Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:
It is just another set of information to make choices from.

But it is a basically unrelated set of information. As in my example above, the homosexuality of the hypothetical businessman -- let's call him a roofing salesman -- has nothing to do with his roofing sales business. If you say, "I'm not supporting any sodomite lifestyles" you're not talking about roofing.

This would be a lot easier for people pushing the gay agenda if there was any evidence that Chik-Fil-A treated gay people differently as either customers or employees. As things stand, this is a bit "morality police" and I don't like it done to Christian chicken sandwich makers any more than I like it done to homosexual roofing salespersons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
The Klan might make a hell of a fine barbecue sandwich, but I would not purchase one because I do not wish, in any way, to support any enterprise that involves the Klan.

I'm glad you yourself acknowledge the extremity of the example. Given as much, perhaps we should talk about something more relevant?

 Manchu wrote:
I'm glad you yourself acknowledge the extremity of the example. Given as much, perhaps we should talk about something more relevant?

Sure. People who view anti-gay rights donors as bigots don't want to support bigots or their commercial enterprises. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
It is just another set of information to make choices from.

But it is a basically unrelated set of information.

As someone with close gay friends, I wouldn't say it is unrelated at all. It is unrelated to food, but it isn't specifically about the food, but where my money is going, and if I go to Arby's I know that it isn't going to fund hate mongering and ignorance. I wouldn't eat a restaurant that gave .05 of every dollar to the Aryan Brotherhood either.

The law forbids them from treating their employees differently, but even then pretending every manager is some gay bashing idiot is silly and as I already said demonizing them isn't a solution either, but a problem as well. Recognizing that individuals aren't bigots doesn't mean that the company doesn't give money to groups that are, or that they actively seek to keep them as second class citizens through legislation.

And people who view gay people as destroying society don't want them to have greater legal and social acceptance.

The tricky part is that just because someone has a certain viewpoint doesn't make action taken accordingly valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
It is unrelated to food, but it isn't specifically about the food, but where my money is going, and if I go to Arby's I know that it isn't going to fund hate mongering and ignorance.

Again, do you think that whether or not you get/keep a job should be based on your employer's scrutiny of your political beliefs? Your or their religion? Your or their sexuality? How about race or affiliation with race-based groups like the NAACP?

What if we approached it differently. Instead of punishing a business that is using the money I give them to fund things I don't agree with I do the opposite.

I reward a business with my money if they use my money to support things that I agree with.

Or is that dumb as well?

Yes, I think that's equally stupid.

If you want to donate money to starving children in Africa, don't feel content buying an iPhone because Steve Jobs has signed some checks to that effect.

 Manchu wrote:
And people who view gay people as destroying society don't want them to have greater legal and social acceptance.

The tricky part is that just because someone has a certain viewpoint doesn't make action taken accordingly valid.

Nor does it make it invalid.

Out of curiosity, who made you the arbiter of valid reasoning to patronize certain establishments?

 Seaward wrote:
Out of curiosity, who made you the arbiter of valid reasoning to patronize certain establishments?

Could you please rein in the attitude? I believe this whole line of conversation began with the phrase "I think it's dumb" rather than "you should think it's dumb."

 Manchu wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
It is unrelated to food, but it isn't specifically about the food, but where my money is going, and if I go to Arby's I know that it isn't going to fund hate mongering and ignorance.

Again, do you think that whether or not you get/keep a job should be based on your employer's scrutiny of your political beliefs?

The problem with this hypothetical is that in this case I'm the one doing the hiring, not the one being hired. If I have a choice between contracting someone that wants to fund the KKK and one that doesn't, I'll take the later.

There's really no difference. You can be the employer. Do you think you should be able to hire or not hire someone based solely on their attitude to gay marriage?

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, I think that's equally stupid.

If you want to donate money to starving children in Africa, don't feel content buying an iPhone because Steve Jobs has signed some checks to that effect.

That is some dumb reasoning right there. A company is going to use my money for stuff. Their public image is as much a part of their advertising as actual adds. My purchase goes towards stuff they support, so why should stuff they support not be part of my decision to support them?

I don't have to shop there, but "I don't want to support a company that doesn't use organic chicken" is just as much a factor as "I dot want to support a company that donates to anti-gay groups."

 Manchu wrote:
There's really no difference. You can be the employer. Do you think you should be able to hire or not hire someone based solely on their attitude to gay marriage?

The answer to that is obviously no, Manchu. That would get you and your company in hot water as it's a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity act.

However, that has NOTHING to do with a person or a business wanting to do business with another company or it's affiliates.

I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.

 d-usa wrote:
My purchase goes towards stuff they support, so why should stuff they support not be part of my decision to support them?

Um, because you are trying to buy a cell phone rather donating money to a charity?

 Manchu wrote:
There's really no difference.

