Support NeoGAF

[Laughing Banana]

If you can offer a practical alternative, then me.

This is seriously not comparable at all. Chick Fil A is easy to cut out of your modern life. Electronic devices- not so much. I'll happily buy from the first company that creates devices made in fair trade labor conditions.

..ok?

foxconn's customers:
Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
Amazon.com (United States)
Apple Inc. (United States)
Cisco (United States)
Dell (United States)
Hewlett-Packard (United States)
Intel (United States)
Microsoft (United States)
Motorola Mobility (United States)
Nintendo (Japan)
Nokia (Finland)
Samsung Electronics (South Korea)
Sony (Japan)
Toshiba (Japan)
Vizio (United States)

if you're going to boycott laptop manufacturers because of being made in china with poor labour standards, better stop buying from all of these companies too. it's a stupid comparison. it's a million times easier to not eat at one restaurant than it is to not buy laptops and/or other electronics from these companies.

Interesting. So it is mostly a matter of convenience and not principle? So convenience overrides principle? I mean, some people are arguing here that of course it is impossible for us to cut all the companies that may have views that disagreeable with ours since we can't possibly know about them all--which I agree, by the way, and so when a company is so willingly open about it, it is the moral responsibility of those disagreeing with it to stop supporting it.

However, the fact that those companies above are using less than ideal conditions to support their businesses are also open to the public and widely known. So? Isn't by purchasing their products while you know what they did means that you are also supporting whatever its that they did?

Also, to me it appears like unwillingness to depart from companies that you are disagreeing with since it is difficult to do when paired with willingness to depart from companies that you are disagreeing with since it is easy to do--well, it does appear that you are not feeling that strongly about your principles anyways; picking the "easy" road and all that.

 

[Professor Beef]

Now onto the topic of that In-n-Out place.

F***k that place.

Oh now we're gonna have a problem here.

rofl what in the fuck? poor negative man. :lol :lol

I didn't realize we had such prominent members on this board.

Came for the gaming, stayed for the OT.

 

[water_wendi]

This is what I was getting at. It really only hurts the local economy when people boycott something.

How would it hurt the local economy if i dont buy chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A but Popeyes instead?

 

[shintoki]

Yup. You can't fight all the battles that need fighting all the time, but this one seems pretty easy to tackle.

As stated, Microsoft products are a good one where most business to use it to some form. Its also probably the closest thing we have to a universal PC compatibility list. Using Word/Excel/Power Point in School just makes it easier.

The same appeals to Gas companies, complete assholes, but people do need to drive to work. People do need to take public and so forth. Or even companies like Coke/Pepsi that just own so much. You'll eventually run into them.

This is a small restaurant chain that is easily avoidable. While I think its stupid, at least the company is up front about it. And at least some people are honest about it too in here. They don't care for Gay rights, so it doesn't affect them. But the, I'm pro-gay rights, but their food is just too good. Followed by excuses. Pathetic and irritable.

 

[Forever]

I dealt with it pretty easily.

The problem with his example is the money trail.

And then there is the precedent of a mod saying straight up that it's morally acceptable to give money to anti-gay organizations as long as you like their food. I think that's a large part of why so many people have been testing the line in this thread with their "I'm going to have some right now it's so delicious" comments. The reasoning itself is just icing on the cake; apparently it is now okay to knowingly, even enthusiastically give material support to homophobic agendas because the United States used Nazi research.

 

[Smellycat]

Was Manos banned because of this thread?

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Was Manos banned because of this thread?

With his post history, it is admittedly hard to tell, isn't it?

 

[user8503492]

Was enjoying this thread till Manos got the axe

 

[Stumpokapow]

Was Manos banned because of this thread?

Not sure, wasn't me.

Interesting. So it is mostly a matter of convenience and not principle? So convenience overrides principle? I mean, some people are arguing here that of course it is impossible for us to cut all the companies that may have views that disagreeable with ours since we can't possibly know about them all--which I agree, by the way, and so when a company is so willingly open about it, it is the moral responsibility of those disagreeing with it to stop supporting it.

It's both, duh? Imagine you believe factory farming is cruel, so you want to move away from animal products. It's easier to give up leather boots than it is to give up all meat. It's easier to give up meat if you live in a place with access to fresh alternatives than if you live in Northern Alaska. It's easier to give up red meat than to give up poultry and fish. It's easier to go vegetarian than vegan. It's easier to curb your personal meat consumption than refuse to eat meat in all social cases. This doesn't mean giving up leather shoes makes you a hypocrite or an asshole. It means that's where you started.

