Any chance you two lovebirds will knife and make up?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my not buying products from companies like Koch Industries that are hell bent on destroying this country because of their own personal demons. It’s my decision.
I also don’t eat Chick-Fil-A because it’s crap and I’m not fat.
That’s exactly what I said, that it’s an individual decision. What I’m specifically saying is I think it’s bad for society to start walling off our lives based on political ideological compatibility. There’s a disturbing trend I think of people on the left and right who equate the other side to “evil.”
Yes, it is your decision. I think it is a bad decision that lowers your own quality of life, makes life needlessly more complicated than it should be, and hurts society as a whole more than anything Dan Cathy does. But yes, it is your decision, and that’s what I was saying when I said “free country and all that.”
Not much can be done when Condescending Robot basically posts the most intentionally inflammatory bullshit idiocy I’ve seen in awhile. If he wants to start a tard fight I’m fine to oblige him.
You will be disowned by your own family for your cretinous attitudes towards human rights and die alone and unloved.
Well, maybe not by his family. By Jesus, perhaps.
I don’t think not buying Brawny Paper Towels, Dixie Products and Northern Toilet paper lowers the quality of my life. I don’t feel have to give them my money when there’s other alternatives out there.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. There are lots of businesses that are associated with conservative causes, because they think it’s good for business. Well, whatever. Apart from anything else, I just don’t have time to vet all the people I do business with based on their political activity.
This is a businesses that is going out of its way to associate itself with a conservative cause because they don’t like queers, and has been very public about it. I can only assume they intend to be pigeonholed based on this.
I’m well past my fortieth year of boycotting Coors. If I see substantial change, I am willing to consider ending my boycott. Damned if I’ll drink any of that hamster pee, regardless.
Which brings us right back around to the hypocrisy mentioned in the thread title, because the entire gay rights issue exist solely because people like Dan Cathy are deliberately politicizing my private life. I can’t separate them, because people like him (and you) keep putting my private life on the ballot. You’ve created a political fight that’s deliberately personal. Don’t fucking whine about it when your victims get personal right back at you.
I don’t have any problem with gay marriage and in 2006 I voted against the Virginia amendment (it passed with 57% of the vote–I doubt it would pass if voted on in 2012.)
So I don’t have any victims, nor is anyone “getting personal right back at me.” I’m not Dan Cathy or an owner of Chick-fil-A, how is anyone getting personal right back at me?
While I wouldn’t vote to prohibit same sex marriage, you are quite incorrect that it’s your private life. I don’t think the State should regulate marriages, and I’m vehemently opposed to any special rights for married persons. But that being said, legal marriage (which is what gays care about…they can get the ritual and social / emotional bond regardless of the law) is not private, it is a state-sanctioned act which is explicitly public. It creates public records, it involves public officials, and most importantly it is wholly a creation of Statute. The concept of marriage started as a ritual and eventually the State got involved, arguing that the State created legal marriage is just your private business is false, it is the creation of the government and while I disagree with the way it is set up as a creature of statute I see no reason it shouldn’t be on the table of political debate and decision making.
So… marriage is public, but donations to advocacy groups are private?
They’ve discovered fire? Uh-oh.
If it was simply a matter of the personal speech of Cathy, or even some other issue, then I would agree. I do think there is too much polarization on many issues and it significantly hurts our ability to compromise and get things done.
The problem about this case is twofold. First is that he’s materially supporting anti-gay causes with profits from the business, not just exercising individual speech. By shopping at Chik-Fil-A, I increase their profits and their ability to materially support this. Thus, I’m indirectly contributing. Secondly, it’s the specifics of what he’s supporting. It’d be one thing if he was supporting the NRA or some other conservative cause where I feel there is middle ground. Persecuting gay people – and that’s what groups like Focus on the Family are after, not just being against gay marriage being legalized but against any recognition or rights whatsoever – is morally wrong, and I just don’t want to be a part of that.
I guess I’ll put it this way; the NAMBLA or KKK fundraiser might have the most delightful lemon bars in town, but I still think I’ll pass.
Marriage law is a public political matter, donations to advocacy groups are private political acts. My point is I don’t choose to wall off my business relationships to only include people whose private political acts correspond with my political beliefs.
