regions jobs, tax revenue, and international reputation, they may be forced to reconsider. For travelers who want to use their wallets as leverage, boycotts offer a way to protest from afar without stepping foot in a hostile environment.

There’s also the matter of personal safety. Some destinations with anti-LGBTQ laws pose real risks to queer travelers. Avoiding those places can be both a political stance and a practical choice. Choosing not to travel where your rights and safety are threatened can protect you while still sending a powerful signal of resistance.

The Case Against Boycotts

On the other side, many argue that boycotts unintentionally harm the very communities they are meant to support. Local LGBTQ businesses, workers in the tourism industry, and grassroots organizations often rely on visiting queer travelers for visibility and income. When outsiders stop coming, it can leave these communities more isolated and vulnerable.

Visibility matters, too. When LGBTQ people show up openly in destinations with hostile laws, it sends a message of defiance. Visibility has historically been one of the strongest weapons in the fight for equality, turning invisibility into pride. Travel can become a form of activism simply by showing up, spending money in queer-friendly spaces, and letting locals know they aren’t forgotten.

There’s also the human factor: boycotts can feel like abandonment to LGBTQ people who can’t just pack up and leave. Supporting them directly by traveling, connecting, and boosting their businesses may do more good than withholding dollars from afar. For many, the choice is less about punishing governments and more about uplifting communities.

The Economic Reality

Research shows that tourism is a major economic driver. States like Florida rely heavily on visitors, and even the perception of a boycott can have ripple effects. But economic pressure is not always enough to force lawmakers to change, especially when their political base sees anti-LGBTQ laws as victories. In some cases, leaders may even double down, framing boycotts as proof of outside interference.

On the flip side, studies on travel boycotts suggest that they can be effective when tied to specific demands and backed by large organizations or industries. According to Travel Weekly, collective action from corporations and event organizers carried significant weight in North Carolina. Individual travelers may not make a dent alone, but coordinated boycotts can. The question then becomes whether coordination is realistic in a fragmented, globalized tourism industry.

For travelers, the calculation often comes down to whether economic protest outweighs the benefits of showing up visibly. While withdrawing money can send a message, investing in local queer spaces may do just as much—if not more—good.

Balancing Principle And Presence

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Some travelers will feel more comfortable taking a stand by staying away, while others will prefer to make a statement by showing up proudly. Both approaches have merit, and both can contribute to the broader fight for LGBTQ equality.

The most important step may be intentionality. If you choose to boycott, make it clear why and encourage others to join. If you choose to go, spend your dollars in queer-owned spaces and amplify the voices of local communities. Either way, the decision should be more than just about leisure—it should be about solidarity.

Travel has always been more than moving from one place to another. For LGBTQ people, it is about claiming space in a world that too often tries to erase us. Whether by withholding our presence or by arriving in full color, the act of travel can still be political.

Where Do You Stand?

The debate over whether queer travelers should boycott anti-LGBTQ destinations or show up proudly isn’t going away. Both sides bring powerful arguments, and the choice may ultimately depend on personal values, safety concerns, and how one defines solidarity. What do you think? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.