Boycotting Chickfil A and now Hobby Lobby

[Circe]

Of course you have a right not to shop where you don't want to. That's part of freedom too. As far as I've seen, though, none of those businesses "spread their beliefs." Their owners simply gave their opinions -- which I do not agree with, but so what? They treat their employees & customers fairly & equally, which is what counts.

"Freedom of speech" is NOT only meant for gov't authority. As you may have learned in school (I hope), it's been at the base of our ethos since the inception of this country. That does not mean no one can judge another's opinions, only that both have a right to have opposing ones.

Pendulums swing both directions; that's my point. The next victim could be you or someone you support. I'm tired to death of the thought police.

--- Laurie

Laurie, freedom of speech goes both ways ... if they get to demonstrate their views, others get to speak against them. The funny thing is, that belief is rarely reciprocated by the people committing the original offense.

I still remember the ACLU defending the KKK's right to free speech. Weirdly, I don't remember the KKK sticking up for the ACLU.

 

[aviastar]

I see a lot of the very same "hate" and "bigotry" (using scare quotes because I believe "hate" and "bigotry" are awfully strong words bandied about here for dislike or nonsupport) in this thread that y'all are railing about. Basically, if someone doesn't believe the same way YOU do, they are wrong. Well, okay...

The difference between discriminating against someone for an innate quality as opposed disliking them for being a bigot is pretty broad. It makes the victims into punching bags, removing their ability to respond. I've always disagreed with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.

I will say, though ... just going off the linked article, I'm not sure if I agree Hobby Lobby is being discriminatory by not carrying Channukah merchandise, any more than the place on my corner is by not having the proper supplies on hand to celebrate Holi (the Hindu Festival of Colors, which has always struck me a wonderous holiday). The town with the original idiot employee has a large Jewish population, but if the rest are in places with a dearth of Jews, it might be a company-wide financial decision if the merchandise didn't/wouldn't sell. If that's the case, though, you'd think their PR people would have the good sense to issue a statement ....

I was struggling to put my thoughts into words- as always I should have just waited for Circe to post so I could ditto her.

HL is a Christian craft store, like a Christian book store; I don't expect such specialized vendors to cater to the broad market outside their specialization. I think it's kinda dumb to limit your place in the market like that, but it's not my business to run.

That said, I 100% support the idea and practice of boycotting companies you don't care for, for whatever reason. I don't agree with GE's tax strategies, so I don't buy their products. Even if it's not always effective on a large scale, I think 'voting with our dollars' can be one of the most powerful tools we have. I'd love to see more companies change their culture, policies, and their business practices due to market pressure rather than legislation.

 

[ame]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/02/hobby-lobby-doesnt-want-jewish-customers/ WTF is wrong with these people? Seriously, your religion teaches you to discriminate against others? That's not religion, that just hate.

Walmart, and Papa Johns also on the boycott list. Ambercrombie (not that that was ever an issue)....

I just don't understand.

Do you mind sharing what Papa John's did? Just curious because I am a regular customer of theirs so I'd like to know!

Papa John's founder is against the ACA, and has said that if it isn't repealed he will pass along the increase in health care costs to the consumer.

And would deliberately cut hours on his employees to make sure that they didn't qualify for employer benefits.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

I see a lot of the very same "hate" and "bigotry" (using scare quotes because I believe "hate" and "bigotry" are awfully strong words bandied about here for dislike or nonsupport) in this thread that y'all are railing about. Basically, if someone doesn't believe the same way YOU do, they are wrong. Well, okay...

The difference between discriminating against someone for an innate quality as opposed disliking them for being a bigot is pretty broad. It makes the victims into punching bags, removing their ability to respond. I've always disagreed with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy.

I will say, though ... just going off the linked article, I'm not sure if I agree Hobby Lobby is being discriminatory by not carrying Channukah merchandise, any more than the place on my corner is by not having the proper supplies on hand to celebrate Holi (the Hindu Festival of Colors, which has always struck me a wonderous holiday). The town with the original idiot employee has a large Jewish population, but if the rest are in places with a dearth of Jews, it might be a company-wide financial decision if the merchandise didn't/wouldn't sell. If that's the case, though, you'd think their PR people would have the good sense to issue a statement ....

I was struggling to put my thoughts into words- as always I should have just waited for Circe to post so I could ditto her.