You try to be the best person you can be. You start with low hanging fruit. You try to improve the person you are consistently. You weigh each decision on its own. You admit you're imperfect. But you try to be better. New information helps you make new decisions. And beyond your decisions, you share the information you have with others and take part in a cultural conversation to change the way others look at things.

In the same way, giving to one charity doesn't mean you don't recognize the merit of others; choosing to give a percentage of your salary to charity doesn't mean you're a hypocrite for using the rest of your salary on yourself; volunteering for a few hours a week doesn't mean you're a jerk for taking pay the rest of the time; giving money to one homeless person doesn't mean you have to give money to all of them.

I give some money to charity, I volunteer some time, I try to recycle more and throw out less, I want to start composting, I try to repair things instead of throwing them out, I try to donate or resell everything I can instead of throwing it out, I take part in work-related fundraising stuff, I pick energy efficient stuff when I can, I walk instead of drive when I can, I try to avoid the things that I speak out against and don't support companies that I don't agree with on a variety of issues, I vote, I try to give money to candidates and parties who I believe have a chance to make the world a better place (even if they're not perfect and hold stances that bug me as well), I read as much as I can. I could do a lot better at all of these things. Hopefully I'm doing better this year than I did last year. It's possible that other concerns will get in my way--a money or quality of life crunch or an unexpected pregnancy or a bad winter or who knows what--and if they do, I'll try to rebalance my life to reflect that.

Life's a process.

 

[Smellycat]

With his post history, it is admittedly hard to tell, isn't it?

Pretty much, haha.

 

[Professor Beef]

Was enjoying this thread till Manos got the axe

At least he got the chicken, too.

 

[Gotchaye]

Should the average workers of a company suffer because of the political donations of company executives?

Depends. Do the employees of Chick-Fil-A deserve my support any more than the employees of Wendy's do? Do fast food employees deserve my support more than any other worker? Do workers deserve my support more than the unemployed? Etc., etc., starving children in Africa?

Now, if there was the potential for such a widespread CFA boycott that every employee would be out on the street tomorrow, I probably would support a phasing in of the boycott such that Wendy's or whoever had time to open up franchises in the area and start taking on workers. But that's not a serious worry.

 

[Cyan]

Interesting. So it is mostly a matter of convenience and not principle? So convenience overrides principle?

Convenience will always override principle, at some point. Otherwise none of us would be posting because we'd all have sold our computers and given all our money to children in Africa. Or we'd be working in soup kitchens, or something.

The question is, where do you draw the line, where do you set the weightings such that you can enjoy your life, while still being principled? Which things do you choose to gloss over for convenience, which to stand up and do something about?

It seems fairly clear to me that an obvious, bright-line case such as this one should fall on the principle side of things.

 

[red13th]

Marriage is not a right.

It isn't in America? Weird.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Not sure, wasn't me.



It's both, duh? Imagine you believe factory farming is cruel, so you want to move away from animal products. It's easier to give up leather boots than it is to give up all meat. It's easier to give up meat if you live in a place with access to fresh alternatives than if you live in Northern Alaska. It's easier to give up red meat than to give up poultry and fish. It's easier to go vegetarian than vegan. It's easier to curb your personal meat consumption than refuse to eat meat in all social cases. This doesn't mean giving up leather shoes makes you a hypocrite or an asshole. It means that's where you started.

You try to be the best person you can be. You start with low hanging fruit. You try to improve the person you are consistently. You weigh each decision on its own. You admit you're imperfect. But you try to be better. New information helps you make new decisions. And beyond your decisions, you share the information you have with others and take part in a cultural conversation to change the way others look at things.

In the same way, giving to one charity doesn't mean you don't recognize the merit of others; choosing to give a percentage of your salary to charity doesn't mean you're a hypocrite for using the rest of your salary on yourself; volunteering for a few hours a week doesn't mean you're a jerk for taking pay the rest of the time; giving money to one homeless person doesn't mean you have to give money to all of them.

Life's a process.

That being said, if you eat at CFA, you're against gay marriage/civil rights?

 

[outunderthestars]

Not sure, wasn't me.



