Originally Posted by jtgain
I agree that is your right. However, I was watching one of the news channels last night and a conservative commentator mentioned that he still buys Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream because he loves the product, even though he knows that they contribute to many liberal causes he disagrees with.
For him, having the product is more important than not aiding the liberal causes. That's his right, and nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't stop patronizing a business that donated money to the Republican presidential campaign, myself.
For me, it's more important that the anti-SSM movement be hindered and slowed than it is for me to have a certain brand of chicken sandwich. That's my right and there's also nothing wrong with that.
If money is going to be analogous to speech, then Cathy can use corporate money to fund causes he believes in, and I can withhold money to avoid supporting causes I don't believe in.
If you really think that people should just vote with their wallets purely based on the quality of the product offered and not on actions the company takes, then we need to institute heavy regulations. Companies can no longer donate money to social and political campaigns, they must follow health and safety regs (no overseas sweatshops), and a host of other things nobody will likely be able to agree on.
Regardless of the details, every corporation will have to operate the exact same way so that consumer decisions will be limited to the products on offer and not the choices corporations make. That should be perfectly acceptable and workable to everyone, shouldn't it?