HL is a Christian craft store, like a Christian book store; I don't expect such specialized vendors to cater to the broad market outside their specialization. I think it's kinda dumb to limit your place in the market like that, but it's not my business to run.

That said, I 100% support the idea and practice of boycotting companies you don't care for, for whatever reason. I don't agree with GE's tax strategies, so I don't buy their products. Even if it's not always effective on a large scale, I think 'voting with our dollars' can be one of the most powerful tools we have. I'd love to see more companies change their culture, policies, and their business practices due to market pressure rather than legislation.

I agree 100% with Aviastar on this.

I've always liked Hobby Lobby for many reasons: they treat their employees well (exceed minimum wage, benefits are good, etc.), they donate extensively to charity, and they have bought tens of millions of dollars worth of real estate and donated it to non-profits. Granted, all of these charities are Christian-based, but they point is that they use their profits to help others. Plus, I like that HL has no long-term debt, which makes it more stable for its employees.

Like Aviastar said, I wouldn't expect a Christian craft store to cater to a broad market, even if I think it's not an ideal business decision. Just like I don't expect them to start opening on Sundays, even though it would be more profitable.

 

[msop04]

I sympathize with all your feelings. But I don't believe in boycotts over the opinions of company management. The very basic idea behind the United States is (was?) that citizens be free to express their thoughts. When we police to whom the 1st Amendment applies -- only the folks we like -- we are a group of united states but not THE United States.

I do not agree with the attitudes of the management in the companies you mention, but dammit, it's their right to have them. Yours to have yours.

These things can go both ways -- there's the danger.

--- Laurie

That is their right, but is my right to not spend my money in places who are managed, ran, or owned by people I fundamentally disagree with. When I patronize their business I am telling them that it is okay and giving them money to continue to spread what I believe are their whacked out beliefs.I didn't know about Hobby Lobby as we just got one where I am, but looks like I have some returns to make...

I truly believe that we have the right to spend our money as we choose. However, I disagree that paying for glitter at Hobby Lobby or a sandwich at CFA means you are giving your money to spread the beliefs of the founders -- that's a little melodramatic, IMO.

If that's how it makes you feel, then that's okay -- don't shop at these places. They are your feelings after all, and you are certainly entitled to them. However, to judge other's "belief system" or assume that one is "spreading the founder's ideas" simply because they shop at said places is really unfair and accusatory at best. Isn't that what we're trying to rid our world of??

When everyone in ATL started boycotting CFA, I asked a lifelong friend of mine (who happens to be gay) if he would be doing the same. He said, "Ya know, I understand if anybody wants to boycott a place for whatever reason, but it doesn't make me less gay or mean that my belief in equality is questionable and it certainly doesn't mean that I support that CEO's beliefs if I happen to like their chicken sandwiches.... that's just dumb. Dang you, msop, now ya got me wanting some waffle fries!! Gotta go."

There are many products that are made out of the country with child labor and God knows what else... does that mean we support these practices and spread all of the wacko beliefs??? I don't think so.

These are just my feelings on the issue.

 

[ksinger]

Well, I would not shop at Hobby Lobby because of how they are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on the female employees of their corporate for-profit business. In this regard they do not treat their employees fairly at ALL. I'm surprised they even pay them, since one of them might go out and spend some of those monies on an IUD.

The law has long held that there is a distinction between a corporation's owners and the corporation itself, otherwise why have the corporation in the first place, since one of its primary reasons for being is to create a wall between it and the owners' private assets. And in spite of that bastard of a ruling, Citizens' United, that is simply destroying the election process in this country, the law still defines a corporation as "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law." As one opinion I read said, "A holding to the contrary—that a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise—would eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners."

I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to have it both ways, you can't hide your assets behind the legal fiction of a corporate structure, while at the same time claiming that corporate structure does not have to obey the rules governing corporations that operate for profit. Either you really ARE the corporation - and your assets are therefore forfeit, or obey the laws. A corporation has no soul to lose and should not be a convenient vehicle for wriggling out of obeying laws you don't like for whatever reason.

I'm certain though, that the Supremes will bugger this one up for us.

 

[momhappy]

I sympathize with all your feelings. But I don't believe in boycotts over the opinions of company management. The very basic idea behind the United States is (was?) that citizens be free to express their thoughts. When we police to whom the 1st Amendment applies -- only the folks we like -- we are a group of united states but not THE United States.