It's both, duh? Imagine you believe factory farming is cruel, so you want to move away from animal products. It's easier to give up leather boots than it is to give up all meat. It's easier to give up meat if you live in a place with access to fresh alternatives than if you live in Northern Alaska. It's easier to give up red meat than to give up poultry and fish. It's easier to go vegetarian than vegan. It's easier to curb your personal meat consumption than refuse to eat meat in all social cases. This doesn't mean giving up leather shoes makes you a hypocrite or an asshole. It means that's where you started.

You try to be the best person you can be. You start with low hanging fruit. You try to improve the person you are consistently. You weigh each decision on its own. You admit you're imperfect. But you try to be better. New information helps you make new decisions. And beyond your decisions, you share the information you have with others and take part in a cultural conversation to change the way others look at things.

In the same way, giving to one charity doesn't mean you don't recognize the merit of others; choosing to give a percentage of your salary to charity doesn't mean you're a hypocrite for using the rest of your salary on yourself; volunteering for a few hours a week doesn't mean you're a jerk for taking pay the rest of the time; giving money to one homeless person doesn't mean you have to give money to all of them.

Life's a process.

I really like this post. Well said.

 

[Trey]

Aside from just being a remix of the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' argument, there is an immense gulf of difference that distinguishes buying things from businesses that engage in "corrupt" labor practices vs. a company which openly advocates against equal rights and uses its profits to engage in that social cause.

1. Companies that engage in bad environmental or labor practices need to be held accountable by government regulations. These are inherently bad actions that need to be legislated against and controlled at an executive level.

2. Individuals in prominent positions that hold bigoted social beliefs and donate money to those causes are NOT subject to government regulation of their speech. That would be a violation of our constitution. Therefore, it is the responsibility of us as individuals to use our power (of the dollar) to speak out against these beliefs and advocacies.

It's our responsibility as individuals to tell our government what to do through the power of the vote, so this almost renders your entire point (the distinction of the legal leverage available against companies that engage in morally questionable practices) moot.

The basic truth of this debate is that there are morally questionable things companies do that reflect upon them as an entity. And when it becomes public knowledge, it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they agree or disagree, and furthermore (with a combination of other factors such as convenience and the product) if they shall give said company their business. It ends there.

This tangent gets away from the major theme of this particular topic, but it was probably brought up to defend against those saying that anyone who still gives CFA business are equally as bad as the owners, and are bigots by association.

 

[cajunator]

How would it hurt the local economy if i dont buy chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A but Popeyes instead?

I buy food from Popeyes too. Food is food to me. If its nearby and Im hungry, Im going there. Thats all I have to say about this really. I like chicken, and I will get it from various places depending on my mood.

 

[Gotchaye]

It's both, duh?
[good stuff]
Life's a process.

Speaking as someone who spends a lot of time on the internet writing out long answers to stupid questions: that wasn't worth it.

 

[Forever]

Not sure, wasn't me.

What do you have to say to the "Nazi research" argument?

 

[ghostmind]

It's our responsibility as individuals to tell our government what to do through the power of the vote, so this almost renders your entire point (the distinction of the legal leverage available against companies that engage in morally questionable practices) moot.

The basic truth of this debate is that there are morally questionable things companies do that reflect upon them as an entity. And when it becomes public knowledge, it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they agree or disagree, and furthermore (with a combination of other factors such as convenience and the product) if they shall give said company their business. It ends there.

This tangent gets away from the major theme of this particular topic, but it was probably brought up to defend against those saying that anyone who still gives CFA business are equally as bad as the owners, and are bigots by association.

Well said.

 

[Acerac]

Am I the only one who has a problem with this post? I mean, aside from the sentiment, the analogy?

If it wasn't a mod I'd have said something. Decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

 

[Dude Abides]

It's our responsibility as individuals to tell our government what to do through the power of the vote, so this almost renders your entire point (the distinction of the legal leverage available against companies that engage in morally questionable practices) moot.

The basic truth of this debate is that there are morally questionable things companies do that reflect upon them as an entity. And when it becomes public knowledge, it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they agree or disagree, and furthermore (with a combination of other factors such as convenience and the product) if they shall give said company their business. It ends there.

This tangent gets away from the major theme of this particular topic, but it was probably brought up to defend against those saying that anyone who still gives CFA business are equally as bad as the owners, and are bigots by association.

So nobody, then.

