Hmm. Apartheid?
j
I used to buy stuff at a place called Aquatic Dog. It was a neat store, with an in-house Maine Coon cat, and they were very responsible about getting things off the shelf if there was a recall and pretty much only stocking the good brands of pet food. They also had fish and aquatic plants…
BUT…
They. Sold. Puppies.
I don’t know how these nice seeminlyg conscientious people handled it. Their propaganda included the phrase that they only got puppies from “responsible breeders” but, you know, responsible breeders make you fill out a three-page questionnaire and do a home visit before they will deign to sell you a puppy–they don’t ship them out to pet stores. Most of the puppies were weird breeds like “poma-poos” and “whoodles.” Or in other words mutts from a puppy mill.
I found another small pet store that did not sell puppies and talked them into ordering the stuff I fed my cats, which was not available everywhere. This is a small thing and did not hurt them. They’re still selling puppies. And the pictures online are really sad. It’s hard to take a puppy picture that isn’t cute.
Shortly after I stopped going there they had a break-in and some “thieves” stole four puppies. I actually think this was some kind of rescue operation. I don’t think these thieves wanted the puppies but just wanted to get them out of there. I could be wrong. But it was hard to feel sorry for the store owner because puppies should not be left in cages when the store is closed, and shouldn’t be sold in a store in the first place.
I’ve never boycotted any business for political reasons. What they believe or who they support is their business.
Long as they don’t try to push it off on me.
You’ve never heard of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? :dubious:
FWIW, I took BwanaBob’s first part of the statement as more of a throwaway line, and the second as the serious consideration. It seems as though those who want to criticize the act of not financially supporting businesses with policies that you disagree with have latched onto that first part, and STOPPED reading there.
Of course, some people only really have Sundays off themselves, and so would only partake upon amenities that are offered on Sunday. I boycotted the local Kroger when they stopped being open 24 hours. It was most convenient for me to shop at 2:00 AM after work, and when that was no longer an option, I took my patronage elsewhere, including the normal business hours. A personal boycott that I only ever bring up if asked why I am driving by the Kroger, but a boycott nonetheless. Not a moral or political reason, just a pragmatic one.
My view on Chik-Fil-A one is hard to say. I ate at the one in the mall most of the time when I went to the mall more than a few times a year, but I “boycotted” the mall, as I no longer had a reason to go there. I don’t really think about them all that much, but when I am thinking of eating fast food, I deliberatly do not consider them to be an option, primarily because of their stance on LGBT issues, and I don’t really consider their sunday shuttering to be of any import, IMHO.
I don’t order pizza all that often, but when I do, I specifically do not count Papa John’s as an option, though I stopped doing that back when he complained that he would have to give his employees healthcare. His more recent controversial views have only confirmed that decision. Given time, and his ouster, I may consider their pizza again.
I stopped going to BP after the Deepwater Horizon spill. I don’t know that I really need to hold to that boycott, but with so many other options, it’s not really out of my way to skip them.
As far as actual moral reasons, there have been a number of establishments that I have informed the management that I would not be patronizing them anymore due to the way that they treated their employees. I was in a Penn-Station the other day, and the manager started screaming a profanity laced tirade at one of his employees over some pretty trivial shit. I don’t really appreciate such antics, and I let him know that.
I actually stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A after the news of the company funding ex-gay organizations came out. A few years later, when they mostly reversed themselves and removed the business from funding those groups, I went back. A company should be rewarded when it makes a change based on pressure (otherwise no one would do anything). The owners are of course anti-LGBTQ, but they can spent their money as they wish, IMO. And I never had a problem with them being closed on Sundays (except when I was craving a chicken sandwich).
Jimmy John’s Subs. I don’t like their politics, but my main reason is that they require their employees to sign a non-compete Claus forbidding them to make sandwiches anywhere else. It’s an absolutely disgusting requirement.
Dropped two years ago.
I hadn’t actually heard of that one.
Though they hadn’t dropped it voluntarily, they were legally forced to do so.
Also, I come across info about NY and Illinois, but no where else. I that because they didn’t do non-competes in other states, or because they haven’t been successfully sued about it yet?
Nope. My post specifically mentioned I didn’t think boycotting over the traditional/non traditional marriage thing was as extreme as the Sunday thing. And then somebody else right after the ‘Nemo’ post saying how the Sunday thing was something imagined by ‘conservatives’…chimed in to say why they indeed thought it a matter of principal to oppose the ‘religious proselytizing’ of being closed on Sunday.