I do not agree with the attitudes of the management in the companies you mention, but dammit, it's their right to have them. Yours to have yours.

These things can go both ways -- there's the danger.

--- Laurie

That is their right, but is my right to not spend my money in places who are managed, ran, or owned by people I fundamentally disagree with. When I patronize their business I am telling them that it is okay and giving them money to continue to spread what I believe are their whacked out beliefs.I didn't know about Hobby Lobby as we just got one where I am, but looks like I have some returns to make...

I truly believe that we have the right to spend our money as we choose. However, I disagree that paying for glitter at Hobby Lobby or a sandwich at CFA means you are giving your money to spread the beliefs of the founders -- that's a little melodramatic, IMO.

If that's how it makes you feel, then that's okay -- don't shop at these places. They are your feelings after all, and you are certainly entitled to them. However, to judge other's "belief system" or assume that one is "spreading the founder's ideas" simply because they shop at said places is really unfair and accusatory at best. Isn't that what we're trying to rid our world of??

When everyone in ATL started boycotting CFA, I asked a lifelong friend of mine (who happens to be gay) if he would be doing the same. He said, "Ya know, I understand if anybody wants to boycott a place for whatever reason, but it doesn't make me less gay or mean that my belief in equality is questionable and it certainly doesn't mean that I support that CEO's beliefs if I happen to like their chicken sandwiches.... that's just dumb. Dang you, msop, now ya got me wanting some waffle fries!! Gotta go."

There are many products that are made out of the country with child labor and God knows what else... does that mean we support these practices and spread all of the wacko beliefs??? I don't think so.

These are just my feelings on the issue.

I agree with you. I agree that people should certainly feel free to boycott as they see fit, but I don't necessarily equate spreading the beliefs/opinions of others simply by purchasing a chicken sandwich. I will continue to eat at CFA and I wouldn't have an issue shopping at HL either, but I encourage folks to make their own educated decisions on the matter.

 

[kenny]

There are many products that are made out of the country with child labor and God knows what else... does that mean we support these practices and spread all of the wacko beliefs???

This is a very good point.

Yes I support boycotts when I learn about offenses of businesses, but I'll bet 95% of the products in our homes involved some ugly offense or outrageous exploitation of people somewhere along the line from the raw materials being extracted from the earth to when the product put on the shelf for purchase.

It is human nature to want as much money as possible and want to feel superior.
I mean, look at us here, we are feeling superior by boycotting these businesses.
We are arguing that it is the right thing to do.
Being right is oxygen to the ego, and we all have one.

 

[monarch64]

Yeah, we could go on for days and days about all the companies with less than ethical practices. Coca-Cola is a fun one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola

The university in my town cut all full time employees' hours down to 39 a couple months ago, so they would not have to provide health benefits to hourly workers. But the university draws an additional 40k people to the town, whose businesses would not survive if it weren't for the students.

A manufacturer of medical devices in town has chosen to stop production of a certain device and is thereby letting 1200 workers go. This goes back to the medical device tax which has been funding OC.

Papa John's...I really don't care for their pizza, so we don't buy it because of that, first and foremost. I would also MUCH RATHER give money to LOCAL businesses, not huge corporations, and keep my money in the local economy. I know most of those people, and I know their views and ethics. Way easier decisions.

 

[msop04]

This is a very good point.

Yes I support boycotts when I learn about offenses of businesses, but I'll bet 95% of the products in our homes involved some ugly offense or outrageous exploitation of people somewhere along the line from the raw materials being extracted from the earth to when the product put on the shelf for purchase.

It is human nature to want as much money as possible and want to feel superior.
I mean, look at us here, we are feeling superior by boycotting these businesses.
We are arguing that it is the right thing to do.
Being right is oxygen to the ego, and we all have one.

AMEN, kenny!! I, for one, am guilty of this very thing...
I do love this quote! I think I will steal it!

 

[msop04]

Well, I would not shop at Hobby Lobby because of how they are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on the female employees of their corporate for-profit business. In this regard they do not treat their employees fairly at ALL. I'm surprised they even pay them, since one of them might go out and spend some of those monies on an IUD.