 

[Stumpokapow]

That being said, if you eat at CFA, you're against gay marriage/civil rights?

Everyone has a different level of awareness of the issue, everyone has a different ability to reflect critically on it, everyone has a different set of priorities. I would hope that most people, reading this, even if they don't choose to avoid Chick-Fil-A, at least take the time to reflect on the issue as a whole--how can they be a better civic participant, how can they be the change they want to see in the world, what does it mean that something as neutral and innocent as a chicken shack is materially involved in something so controversial and political, who does the gay marriage debate effect?

I wouldn't look in a Chick-Fil-A and think less of the people I see. But everyone should be their own conscience. Certainly there are some people in the world who are callous or borderline sociopathic and do not care about the suffering of others and fully understand the consequences of their actions and twist the knife just to get their kicks. Certainly there are people who are too dim to consider anything more complicated than a daytime talk show. Certainly there people who are against gay marriage but otherwise nice and friendly people, just as there were people like that who opposed civil rights movements. Everyone has to make their own decisions.

I would hope that most of the people on GAF are literate, informed, intelligent, and compassionate enough, and care about the world enough to try to improve it. How they negotiate that road and where their choice of chicken shack fits in is up to them.

If it wasn't a mod I'd have said something. Decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

White Man's a big boy, if you think he's wrong, speak up. I personally don't moderate people I'm involved in a conversation with, and I think most of us don't unless it's a very obvious account suicide attempt.

 

[AlexMogil]

Never mind.

 

[Laughing Banana]

~Poetic post about life~

Well, some people are saying here that since the information about Chick-Fil-A's unfortunate views are open in the public, then it becomes the moral responsibility for anyone who disagree with their views to avoid them--unlike many other companies who may or may not have similar/disagreeable views but we just can't possibly know about them all, you know.

But the fact that the companies above mentioned in the specific post I quoted before did many disagreeable things (and keep doing it) are not exactly 'secret' either. In fact, it is an information blown wide open for many to see. But many people from my first paragraph, I figure, will continue to use their products regardless since it is more "difficult" to part with--which is in principle in my opinion rather conflicting to their overall stance in the first place, no?

Well, there will never be a truly ideal solution for stuff like this, though.

On a side note, I live in Indonesia, so Chick-FIl-A is not something I will enjoy in my lifetime.

Speaking as someone who spends a lot of time on the internet writing out long answers to stupid questions: that wasn't worth it.

Are you inferring stupidity on my part since he is responding to my thoughts?

 

[Trey]

So nobody, then.

You haven't seen a variation of "just as bad as them" in this thread?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Where do you draw the line between not interfering with a private business to equal rights? Like say if a private business refuses to serve an African American? I know that's more of a libertarian view, but I'm always interested debating issues like.

 

[JGS]

Convenience will always override principle, at some point. Otherwise none of us would be posting because we'd all have sold our computers and given all our money to children in Africa. Or we'd be working in soup kitchens, or something.

The question is, where do you draw the line, where do you set the weightings such that you can enjoy your life, while still being principled? Which things do you choose to gloss over for convenience, which to stand up and do something about?

It seems fairly clear to me that an obvious, bright-line case such as this one should fall on the principle side of things.

I agree with this sentiment but at the same time this view is purely opinion and a losing one at that. Not because people are against gay marriage, but instead due to the fact that there is too much weight put on this particular issue with this particular company.

Others would look at that question of principle and convenience and say "It's just a [tasty] chicken sandwich"

To be blunt, I am saying my purchasing that sandwich does nothing in regards to the promotion or condemnation of gay marriage, but boycotting it for an inferior fast food chicken sandwich at a likely higher cost is more than a minor inconvenience. After all, most fast food sucks so the good ones should be supported for their main cause - food. As long as they are profitable they can donate to whatever they wish without any input from me as a non-shareholder.

Chik Fil A, out of all businesses out there, will indeed go out of business before they change their religious stance (Again, I'm linking the company with it's leaders since a business rarely has faith even if it has speech).

I do not have any desire or wish for Chick Fil A to go out of business even if Satanic atheists publicly against religion were running it.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

It's our responsibility as individuals to tell our government what to do through the power of the vote, so this almost renders your entire point (the distinction of the legal leverage available against companies that engage in morally questionable practices) moot.