Maybe it’s not that many people being that ridiculous, but I didn’t say anything about the numbers, just responded to one person who did say that. And even if that was pure sarcasm (which I really don’t think it was), somebody else soon reiterated it and was obviously entirely serious.
I used to live in a small town that had a little hole-in-the-wall natural grocery that was owned by a Seventh-Day Adventist; they worship on Saturdays, and that’s when the store was closed. Cool little store, too, open in large part to cater to her fellow believers’ vegetarian diets, but obviously open to the public.
There are several Asian groceries in my area, and the biggest one closes on Hindu holidays; otherwise, it’s open every day, including Christmas and Sundays.
I’m in the UK – overall, I enjoy Wetherspoons pubs and what they provide. I must be, though, one of the few Dopers with minimal interest in politics or current affairs (concerning the above-mentioned political issue, I vaguely feel that it would be preferable for Britain to be in the EU rather than out; but to me the whole thing is highly wearisome, and I wish to God that the word “Brexit” could be terminated, totally and with immediate effect).
With my outlook, I’m not inclined towards boycotting things; but in recent months, have felt tempted a few times to give that treatment to Wetherspoons, much though I like the outfit – because when passing a pleasant hour or several in a pub, I do not want to have shoved in my face, printed harangues about the iniquities from a pub chain’s point of view, of the EU and European stuff – which diatribes full of the “wisdom” of the boss-man T. Martin, are placed on every table. As things are, I make a point whenever I’m in a Wetherspoons pub, of moving that shit away onto the nearest vacant table.
Wow, the boycotting for being closed on Sunday is so bigoted. It echoes the racist old men of my youth that begrudged MLK Day out of a lack of “fairness.” or someone that would boycott a store closed on Juneteenth. When our local Asian food store closes for Diwali, I don’t say, “Those hatemongerers, I’m done wirh them. They have Muslim workers that would be happier getting off Eid.”
You honestly prefer that workers lose what is honestly an excellent benefit because it corresponds with a Christian holy day instead of a Tuesday, in comparison with other stores who prefer to schedule their employees randomly so they can never plan time with their families and now have one more day they have to scramble for daycare? I’m sure their workers thank you for your stance.
Excluded middle fallacy.
Either I’m politically unconscious/morally bereft, or the stores targeted for being hostile to All That Is Good are places I don’t shop - but I can’t recall ever boycotting anyone other than for selling lousy merchandise and/or providing rotten service.
I never ate at a Cracker Barrel before or during their years in the wilderness of progressive opinion, but more recently found they aren’t a bad place to get breakfast on the road.
Can someone give me a nutshell version of the Amazon thing? I was surprised to see them mentioned.
… and they help me avoid Hobby Lobby, which I actively find problematic.
I work in a store owned by Orthodox Jewish people, and we close two hours before sundown on Friday and are opened on Saturday night two hours after sundown. I cannot tell you how many people think they should be able to shop on Friday as late as they want, and are surprised we can sell anything on Sunday. Some people think it’s an outrage we are discriminating against Christians.
Long story short: not unlike how Walmart puts Mom & Pop, local stores out of business, Amazon does the same thing, but online. Similarly, their workers are subject to conditions that many would find deplorable.
That’s a pretty poor example for the general effectiveness of boycotts.
For one, it’s about as ideal as you are going to find for getting strong economic effects. Three-quarters of the riders on the bus were people being actively discriminated every time they rode. There was also a considerable amount of support given to mitigating the problems caused to those participating in the boycott - cheaper taxi fares, community carpool organization, and even donations of shoes for those walking more often. Even with those excellent conditions, the boycott itself failed to produce a change. The bus line stayed segregated for over a year despite the boycott. Desegregation only happened after it was court ordered.
A new boycott target, for me.
I am a lifelong (well, since they moved in 1958) San Francisco Giants fan. Their principle owner, Charles Johnson, has recently surfaced as the financier for right wing, verging on racist, candidates outside of California. He was a financer of the Arkansas ads run by a white millionaire PAC mislabeled “Black Americans for the President’s Agenda”. The ad had stereotypical black women speaking to each other throwing out lines like, “We can’t afford to let white Democrats take us back to bad old days of race verdicts, life sentences and lynchings when a white girl screams rape.”
Now it is revealed that Johnson and his wife have each made maximum contributions to the campaign of Cindy Hyde-Smith, the contributions being made *after *her comments on public hangings. I don’t know if her support for limiting the votes of liberals came before or after the contributions.
So I have decided that I can no longer support the Giants by buying their merchandise, attending their games, watching or listening to the games, or rooting for them, so long as Johnson is affiliated with them.