What are they doing to impose religious beliefs on female employees? I hadn't heard about this?

 

[monarch64]

Well, I would not shop at Hobby Lobby because of how they are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on the female employees of their corporate for-profit business. In this regard they do not treat their employees fairly at ALL. I'm surprised they even pay them, since one of them might go out and spend some of those monies on an IUD.

What are they doing to impose religious beliefs on female employees? I hadn't heard about this?

The founder believes that life begins at conception and wants to refuse to pay for birth control, the morning-after pill, etc.

 

[ksinger]

Well, I would not shop at Hobby Lobby because of how they are attempting to impose their religious beliefs on the female employees of their corporate for-profit business. In this regard they do not treat their employees fairly at ALL. I'm surprised they even pay them, since one of them might go out and spend some of those monies on an IUD.

What are they doing to impose religious beliefs on female employees? I hadn't heard about this?

A piece with a point of view, like most, but the nuts and bolts of the situation are described clearly.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/10/01/76033/hobby-lobby-v-sebelius-crafting-a-dangerous-precedent/

 

[msop04]

What are they doing to impose religious beliefs on female employees? I hadn't heard about this?

A piece with a point of view, like most, but the nuts and bolts of the situation are described clearly.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/10/01/76033/hobby-lobby-v-sebelius-crafting-a-dangerous-precedent/

Hmmm... not that I agree with this (which I do not, by the way), but were HL employees forced to work for them? They did in fact choose to work for this company. Upon hire, future employees are given an EOB before they can enroll, citing everything that their health plan will cover/not cover. If the benefits chosen by the company will not work for employee for whatever reason, then they have the right/choice to seek out employment elsewhere, no?

A major hospital in my area is owned/operated by the Catholic church. They have really good benefits, but as you may guess, they will not pay for any form of birth control or tubal ligations. They will not pay for hysterectomies either, regardless of if a woman doesn't want children anymore or if she has cancer. If this isn't something that a potential employee can agree to, then he/she has the right to work for another institution or shop a different processor for benefits. This is in no way forcing any beliefs on anyone.

Most employers will not choose a plan that will cover weight loss medications that would eliminate many health issues, but that doesn't mean they are discriminating against overweight employees... others refuse to pay for Viagra, but does that mean they are forcing men forego sexual activity??

I don't think so.

 

[Nyc2chigal]

I hardly think this is any different than the Starbucks CEO saying that Starbucks doesn't want to serve people that are against their beliefs.

In the end, we are ALL hypocrites. No matter what belief.

I don't know what this post means.
Does it mean just patronize these businesses anyway because we are all hypocrites?

Hi Kenny,
I wasn't being cryptic. All I mean is that establishments, like Chik-fil-A or Starbucks have a right to an opinion.
We ALL have one, and no one should be exempt.
That said, I find that boycotting will do little, or nothing to large establishments.
I will continue eating Chik-fil-A, and will continue having my daily Starbucks.

I am not saying we need to accept each other's views and ideals, but at least learn to love each other despite them.
That's what I believe.

 

[kenny]

I am not saying we need to accept each other's views and ideals, but at least learn to love each other despite them.

Wonderful words to live by!

We are each much more than our views!!!

 

[ksinger]

What are they doing to impose religious beliefs on female employees? I hadn't heard about this?

A piece with a point of view, like most, but the nuts and bolts of the situation are described clearly.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/civil-liberties/report/2013/10/01/76033/hobby-lobby-v-sebelius-crafting-a-dangerous-precedent/

Hmmm... not that I agree with this (which I do not, by the way), but were HL employees forced to work for them? They did in fact choose to work for this company. Upon hire, future employees are given an EOB before they can enroll, citing everything that their health plan will cover/not cover. If the benefits chosen by the company will not work for employee for whatever reason, then they have the right/choice to seek out employment elsewhere, no?

A major hospital in my area is owned/operated by the Catholic church. They have really good benefits, but as you may guess, they not pay for any form of birth control or tubal ligations. They will not pay for hysterectomies either, regardless of if a woman doesn't want children anymore or if she has cancer. If this isn't something that a potential employee can agree to, then he/she has the right to work for another institution or shop a different processor for benefits. This is in no way forcing any beliefs on anyone.

