Companies you won't patronize because of their owners/ads?

In My Humble Opinion
81

In the end your money gets spread about so much in the economy the idea that you don’t want your dollars to go to causes you don’t support is ridiculous. Depending on where you live and how much you make a good chunk of your money is going to be spent by the government, who, depending on which political party is in power is almost certainly going to be spending it for causes you don’t support.

The only type of “withholding” that I think makes sense would be to attempt to effect some sort of change directly with the business in question. For example, refusing to give money to a business that has been accused of discriminating against employees based on race.

But to oppose a business just because of how they spend their (because it isn’t really your money anymore anyways) money? That’s ludicrous. For every business you frequent where you actually know what the money gets spent on I can all but guarantee there are dozens that you will never have any idea what the money gets spent on, and some of it will certainly be spent on things you don’t like.

Also, just because you can do something doesn’t make it right. I could decide to walk two extra blocks to a different grocery store because I don’t want to go to the one that is frequented by lots of blacks, or that has a black owner. That is my right, but that doesn’t change the fact it is a reprehensible stance, whether or not anyone else has to find my reasons sufficiently compelling.

82

Mmmm … not really. She had to take fertility drugs to get pregnant … everything had to be choreographed pretty tightly. What pisses her off about the P&G ad is the very strong suggestion that, by using that product, a woman can actually enjoy having a period. My wife’s were always kind of harsh … and that’s as far as I need to go down that road.

83

Well it could *only * be Jared’s. That’s Jareeedss… :smiley:

84

Where do you come up with this stuff? Let’s start at the end - if you chose to pass by a store that is frequented and owned by sheet-wearing KKK in favor of one that is not, that is reprehensible? I do NOT want to live in your world.

You realize that you called everyone in this thread “ludicrous” for making choices based on how a business spends its money. Most of these posts have been about business buying annoying commercials, but what’s the difference? The money will get spread around anyway. Might as well give all my money to an organization that is antithetical to my core beliefs.

And the first paragraph… equating buying a non-essential McChristian meal for lunch and paying taxes? Huh? I can lose my house for not paying taxes, I just end up with a different hunk o’ chicken otherwise.

85

Not in my household - or many others throughout history and the world.

A fellow believer may well view this jeweller’s ad as an innocent expression of faith. To this non-believer in this largely believing country, it comes across as an aggressive “Fuck you, you are wrong!” Moreover, they apparently feel that they do not need to be the least bit sensitive to beliefs other than theirs on this issue. I read it as saying, “We don’t want your business” - a request with which I was happy to comply.

(I guess I should clarify that this ad did not simply say "Jesus is the reason for the season, but instead contained a rather lengthy paragraph of type, addressing the “Christmas under siege” argument.)

I am able to choose where I spend my money, especially on such items as fast food or jewelry. I not only don’t believe in God/gods, but I’m not a fan of many aspects of organized religion. So I simply choose not to go out of my way to put it in the pockets of folk with whom I greatly differ on this significant issue.

Fortunately for overt christians, I and my fellow non-believers are sufficiently in the minority that they can insult us openly without risking a significant financial loss.

86

Please don’t get huffy…I already said that it is your right to patronize whatever business you choose, for whatever reason you choose. I am not trying to give anyone a hard time, I’m just trying to understand the thought process. The way I see it, it makes logical sense to boycott/not patronize a business because you specifically know that they support organizations with goals you don’t agree with. I do this, as I believe it is probably the best way to get your point across in a capitalist democracy. But when people posting here said they wouldn’t patronize these Christian companies, no one mentioned anything about where the money is going, etc., they just said they didn’t like the company because they put some kind of message out to the community that they are Christian. How would it have sounded to you if I said there was a store I avoid in my neighborhood because it is owned by Muslims? Or because it is owned by blacks? Or because it is owned by (fill in the black ethnic/religious group)? I think you need to have a little more to back it up, other than “they are Christian, they must be doing SOMETHING I need to boycott them for.”

87

Right, but I think that in this case, one could reasonably assume that they were referring to the holiday season, not the winter season. If it were not for Christmas, let’s face it, there would not be the holiday frenzy at that time of year that there is. The only other major religion that has a holiday at that time of year, I believe (correct me if I’m wrong), is Judaism, and any Jew will tell you that Hanukkah is a minor holiday that has been inflated in our culture due to the existence of Christmas at the same time. Ramadan sometimes falls in the winter, as it moves around the year. But, pretty much, if it wasn’t for Christmas, winter would just be…winter.