I disagree, and honestly I have a hard time believing you believe there isn't either. I also think you know the analogy isn't really apt either as the employee/employer relationship is different than the customer/retailer one. There are laws that say you can't fire people for certain things, but there really aren't laws that say how a person can spend there discretionary income.

GASP! THE QUEERS, COLOREDS AND COMMIES ARE TAKIN' OVER OUR BELOVED COUNTRY! GOD'S CHILDREN, TAKE UP ARMS AND FIIIIIIGHT!

And that was tomorrow's Fox News headline...

Manchu wrote:Yes, I think that's equally stupid.

If you want to donate money to starving children in Africa, don't feel content buying an iPhone because Steve Jobs has signed some checks to that effect.

This may not really be on-topic here, but for what it's worth, Steve Jobs had never once given money to any charitable organization, and he stopped any charity donations that Apple made, as well.

 kronk wrote:
I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.

Because they are very similar. You yourself called it "voting with your wallet." Ahtman just used the exact analogy, that he is the one "doing the hiring" when it comes to choosing where to buy his chicken sandwiches. Please demonstrate how in the context of this discussion they are dissimilar so that the comparison is invalid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

This may not really be on-topic here, but for what it's worth, Steve Jobs had never once given money to any charitable organization, and he stopped any charity donations that Apple made, as well.

Before this Chik-Fil-A nonsense, I would have called him stingy. Now I can see he was just trying to avoid making his customers into hypocrites.

 Manchu wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My purchase goes towards stuff they support, so why should stuff they support not be part of my decision to support them?

Um, because you are trying to buy a cell phone rather donating money to a charity?

And the money I spend gets passed on to charities, so I support the charities by extension.

It is really not a very hard concept.

 Ahtman wrote:
There are laws that say you can't fire people for certain things, but there really aren't laws that say how a person can spend there discretionary income.

A non-government employer can certainly fire a person for their political views. Employers don't do it very often, or at least don't talk about it openly, because it looks bad. And why do you think it looks bad? Now, when you want a good accountant, ask him about accounting, not what ticket he's voting. And when you want a chicken sandwich, then let's talk about chicken. If every dime you spend is truly synoymous with your political will and moral value, then you have a lot more research to do than being the passive recipient of politicized news. And if that's what you want to spend your free time doing, so be it. But I still think it's dumb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
nd the money I spend gets passed on to charities, so I support the charities by extension.

No you don't. You have to actually support charities to support charities. What you're parroting there is corporate advertising.

1. I don't care
2. I still like them chikin sammich

 Manchu wrote:
But I still think it's dumb.

Well I imagine we are both finding things in this thread that we think are dumb.

Why can't I just buy Chick-fil-a because it's a damn good sammich?

Why does the consumer bear responsibility of what a business does with their revenue?



Caveat here: I support gays marriage and friends with gay folks...

Yes, people can have different opinions, and somehow the world keeps spinning.

 Manchu wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.

Because they are very similar. You yourself called it "voting with your wallet." Ahtman just used the exact analogy, that he is the one "doing the hiring" when it comes to choosing where to buy his chicken sandwiches. Please demonstrate how in the context of this discussion they are dissimilar so that the comparison is invalid.

I already did. Very well, in fact.

One is against the law and one isn't.

 kronk wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.

Because they are very similar. You yourself called it "voting with your wallet." Ahtman just used the exact analogy, that he is the one "doing the hiring" when it comes to choosing where to buy his chicken sandwiches. Please demonstrate how in the context of this discussion they are dissimilar so that the comparison is invalid.

I already did. Very well, in fact.

One is against the law and one isn't.

Yup.

 whembly wrote:

 kronk wrote:
One is against the law and one isn't.

Yup.

Nope, actually.

You might think it's against the law because it seems wrong. But is in fact legal to fire someone for their political views.

Now that you know that, how do you feel about the relationship between morality and law?

Uh, no. You can't. You saying that you can doesn't make it so.

Now that you know that one is legal and one isn't, how does that make you feel about calling people's ideas dumb and stupid in this thread?

 whembly wrote:

Why does the consumer bear responsibility of what a business does with their revenue?

Because without customers there would be no revenue?

 whembly wrote:
Why can't I just buy Chick-fil-a because it's a damn good sammich?

No one is telling you that you can't. Me saying I'm not doing something doesn't imply you have to do it as well. In fact I explicitly stated that people turning it into some moral imperative are just as bad. Go forth and indulge in CFA to your hearts desire.

 whembly wrote:
Why can't I just buy Chick-fil-a because it's a damn good sammich?

Why does the consumer bear responsibility of what a business does with their revenue?

Caveat here: I support gays marriage and friends with gay folks...

You do not bear responsibility, you make informed consumer choices that can include not patronizing a business that sees fit to dabble in politics and moralizing in a way that is opposed to your own views and beliefs.

I shoulder no burden in not eating chicken fil a, I would bear a burden of hypocrisy if I were eating their food, knowing my money would be used to fund something I find reprehensible.

And that really is about the morality Manchu is referring to.