Most employers will not choose a plan that will cover weight loss medications that would eliminate many health issues, but that doesn't mean they are discriminating against overweight employees... others refuse to pay for Viagra, but does that mean they are forcing men forego sexual activity??

I don't think so.

You're missing the point. I can only think you didn't read the piece in any depth, because the legal implications are discussed at length. The legal issues and potential for abuse and erosion of the rights of living breathing humans are HUGE.

The ACA REQUIRES contraceptive services as part of the basic services offered under a health plan. This and other corporations are asking for an exemption based on religious grounds. This might, MIGHT be acceptable if they were a primarily religious organization with a religious purpose, but they are not. The religious convictions of the owners aside, once they chose to play in the for-profit arena, they subjected themselves to the rules governing for-profit corporations. The owner is NOT the corporation. A corporation, as I mentioned above, has no right to religious convictions, since it is a legal construct, NOT a natural person.

There is a slippery slope problem here too. If for-profit corporations are ruled to have religious beliefs, corporations will be able to argue for the same exemptions as churches and non-profits, maybe to the point of negating protections from many other federal laws. In the words of the piece I linked, "it would be difficult to imagine any federal law in which a corporation could not argue for a religious exemption, simply because its owners do not want to follow the law." What if a religious conscience exemption is granted to corporations, and xyz owner says he objects on religious grounds to...blood transfusions, or transplants or antidpressants? Or equal pay for women, or HIRING women? What then? And don't say it won't ever happen, because this world is plenty nuts enough. Haven't we already had enough insanity from Citizen's United solidifying corporations as people? I don't know anyone on either side of the political fence, who thought THAT one was a good ruling. If this exemption is granted, it will end up being a pyrrhic victory even for religious people, IMO.

And yes, when you deny ME rights that everyone else gets, by claiming an exemption from the rules that everyone else must legally operate under, you ARE imposing your religion on me.

 

[makhro82]

I sympathize with all your feelings. But I don't believe in boycotts over the opinions of company management. The very basic idea behind the United States is (was?) that citizens be free to express their thoughts. When we police to whom the 1st Amendment applies -- only the folks we like -- we are a group of united states but not THE United States.

I do not agree with the attitudes of the management in the companies you mention, but dammit, it's their right to have them. Yours to have yours.

These things can go both ways -- there's the danger.

--- Laurie

That is their right, but is my right to not spend my money in places who are managed, ran, or owned by people I fundamentally disagree with. When I patronize their business I am telling them that it is okay and giving them money to continue to spread what I believe are their whacked out beliefs.I didn't know about Hobby Lobby as we just got one where I am, but looks like I have some returns to make...

I truly believe that we have the right to spend our money as we choose. However, I disagree that paying for glitter at Hobby Lobby or a sandwich at CFA means you are giving your money to spread the beliefs of the founders -- that's a little melodramatic, IMO.

If that's how it makes you feel, then that's okay -- don't shop at these places. They are your feelings after all, and you are certainly entitled to them. However, to judge other's "belief system" or assume that one is "spreading the founder's ideas" simply because they shop at said places is really unfair and accusatory at best. Isn't that what we're trying to rid our world of??

When everyone in ATL started boycotting CFA, I asked a lifelong friend of mine (who happens to be gay) if he would be doing the same. He said, "Ya know, I understand if anybody wants to boycott a place for whatever reason, but it doesn't make me less gay or mean that my belief in equality is questionable and it certainly doesn't mean that I support that CEO's beliefs if I happen to like their chicken sandwiches.... that's just dumb. Dang you, msop, now ya got me wanting some waffle fries!! Gotta go."

There are many products that are made out of the country with child labor and God knows what else... does that mean we support these practices and spread all of the wacko beliefs??? I don't think so.

These are just my feelings on the issue.

That's why I said I not you. That is my personal belief. To ME giving these companies my funds means that they I am giving them money to have a platform. If these weren't big companies would people really be talking about them, probably not on this level. How did they get to be big companies? By people buying their goods. I am not judging a "belief" system I am judging the wrongful belief that certain people should be treated differently. All people should be treated equally and fairly I don't think that is a belief, it should be an innate human right. There is a reason why boycotting in the Civil Rights era was effective; it hurt companies bottom lines and that is what they truly care about.