This clarifies things a little…a whole diatribe about this subject is a little different from just stating the obvious fact that Christmas IS a Christian holiday.

So, you also avoid business owned by religious Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc.?

If someone overtly insults you, then I agree that you are more than within your rights to boycott them.

88

Ack. I’m afraid we’re derailing this thread. It started out fun and kind of light-hearted, and then religion got involved. Should we take this somewhere else?
I know some people that won’t shop at The Shane Company because of the radio ads, but I kind of like 'em. (Tom Shane is in all of them. Kind of a dull guy)

89

We can, if you want…maybe it isn’t worth it, really…I didn’t mean to hijack the thread, and I more than happy to go away quietly. It’s not something I’d necessarily like to have a loud debate about. I was just curious about some of the statements.

90

You really could stand to do a little reading. I and a number of other folks heartily disagree with just about every aspect in these paragraphs of yours. This has been discussed in great detail on these boards and elsewhere.

A couple of responses. First, while one might argue the impact muslims and jews have on US foreign policy, I do not perceive those religions as a whole having as significantly deleterious an impact on US domestic policy as Christianity. For the time being, there simply ain’t enough of them. When I start seeing legislation urging mandatory bowing towards Mecca in schools, prohibiting the sale of alcohol between Friday and Saturday evening, or permitting female genital mutilation, I may rethink my stance. IMO right now in the US, Christianity is a far greater threat to personal freedom and rational thought than all other religions involved. (I might add, that probably includes terrorism - unless you irrationally hold the terrorists responsible for all of our governments irrational response to incidents of terror including an inexcusable war, out-of-control government spending and reprehensible attacks on civil liberties. Hell, can’t blame the terrorists for being lucky enough to choose a stupid target that would over-react. But that is probably best addressed in another thread! ;))

Further, there is a difference between “practicing” a religion and “evangelizing” - and I would characterize my local jeweler and Chick Fila in the latter category. If a muslim run business advocated terrorism, or openly supported policies or causes I disagreed with, then I certainly would express my opinion with my wallet. I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to patronize a jewish-owned business if the owner made a big deal out of his support for Israeli causes, because I am not a huge fan of our historical relationship with that state. But whether or not a business owner was jewish would have no influence on my patronage.

91

My husband won’t stay in a Holiday Inn Express because of their ads. He got really offended by the one with the woman suggesting the bus drive over the bridge. He’s an… interesting man.

92

I’d love to continue the discussion, hopefully without name calling & etc., but I don’t want to bore anyone. I’m not going to start something new, especially as Dinsdale points out that this had been done before, that and I’d probably put it in the wrong place and screw up the title.
I try to avoid any sale that advertises “Save up to 20% or more!” or some variation thereof. “up to x or more” I hate that, it’s meaning less. I predict right now that I’m going to live for up to another 20 minutes, OR MORE!

93

Actually, I won’t patronize Chick-Fil-A for two reasons, even though I loved their chicken sandwiches and rather like their ads. First, I’ve heard they prefer to not even hire non-Christians, in addition to points which have already been brought up. Second, the last time I ate at one, I ordered a plain chicken sandwich. As I ate it rather hastily (I was running out of time for lunch that day), I bit into a pickle which was lurking right in the center of the sandwich! As a pickle-hater, that was the last straw! Sheesh! There wasn’t time to get another sandwich; there wasn’t time to do much but wash the taste out with soda, hurry back to the office, and mutter “Never again!” :eek:

There was an ad a few months ago which demonized a young man running for office because he didn’t own a home or have kids. I would have contacted the candidate running the ad saying he’d lost my vote, but the ad wasn’t run by a candidate. It was run by the party this young man didn’t belong to, and, while I may be independent, boycotting an entire party isn’t practical.

94

  1. Any of the local plumbers, landscapers, etc. with Jesus fish or Bible quotes in their ads. You want to attract customers by flashing your religion around? That cuts both ways.

  2. Washington Mutual. I moved from California to Washington several years ago, and at the time, they had commercials featuring rich Californians coming up and taking money away from poor little ol’ Washingtonians, until the “rodeo Grandmas” stopped them. I didn’t appreciate the insult to my home state, and I hate rodeos. Now they have branches in California. Ha!

(Actually, I broke down last year and opened a savings account there, since they had better rates than my other bank, but I eventually canceled it after many horrible experiences with the incompetent clowns they call customer service reps.)

