If a sandwich shop supported an abhorrent cause

[LucyDuke]

Consider, if you will, the big fuss about Chick-fil-A.

Suppose now that the activist group that the company supported was instead the KKK. Suppose that material support was given because of a sincere religious belief that somehow their god said that societies should not be multicolored.

(The point is to neutralize the [good cause / bad cause] factor in the story. It's not to compare the KKK to the activist groups supported by the sammich shop, or whether religion can be invoked to defend rasism, so I'd appreciate if we could at least delay that discussion, if not avoid it outright.)

How would the situation be different if the controversial organization were one that everyone here finds abhorrent? If the KKK isn't bad enough to change the question, what about the WBC? NAMBLA? Substitute whatever group you need.

 

[Mise]

Well I definitely wouldn't eat there, and hopefully nobody else will too. Free market ftw!

TBH I find it weird that a lot of supposedly free-market types are actually against the protests and the boycott themselves. The boycott in particular is surely the true demonstration of the free market in action. People say that we don't need regulations, because if companies do abhorrent things, people will boycott them. But then, some company does an abhorrent thing, and people boycott them, and suddenly the boycott is silly? I don't get it. I'm probably mischaracterising "them" unfairly, but it still seems weird. I'm good with boycotts. You dont wanna eat somewhere? Good on you, hope it works out. I'll make my own choice, and hopefully the good will prevail.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I already boycott companies for legal but shady tax dodging. Of course I'll boycott a racist fast food place.

 

[downtown]

I wouldn't eat there, but as long as there were no safety concerns, I would hope my local politicians wouldn't prevent it from opening. Better for them to open a location and nobody eat there...that would hurt them more.

I think I would be okay with using zoning to prevent KKK BURGER from opening next to a jewish school or something though, like I think keeping Chick Fil A away from a Gay community center would be okay.

 

[Souron]

"Supported" could mean either aligned political beliefs, or monitarily support.I would still eat at a place if the owner, sharholder, or ceo was a rasist. I would not eat their if I felt that the chain funded racist activities. Though it's often hard to tell if the money I spend could go to the abhorent cause, this is the principle I would use.

 

[LucyDuke]

In this case I believe that the owner/CEO had the beliefs and corporate funds were given to activist groups (charity write-offs?). Money is definitely moving.

 

[luiz]

How good is this KKK Burger?

 

[holy king]

they only use white meat

 

[Patroklos]

The KKK uses violence to further their ends, so you attempt at comparison fails.

If you had equated it with a racist organization that wasn't violent, the exercise would work better.

 

[Furiey]

I still remember the boycott of Barclays bank by students in the 80s for investment in South Africa supporting apartheid. It's entirely up to you where you buy from and if a company goes against what you believe then why should you give them your money?

 

[Quackers]

It is down to what you think is worse.
Personally SSM features way down on my "care" list. I'm happy for gays to get married but if they were not allowed too - I wouldn't boycott a resteraunt over it. I think the whole thing about the rights of gays being violated is a bit over the top and people need some perspective.

However if there was a place which funded the BNP or the Communist Party of Great Britain or the Real IRA. I would avoid it because there goals and priorities are sick. I already boycott Roman Polanski films, I boycotted CO-OP for almost a year because they refused to serve a British soldier in uniform and a few others I can't mention. I'm still nowhere near VCRW_Agent's level - he has boycotted one company for 25 years, what a hero.

 

[Patroklos]

Well I definitely wouldn't eat there, and hopefully nobody else will too. Free market ftw!

TBH I find it weird that a lot of supposedly free-market types are actually against the protests and the boycott themselves. The boycott in particular is surely the true demonstration of the free market in action. People say that we don't need regulations, because if companies do abhorrent things, people will boycott them. But then, some company does an abhorrent thing, and people boycott them, and suddenly the boycott is silly? I don't get it. I'm probably mischaracterising "them" unfairly, but it still seems weird. I'm good with boycotts. You dont wanna eat somewhere? Good on you, hope it works out. I'll make my own choice, and hopefully the good will prevail.

There is a difference between being against the boycott in that you don't agree with the premise of it/think its stupid/think its unfair/think is based on nothing of note and are are not going to support it yourself and and being against a boycott in that you want boycotts legally banned.

I have seen nobody of note claim that the boycott should be illegal, merely that it is stupid for various reasons.

You are welcome to boycott for whatever reason you like, I am welcome to counteract your boycott for whatever reason I want.

 

[NBAfan]

Same sex attraction is not the same as race.

 

[Farm Boy]

The KKK uses violence to further their ends, so you attempt at comparison fails.

If you had equated it with a racist organization that wasn't violent, the exercise would work better.

The new "kinder and gentler" Klan is attempting to move this way. If you are inclined to believe their current approximation of a leader(wizard, hehehe) they're shifting away from supremacy and towards heritage and community involvement. If they ever get approved to adopt-a-highway that is. So maybe the KKK would work after all.

Either way, boycotts and protests are great. I'm all for people and their civic involvement. Some folks might even put down their familiarssmartphones long enough to actually do something instead of reading about something. City/state/local governments using either expressly given or soft power to muscle or box out a business in legal compliance but with an unpopular(even abhorrent) social or religious point of view? Exactly what shouldn't be allowed in a society that doesn't wish to be a tyranny of the majority.

 

[Formaldehyde]

they only use white meat

It sounds like the perfect group to open a chicken burger restaurant. Perhaps they can get KFC to sponsor them, as they did with George Wallace's presidency run to try to counter desegregation and civil rights for all blacks.

In response to the OP, I would hope the mayors of the cities where they wished to locate would react in exactly the same way that the mayors of Chicago and Boston have courageously done with CFA. Many politicians these days seem to be too worried about offending the bigots to take such stands.

 

[Zelig]

I already boycott most chain fast food places because I find their corporate policies to be abhorrent.

 

[JollyRoger]

I wouldn't eat there, but as long as there were no safety concerns, I would hope my local politicians wouldn't prevent it from opening. Better for them to open a location and nobody eat there...that would hurt them more.

I think I would be okay with using zoning to prevent KKK BURGER from opening next to a jewish school or something though, like I think keeping Chick Fil A away from a Gay community center would be okay.

What if a big gay comminity center wanted to be located next to a Chick-fil-a or next to the Focus on the Family headquarters?

We already know that many Chick-fil-a defenders were more than ok with stopping a Muslim-backed community center via local government action.

 

[MobBoss]

Consider, if you will, the big fuss about Chick-fil-A.

Suppose now that the activist group that the company supported was instead the KKK. Suppose that material support was given because of a sincere religious belief that somehow their god said that societies should not be multicolored.

(The point is to neutralize the [good cause / bad cause] factor in the story. It's not to compare the KKK to the activist groups supported by the sammich shop, or whether religion can be invoked to defend rasism, so I'd appreciate if we could at least delay that discussion, if not avoid it outright.)

How would the situation be different if the controversial organization were one that everyone here finds abhorrent? If the KKK isn't bad enough to change the question, what about the WBC? NAMBLA? Substitute whatever group you need.

I'd draw the line at groups actually recognized by the federal government (in the KKKs instance the FBI) as long practicing hate groups.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'd draw the line at groups actually recognized by the federal government (in the KKKs instance the FBI) as long practicing hate groups.

There wasn't such a group involved in the Park 51 community center.

 

[Farm Boy]

There wasn't such a group involved in the Park 51 community center.

Well, I don't think you are addressing me, but the Park 51 center should have been able to move ahead without governmental obstruction. People should be able to be tacky enough to protest it though, should they choose.