The basic truth of this debate is that there are morally questionable things companies do that reflect upon them as an entity. And when it becomes public knowledge, it's up to the consumer to decide whether or not they agree or disagree, and furthermore (with a combination of other factors such as convenience and the product) if they shall give said company their business. It ends there.

This tangent gets away from the major theme of this particular topic, but it was probably brought up to defend against those saying that anyone who still gives CFA business are equally as bad as the owners, and are bigots by association.

I don't get how this makes my point moot.

I'll rephrase:

There is a distinct difference between social advocacy and unsustainable business. Nobody is saying that CFA is engaging in fundamentally unsound and unsustainable business practices. The same cannot be said about corporations who are actively hurting economic or environmental concerns.

The solution to CFA is NOT for the government to step in and regulate speech. The solution is for consumers who oppose what CFA will use their money for to withhold that money.

For businesses engaging in an unsustainable model, it is our duty as citizens to vote for people who will enact policies that will encourage those businesses to function sustainably, or discourage them from operating unsustainably.

I don't think the relationship between one company's social advocacy and another's slave labor is as strong as some of you suggest.

 

[Acerac]

White Man's a big boy, if you think he's wrong, speak up. I personally don't moderate people I'm involved in a conversation with, and I think most of us don't unless it's a very obvious account suicide attempt.

I typically expect a certain caliber of post from the mods on these boards and that one threw me a bit. I know you can discuss things with moderators on GAF, but message boards as a whole have taught me to be wary of posts from mods that seem peculiar.

 

[Mumei]

That reminds me, is there a gay equivalent for house negro or Uncle Tom?

The closeted anti-gay type, basically? Though those people are hiding or in denial about their status, so it really isn't the same.

But I don't think there's name for that person in the way that there's the archetypal "types" you named.

Marriage is not a right.

It is, actually.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."​

- from the decision of Loving v. Virginia

The fact that bigotry has prevented us as a society from extending that right to gays and lesbians until very recently in a select few states does not make it any less of a right. It just makes it even more of an injustice.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Well, some people are saying here that since the information about Chick-Fil-A's unfortunate views are open in the public, then it becomes the moral responsibility for anyone who disagree with their views to avoid them--unlike many other companies who may or may not have similar/disagreeable views but we just can't possibly know about them all, you know.

I don't think that's a bad attitude to have--it would be great if everyone took time out of their day to consider issues of social justice--and I think it reflects negatively on society as a whole that so few people do assess their relationship with products and other humans and how they are complicit in supporting certain things...

But I also think that relationship is a personal one and in the absence of a demonstrated personal cruelty it's not for me to second-guess someone's reasons for doing things or not doing them. I might prod or remind someone about considerations it seems like they've missed or ignored, but in the end the decision they come to isn't worth picking apart.

Put it this way; in a country where half the people out there are personally against gay marriage, and easily a third are openly hateful in the way they express that, I wouldn't be too worried about the people who are pro-gay marriage but too attached to fried chicken to skip CFA for lunch.

 

[Dude Abides]

You haven't seen a variation of "just as bad as them" in this thread?

Not that I can recall. It is a long thread though. Maybe one or two posts did say that. Certainly not enough times to justify how often the "argument" that other companies also do bad things is invoked to excuse what Chik Fil A does in some silly leap of non-logic.

 

[Daydream Sequence]

If I hadn't already stopped poisoning my body with fast food, I'd have started with this company. I regret having enjoyed their food in the past. God damn those waffle fries are good.

 

[.la1n]

Known about this for years, haven't supported them from the day I found out.

 

[FStop7]

Even if marriage weren't a right, there is no legitimate argument to marriage to gay couples that is not directly tied to religion.

Someday the laws denying gay marriage will be argued before the supreme court as a violation of the 14th amendment and those laws will be struck down.

About C-F-L and what it means to support them:

You can hardly blame anyone for boycotting C-F-L, Dominos, or any number of businesses that have social/political agendas. On the other hand, we all commit a hundred small hypocrisies pretty much every day of our lives, whether or not we're aware of or willing to acknowledge them.

 

[ProfessorMoran]

The problem is that when you give money to a company which predictably gives some of that money to support immoral causes, you are causally responsible for some of that support. If you did not give the company your money, the immoral cause would likely receive less support. Therefore, if you think it's a good thing for immoral causes to receive as little support as possible, you have a reason to refrain from giving money to the company. If there are good alternatives to giving money to the company that don't produce (as much) support for immoral causes, you have an obligation to pursue those alternatives. This isn't that hard.