95

Those ads irritated me so much I couldn’t go in their stores. Something about the old hag who used to star in them really bugged me.

The worst was a local carpet place in Ohio called Buddy’s Carpet Barn. I don’t know if he’s still in business, but my dad couldn’t even listen to the guy. He turned the set off the minute Buddy’s face showed up on the screen. Needless to say, we were never shopping there.

96

It’s just “Buddy’s Carpets.” (Carpet Barn and Tile House is a different outfit and Buddy’s dropped the “Barn” to prevent confusion.)

[shrill, nasal voice] “I don’t care about makin’ money! I jus’ lo-o-o-o-ove to sell carpet.” [s, n v]

(For the last four or five years, Buddy has been missing from the ads and a rather attractive woman with no corny spiel has replaced him.)

97

I find it disturbing that dudes here won’t patronize a business if it’s Christian. If I said I wouldn’t patronize a business as the owners are Jewish or Muslim, then I’d be called- correctly- a bigot. Even if they are attempting to “spread the word”, it’s still bigotry and spreading the word is something many Americans have died to protect- Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion.

Now, sure- if the Jewish owner was a rabid Zionist, or the Muslim donated to Al-Quada, or if the Christian owner donated heavily to “pro-life” (Curves) sure. Because then you are disagreeing with their political views as opposed to simply their* faith.* I dislike Curves as the owner heavily supports anti-abortion movements… incidentally, it seems because of his faith. (Do note that not all Xtians are anti-abortion, or support “blue laws” or prayer in the schools, or…).

Saying you won’t patronize a business simply as they are closed on Sunday or put a Xtian Fish on their ad seems a LOT like bigotry to me. Unless they are donating heavily or openly supporting to some political cause, it’s just plain wrong. Sorry.

98

I’ve found that to be true. Any goober telling you how religious they are and how they’re a good follower of whatever religion they happen to believe in, is most likely just lubing you up for a good screwing. I’ve turned down jobs at places which prominantly displayed religous symbols (outside of a holiday season) because I’ve found that they tend screw people over.

There was a jewellery store in the area that had commercials with the most horrific caterwauling jingles you can imagine. Tying the tails of two cats together and throwing them in a metal trash can filled with razor blades would be more enjoyable to listen to. They got bought out when the owner was busted for cocaine smuggling and the new owners have changed the name slightly and dropped the horrific jingles, but I’ll be damned if I ever set foot in one of those places.

99

You seem to be confused.

In my example, I said it would be reprehensible to refuse to patronize a store because of the owner’s ethnicity, whereas in this ludicrous counter-point you are trying to say that, me saying this is saying that “in my world, it is reprehensible to pass by a store ran by openly garbed members of the KKK.”

Not only is that ludicrous, it doesn’t even make sense in the context of what I wrote. Seriously, did you misunderstand me that bad? Or did you just misread me?

No, it would not be reprehensible to pass by KKK-Mart, you’d be passing a store because you did not wish to patronize an establishment that was ran/frequented by people who pursue an active, violent, and reprehensible racist agenda. It would (to repeat it a second time) be reprehensible to refuse to patronize a store purely because of the ethnicity of the owner.

Again, you’re missing the point.

It makes perfect sense not to patronize a business because you dislike the owner, or you dislike the organization. For example, not frequenting Wal-Mart because you don’t like their stance towards organized labor, or not frequenting <hypothetical company> because they are a “non-profit” Pro-Life organization that sells books/other media to help cover their operating costs.

However, it is ludicrous to withhold your consumer dollars because some huge, multinational corporation happens to donate some money to a Catholic Charity. It’s one thing to not wish to patronize an organization that is antithetical to your core beliefs, it’s quite another to “withhold” funds from a business that happens to donate money to groups you aren’t favorable towards.

Ah, so there’s a negative connotation towards being Christian? How many times over do you wish to demonstrate your bigotry?

As for the rest of this, again, you’re either misunderstanding me or deliberately lying about what I said. I never equated not paying taxes to not buying a meal. No real, read what I wrote again, maybe two, three, four, five or six times until you notice that no, I really never said that. And it’s personally something I consider intellectually dishonest to make a post saying I said something I never said.

With my remarks towards taxes, my point was that since individuals pay in the ballpark of 30% of their money unwillingly on taxes (which the government can use for virtually anything) it’s kind of silly that they really worry about how the other 70% gets used after they are done with it.

100

“Enlightened” anti-religious bigotry at its best.