I’m not saying people shouldn’t be allowed to wall themselves off like that, I just don’t think it’s really good for society…we’re supposed to be a society that interacts with those we disagree with. Nor do I think it is particularly effective at changing behavior, in most scenarios. Basically I’d not do it and I think there are good reasons no one should do it, but people are always free to do what they want (within the bounds of the law.)
You’re not contributing though. You aren’t morally culpable for the decisions of others. If you buy the services of a hitman that is immoral because your motive is to have someone killed, if your motive is just to get a chicken sandwich you’re morally clear.
Plus I don’t know, if you really think you are morally connected to the decisions people make with money you give them for unrelated products and services how far does that “fruit of the poisonous tree” spread?
Burger King is considered LGBT friendly, but what if their biggest food supplier is vehemently anti-gay rights? Indirectly the money you use to buy your hamburger is going into that food supplier’s coffers which are used for things you’re opposed to…does morality attach to that or not?
Right now, I’m ignorant of any official public policy stances promoted or supported by any of Burger Kings’ suppliers (and, hypotheticals notwithstanding, have no reason to presume those businesses make any specific use of their profits for advocacy). But I do know about Cathy’s stances on some specific issues, and I do know that he directs some of the money made from sales of food in his stores to organizations which promote causes I consider immoral. So if I choose to patronize Chick Fil A, I cannot morally disconnect myself from Cathy’s advocacy. He’s already told me how he’s going to use part of my sandwich money.
If a business publicly declares political activism and I’m made aware of that, I should decide whether I care about that policy, and my level of give-a-shit should determine how I deal with that company in the future.
Only to you, and it’s safe to say your moral code is not shared by a great many people. Many people have the capacity to think beyond one step, and in fact consider complex relationships and ramifications.
That’s on Burger King. If it’s known that their supplier is vehemently anti-gay, then as a consciously gay-friendly company they should be obligated to cut that business relationship. If they don’t, then that says that their business relationship with that supplier is more important than their stance on gay rights. To some people, that won’t matter, since gay rights is low on their priority list. To others, it will matter, and it will suggest to them that BK’s own stance is mere hot air not backed up by action, and they may choose to stop eating at BK because of that.
But all that depends on information. We humans are not omniscient and do not have perfect information of every company we do business with. We have to make choices based on the information we have, or seek out the information if what we have is insufficient for our priorities. I don’t know anything about BK’s suppliers, and until I do I’ll assume they’re neutral or pro on the issue (since they’re willing to deal with BK). On the other side of the coin, Cathy has made his views very clear, and that affects my relationship with CFA.
Again, it’s not just a person. Chick-Fil-A donates to FOTF et al. It’s not just the Cathys.
That’s an irrelevant distinction. I’m using Cathy interchangeably with Chick-fil-A because it is a privately owned, closely held corporation. By and large the Cathy family is almost synonymous with Chick-fil-A because of that.
If people are arguing they don’t want to buy Chick-fil-A because money will be used to go to causes they do not support, then the distinction between Cathy and CFA are irrelevant. Cathy is a major owner of CFA, he directly receives money in the form of dividends etc from CFA and in salary, so even if CFA as a company didn’t make these donations but Cathy did, under the “poisonous tree” ideology it’s irrelevant whether CFA itself is making the donations or members of the Cathy family.
But the problem with consequentialist ethics is it can justify the most horrific acts, because you look at the consequences instead of the innate morality of the acts themselves. Buying a chicken sandwich is not immoral.
The only real rebuttal to the poisonous tree argument appears to be “I’m too lazy to know how Burger King’s suppliers behave so I’m morally absolved from any of the consequences.” If you’re a consequentialist I don’t see how it can be immoral just because you happen to know the consequences but moral if you don’t know, if your morality is anything other than populist window dressing you’d then have an obligation to heavily research every company with which you do business. Because if there is a true moral impact to what someone does with money that used to be yours then you have a moral responsibility to do due diligence to find out how that money is put to use. To not do so but to continue to say it is immoral to buy chicken sandwiches from Chick-fil-A is the height of hypocrisy.