And I would honestly dare to say that your belief inequality is questionable if you support a company who's CEOs views are not in line with your beliefs. Means your are compromising yourself for a chicken sandwich IMO. It's great to say you "believe" in something, it's even better to demonstrate your beliefs. I do that by not supporting companies like Chickfil A, Papa John's, Lululemon, etc.

 

[msop04]

You're missing the point. I can only think you didn't read the piece in any depth, because the legal implications are discussed at length. The legal issues and potential for abuse and erosion of the rights of living breathing humans are HUGE.

The ACA REQUIRES contraceptive services as part of the basic services offered under a health plan. This and other corporations are asking for an exemption based on religious grounds. This might, MIGHT be acceptable if they were a primarily religious organization with a religious purpose, but they are not. The religious convictions of the owners aside, once they chose to play in the for-profit arena, they subjected themselves to the rules governing for-profit corporations. The owner is NOT the corporation. A corporation, as I mentioned above, has no right to religious convictions, since it is a legal construct, NOT a natural person.

There is a slippery slope problem here too. If for-profit corporations are ruled to have religious beliefs, corporations will be able to argue for the same exemptions as churches and non-profits, maybe to the point of negating protections from many other federal laws. In the words of the piece I linked, "it would be difficult to imagine any federal law in which a corporation could not argue for a religious exemption, simply because its owners do not want to follow the law." What if a religious conscience exemption is granted to corporations, and xyz owner says he objects on religious grounds to...blood transfusions, or transplants or antidpressants? Or equal pay for women, or HIRING women? What then? And don't say it won't ever happen, because this world is plenty nuts enough. Haven't we already had enough insanity from Citizen's United solidifying corporations as people? I don't know anyone on either side of the political fence, who thought THAT one was a good ruling. If this exemption is granted, it will end up being a pyrrhic victory even for religious people, IMO.

And yes, when you deny ME rights that everyone else gets, by claiming an exemption from the rules that everyone else must legally operate under, you ARE imposing your religion on me.

I did read this in depth. It's my understanding that the new mandates of the ACA is the reason HL wants to be exempt. They will either be allowed exemption or be fined by the government... or they can close their doors. Period. It will be the law. Those are the facts.

I agree with you about the exemption for "religious" corporations. (italics) However, until someone can prove that their beliefs are somehow superior to others, then it's right back to the drawing board.

You are only being denied should you choose to work for such corporations. It is a choice. I absolutely do NOT agree with them refusing to cover such things mentioned in the article, but that is the choice of the corporation. If they decide not to comply with the ACA, they will be fined again and again. It is just as important to them that they stand behind their beliefs as you feel about yours, KWIM? ...and that is why they may choose to close their stores. The money that stands to be made isn't as important to them as their beliefs, however different they may be from our own.

 

[packrat]

We should just make it so every company on the planet has to make public knowledge their beliefs, opinions, their stance on God, the welfare system, illegal immigration, the fur trade, recycling, cat declawing, piercing baby girls ears, who was the best Stooge, the whole nine yards, just put it all out there. And sports teams, the coaches/owners whatever, they should have to do it too. Open book policy. Auto makers, clothing makers, everyone.The public has the right to make informed decisions. Who cares if CFA has THE best fricken lemonade I've ever had in my entire life? The owner is a douche who doesn't like gays. That means I can never taste the lemony goodness again, ever. Nevermind that Joe Blow down the street quite obviously doesn't give a hoot about his fellow man and will gladly buy two stupendous lemonades instead. Christ on a cracker I swear on all that's holy a person can't win for losing in this country.

How's about we do this. I'll boycott where I see fit and not do the South Park rabble rabble against those that chose not to. And then see how this works is, (collective) you can boycott, or not, as (collective) you believe appropriate, and I will afford (collective) you the same courtesy.

 

[monarch64]

LOL, Packrat. Hey, I got in trouble on Facebook today for saying I like to use self checkouts instead of the real, live cashiers. DON'T YOU KNOW AUTOMATION STEALS JOBS??????? Crap, now I can't use the ATM anymore, either!