Each side thinks the other is immoral. We're talking about a company that sells fried chicken sandwiches, people eat there because they like fried chicken sandwiches, maybe the food is good, or the food is just cheap, who fucking cares, there's no "causal responsibility", what are you going to do? Stand outside and browbeat people who go in or through the drive-through? Harass regular families who just didn't want to cook that night? What the company does with its profits is its own business. Worse case scenario if you have such a problem then don't eat there, why judge people who would go there just for the food? I wouldn't care if subway or mcdonald's is pro-gay or anti-gay, I'm just looking for a cheap meal, companies should really just get their shits together and worry about the most important thing which is profit.

 

[JGS]

Even if marriage weren't a right, there is no legitimate argument to marriage to gay couples that is not directly tied to religion.

Someday the laws denying gay marriage will be argued before the supreme court as a violation of the 14th amendment and those laws will be struck down.

This is completely correct which is why it's so silly to argue about a company whose owners' views on gay marriage is tied to religious belief. What happens legally will not change that.

 

[JordanLMiller]

Chick-fil-a is delicious! Their views don't bother me that much, they make my food not the laws.

 

[Gotchaye]

Who says who's immoral again? We're talking about a company that sells fried chicken sandwiches, people eat there because they like fried chicken sandwiches, maybe the food is good, or the food is just cheap, who cares, there's no "causal responsibility", what are you going to do? Stand outside and browbeat people who go in or through the drive-through? Harass regular families who just didn't want to cook that night? What the company does with its profits is its own business. Worse case scenario if you have such a problem then don't eat there, why judge people who would go there just for the food?

What? All right. In order:

So we can't ever make moral judgments? I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with this first question. Yes, I believe that opposing gay marriage is an immoral purpose. Edit in response to edit: No shit each side thinks the other is immoral. What's your point?

I specified that there had to be "good alternatives". I allow that it's possible that CFL is so tasty or so convenient that it's justifiable for some people.

Obviously there's causal responsibility. If you go to CFL, probably more money goes to immoral causes than if you hadn't, provided you aren't putting that money into something worse. That firms up if you go very frequently. "What are you going to do?" Not give them my money.

I don't see how I can be taken to be advocating harassing people who eat at CFL.

Obviously what the company does with its profits is not just its business, given that part of what it does with its profits is attempt to interfere with other people's business (I'm not sure if the company does this or whether it's the people who capture most of the company's profits who do this. Either way).

I'm not judging people who go there just for food. I'll judge someone who goes there despite not really favoring CFL to any other fast food place and who is aware of this. I'll very much judge someone who goes there because they're aware of this.

Edit: "...the most important thing which is profit" That's a pretty strong statement, and one I imagine many here would disagree with strongly. But that aside, how does this have anything to do with what the people who end up capturing that profit choose to do with it? The amount of profit is one issue; the use to which that profit is put is another.

 

[blame space]

you gotta be a real asshole to keep eating at this place

 

[Laughing Banana]

I don't think that's a bad attitude to have--it would be great if everyone took time out of their day to consider issues of social justice--and I think it reflects negatively on society as a whole that so few people do assess their relationship with products and other humans and how they are complicit in supporting certain things...

But I also think that relationship is a personal one and in the absence of a demonstrated personal cruelty it's not for me to second-guess someone's reasons for doing things or not doing them. I might prod or remind someone about considerations it seems like they've missed or ignored, but in the end the decision they come to isn't worth picking apart.

Put it this way; in a country where half the people out there are personally against gay marriage, and easily a third are openly hateful in the way they express that, I wouldn't be too worried about the people who are pro-gay marriage but too attached to fried chicken to skip CFA for lunch.

Precisely, which is why I thought the hostilities depicted on this thread is rather unnecessary, although I guess I can understand why people can be passionate about it.

 

[EYEL1NER]

I'm probably a terrible person for having eaten here in the past:
http://www.mauricesbbq.com/

http://cornellsun.com/node/837

Maurice Bessinger is the founder and owner of the hugely popular chain, Maurice's Piggy Park, which serves what some people call the best barbecue in the state. But his pig is not his only claim to fame; Mr. Bessinger was an outspoken opponent of integration in the 50's and 60's. He even ran for governor of South Carolina on a platform of segregation, and he was longtime head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People (I guess the spotted owl club was full). Maurice's Piggy Park is known for keeping its dining room segregated long after most other restaurants had integrated theirs, leading the Supreme Court to force him to comply with the law.

http://www.scpronet.com/point/0010/lips.html

While it may be news to many people, Bessinger has been a white supremacist since he put a sign up in his Piggy Park eatery after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. It read: The law makes us serve *******, but any money we get from them goes to the Ku Klux Klan.