 

[msop04]

We should just make it so every company on the planet has to make public knowledge their beliefs, opinions, their stance on God, the welfare system, illegal immigration, the fur trade, recycling, cat declawing, piercing baby girls ears, who was the best Stooge, the whole nine yards, just put it all out there. And sports teams, the coaches/owners whatever, they should have to do it too. Open book policy. Auto makers, clothing makers, everyone.The public has the right to make informed decisions. Who cares if CFA has THE best fricken lemonade I've ever had in my entire life? The owner is a douche who doesn't like gays. That means I can never taste the lemony goodness again, ever. Nevermind that Joe Blow down the street quite obviously doesn't give a hoot about his fellow man and will gladly buy two stupendous lemonades instead. Christ on a cracker I swear on all that's holy a person can't win for losing in this country.

How's about we do this. I'll boycott where I see fit and not do the South Park rabble rabble against those that chose not to. And then see how this works is, (collective) you can boycott, or not, as (collective) you believe appropriate, and I will afford (collective) you the same courtesy.

OMG!! A-FREAKIN'-MEN!

packrat, thanks for this! I have literally just LMAO reading through it! I appreciate your humor in showing just how ridiculous all this sounds! ...and don't worry, there will be no judgement on my part.

 

[msop04]

As my great-granddaddy used to say, "Our 'rights' will be the death of us all -- you wait and see!" Smart man... he knew where this country was heading. We can't even have lunch without offending someone!

 

[msop04]

LOL, Packrat. Hey, I got in trouble on Facebook today for saying I like to use self checkouts instead of the real, live cashiers. DON'T YOU KNOW AUTOMATION STEALS JOBS??????? Crap, now I can't use the ATM anymore, either!

BWAHAHAHAAAAA!!! True that, monarch!! I just came from the ATM -- clearly, I am against all the nice folks who serve as bank tellers and desire for their families to suffer at my proverbial hand...

I am swimming in shame.

 

[msop04]

That's why I said I not you. That is my personal belief. To ME giving these companies my funds means that they I am giving them money to have a platform. If these weren't big companies would people really be talking about them, probably not on this level. How did they get to be big companies? By people buying their goods. I am not judging a "belief" system I am judging the wrongful belief that certain people should be treated differently. All people should be treated equally and fairly I don't think that is a belief, it should be an innate human right. There is a reason why boycotting in the Civil Rights era was effective; it hurt companies bottom lines and that is what they truly care about.

makhro, you are entitled to have whatever beliefs you desire, that's not what I'm saying at all. You feel how you feel, and that is fine.

And I would honestly dare to say that your belief in equality is questionable if you support a company who's CEOs views are not in line with your beliefs. Means your are compromising yourself for a chicken sandwich IMO. It's great to say you "believe" in something, it's even better to demonstrate your beliefs. I do that by not supporting companies like Chickfil A, Papa John's, Lululemon, etc.

This is the judgement I'm speaking of... exactly in what you just said.

makhro, do you walk on carpets in your home? Is that home made of bricks, by chance? Do you like to eat rice or beef, or maybe you share in my personal love of all things chocolate? Coffee drinker, perhaps? I'd be willing to bet you eat products with cane sugar in them at every meal... Those garments you wear, are any of them made of cotton?? I'm guessing your answer to the majority of these inquiries is yes.

So, now... would it be fair for us to assume that you support child labor? (because it's extremely likely that many or all of these products came to you by this very practice...) I wouldn't think so, but according to the statement you made above, the answer would have to be another yes.

Is this melodramatic?? Yup.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[kenny]

It's not just about how well a boycott works, as if even that were even possible to measure.

It's about your conscience and living with yourself.

 

[Matata]

It's about your conscience and living with yourself.

I want to kiss you right now. Wise words. For anyone interested, there are publications out there such as this one http://www.betterworldshopper.org/p153.html that provide information to guide our purchasing choices based on our personal belief systems.

 

[makhro82]

That's why I said I not you. That is my personal belief. To ME giving these companies my funds means that they I am giving them money to have a platform. If these weren't big companies would people really be talking about them, probably not on this level. How did they get to be big companies? By people buying their goods. I am not judging a "belief" system I am judging the wrongful belief that certain people should be treated differently. All people should be treated equally and fairly I don't think that is a belief, it should be an innate human right. There is a reason why boycotting in the Civil Rights era was effective; it hurt companies bottom lines and that is what they truly care about.

makhro, you are entitled to have whatever beliefs you desire, that's not what I'm saying at all. You feel how you feel, and that is fine.