Spoiler

I don't eat there anymore. White supremacists don't make good BBQ.
I did feel pretty guilty after ordering too.

 

[Acerac]

Chick-fil-a is delicious! Their views don't bother me that much, they make my food not the laws.

Are you implying that they don't have any influence on the world? That the money that they donate does nothing? Or are you just saying that as long as long as they don't directly make laws you don't care about the influence they have?

I'm probably a terrible person for having eaten here in the past:
http://www.mauricesbbq.com/

http://cornellsun.com/node/837

http://www.scpronet.com/point/0010/lips.html

Spoiler

I don't eat there anymore. White supremacists don't make good BBQ.
I did feel pretty guilty after ordering too.

I'm sure their food is delicious. I could not eat there. I guess according to some in this thread I shouldn't worry so much about stuff like this but I just wouldn't be able to bring myself to support a company whose owner spouted those ethics.

 

[CornBurrito]

Chick-fil-a is delicious! Their views don't bother me that much, they make my food not the laws.

Corporate interests have had impact on numerous laws. Just sayin.

 

[Flo_Evans]

What if I eat at a clearly pro gay establishment once a week to balance out my chick a filla?

 

[Dorpheus]

Interesting. So it is mostly a matter of convenience and not principle? So convenience overrides principle? I mean, some people are arguing here that of course it is impossible for us to cut all the companies that may have views that disagreeable with ours since we can't possibly know about them all--which I agree, by the way, and so when a company is so willingly open about it, it is the moral responsibility of those disagreeing with it to stop supporting it.

However, the fact that those companies above are using less than ideal conditions to support their businesses are also open to the public and widely known. So? Isn't by purchasing their products while you know what they did means that you are also supporting whatever its that they did?

Also, to me it appears like unwillingness to depart from companies that you are disagreeing with since it is difficult to do when paired with willingness to depart from companies that you are disagreeing with since it is easy to do--well, it does appear that you are not feeling that strongly about your principles anyways; picking the "easy" road and all that.

I can't speak for others on this issue, but I've made it a big part of my life to try to avoid supporting companies with practices I find to be immoral whenever possible. This goes through a lot of things, from easy things like only buying fair trade coffee beans, to harder things like only buying shoes made without the abuse of workers. I've discovered that it is pretty much impossible to get electronic devices that don't have poor labor practices, but as it stands, that's not something that can be done without in our modern society unless I wish to become a hermit or become amish. Over time I've learned to limit the number of devices I buy by waiting for them to kick the bucket.

What it comes down to is- I do what I am capable of. Not everyone can cut as much of this stuff out of their lives as I've managed. And that's okay. Everyone has to be able to keep living- and for some people, they need the cheap products from child labor.

But for me, I will continue to try to cut this out, and hope that the noise that I, and others like me, make will grow loud enough that I will be able to vote not just with my wallet, but also with my actual vote. (I don't think CFA should be legally prevented from donating to whatever cause, but I do think that it would be good for the US to only trade with countries and businesses that can show a minimum respect for human beings)


TL;DR- Everyone has different limits, but I simply see no reason to support immoral behavior when I can avoid doing so. Electronic devices are an unfortunate necessity in today's society, and there is no electronics company (to my knowledge) that has humane manufacturing practices.

 

[Valnen]

Good food is good food, I'll eat there regardless. No reason to punish myself for the actions of other people. It's not like me not eating there would change anything anyways.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

There is a whole lot of pointless back-and-forths and goal post movements in this thread. For me, in my every day-to-day life, I'm much to engrossed and surrounded by the gay community for this not to upset me. My aunt and three cousins are gay, and I have upwards to around 8 gay friends. I don't care that this company is a Christian company; they eliminate a large portion of their demographic, which is young college and post graduated students, many of whom are gay or have gay friends.

So, no, I won't be buying from them anymore; I just don't like the precedent of a big, national company having a say in a civil rights national discussion that hits really close to home for me. I'll start making my own sandwiches.