And I would honestly dare to say that your belief in equality is questionable if you support a company who's CEOs views are not in line with your beliefs. Means your are compromising yourself for a chicken sandwich IMO. It's great to say you "believe" in something, it's even better to demonstrate your beliefs. I do that by not supporting companies like Chickfil A, Papa John's, Lululemon, etc.

This is the judgement I'm speaking of... exactly in what you just said.

makhro, do you walk on carpets in your home? Is that home made of bricks, by chance? Do you like to eat rice or beef, or maybe you share in my personal love of all things chocolate? Coffee drinker, perhaps? I'd be willing to bet you eat products with cane sugar in them at every meal... Those garments you wear, are any of them made of cotton?? I'm guessing your answer to the majority of these inquiries is yes.

So, now... would it be fair for us to assume that you support child labor? (because it's extremely likely that many or all of these products came to you by this very practice...) I wouldn't think so, but according to the statement you made above, the answer would have to be another yes.

Is this melodramatic?? Yup.

Pot, meet kettle.

I would never knowingly buy anything from anyone that oppresses or subjugates anyone. Once you know something you have a RESPONSIBILITY so it is not at all hypocritical or melodramatic. I think we will just have to agree to disagree because whenever someone disagrees with you they become "melodramatic". Certain issues are important to ME and I will never budge on them and one of them is the fair treatment of humans. I'm going to go there with race again, but I as a Black woman can never imagine buying something from a company who thinks that gays should be treated differently. I would not buy from a company that does not promote women because they believe their place is in the home, but hey that's just me. You are free to do with what you want with your money.

 

[msop04]

I would never knowingly buy anything from anyone that oppresses or subjugates anyone. Once you know something you have a RESPONSIBILITY so it is not at all hypocritical or melodramatic. I think we will just have to agree to disagree because whenever someone disagrees with you they become "melodramatic". Certain issues are important to ME and I will never budge on them and one of them is the fair treatment of humans. I'm going to go there with race again, but I as a Black woman can never imagine buying something from a company who thinks that gays should be treated differently. I would not buy from a company that does not promote women because they believe their place is in the home, but hey that's just me. You are free to do with what you want with your money.

It is a responsibility should you choose to make it so... this, I can agree with wholeheartedly.

It is not your responsibility to judge others, just as you hope that you will not be judged. It's granting them the same courtesy you have expected of them and continue to expect.

It's not thinking that one is of higher moral or ethical character than another simply by because of how they choose to spend their money. If we do this, then we are no better than those we are negatively judging.

To assume an entire company holds the same beliefs as its founder is asinine. Although many feel that there are certain groups that absolutely cannot be discriminated against, I would dare to say that they would be wrong, but that is a different thread entirely... I will go on spending my money as I wish, just as others will freely do the same. The difference is some will play the tape all the way through and think of how it might feel to have been labeled, stereotyped, and judged, and make the decision to try to love one another regardless, free of judgement. The rest will continue to judge, although they would cry discrimination if the tables were turned...

Some have admitted they already do. I'll quote kenny again in saying, "people vary." <shrugs>

 

[ericad]

I do my best to know what the companies I patronize stand for, and vote with my dollars. I wouldn't knowingly support any business who is anti-equality, anti-choice, racist, sexist, etc. I won't support a company who perpetuates hatred or discrimination - and there are many who are very vocal and proud of what they stand for. They make it super easy for me.

I do what I can, and realize that it's not possible to vet every single business in the world who I might patronize. BUT I DO WHAT I CAN. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. The argument that if one can't know everything about everyone, then there's no point having any convictions whatsoever - this doesn't hold water for me, or for my own personal value system. But others can do as they please.

When a company hands us their beliefs on a silver platter, and they are contrary to my own moral code, I can't fathom the thought of further supporting their business. That doesn't make me feel superior. I'm just doing what feels right to me, and I will do my best to share this information with others in the event that they are of the same mindset as me. And if not, well then free to be you and me. Whatevs.

We don't have Hobby Lobby here, and I have no idea what a Chickfil A is. I don't eat fast food - is it fast food? Sounds gross, lol, like little tempura fried fuzzy baby chicks.

And if anyone is unsure of what I stand for (being a business owner), let me say this: I would like to be the cheese in a John Stewart/Jimmy Kimmel sammich (some days I'll swap Jimmy out for Bill Maher, but John Stewart is my staple). That's all.