If a sandwich shop supported an abhorrent cause

[holy king]

Same sex attraction is not the same as race.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/comparison

comparison noun

1a consideration or estimate of the similarities or dissimilarities between two things or people

 

[MobBoss]

And since we are in the Chamber... politically?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Basically a serious answer to your line.

 

[downtown]

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.

That's a good question, and I'm not sure I could come up with an answer without more specifics.

 

[illram]

Boycott or protest whatever you want, but I draw the line at zoning political beliefs out of existence. Good or bad. Which is currently how land use law works in this country, Menino and Rahm and Lee's "bold" political statements aside.

Big Gay Community center near a Chick-fil-A is A-OK with me if it meets all the other criteria for that zone.

 

[MobBoss]

Basically a serious answer to your line.

My 'line' was a serious answer.

 

[Angst]

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.

It's not important to the example, at all, whether the KKK actually uses violence.

The exemplifying of KKK was only done to provide some sort of abstract idea of the corporation actually supporting something hatefully bad. The KKK itself doesn't matter.

 

[LucyDuke]

I try to boycott fast food places because the food is unhealthy, mot bothered about there corporate policies.

I don't boycott so much as not eat that, but yeah, me too. If it weren't a food place things might be more interesting.

I wouldnt buy their burgers.

I find it interesting that you would boycott something based not on whether it provided material support to a cause you personally consider abhorrent, but based on a government list.

 

[Tahuti]

Milton Friedman once claimed that businesses shouldn't do anything else but make money, lest totalitarianism ensues.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Milton Friedman once claimed that businesses shouldn't do anything else but make money, lest totalitarianism ensues.

I preferred Henry Ford's comment.

And I require farmers to provide real food rather than money as I can not eat
the intellectual fiction known as money.

 

[Cutlass]

Milton Friedman once claimed that businesses shouldn't do anything else but make money, lest totalitarianism ensues.

Friedman was also kind of an idiot. Not that he never did anything useful, but he certainly did far more harm than good.

 

[Farm Boy]

I preferred Henry Ford's comment.

And I require farmers to provide real food rather than money as I can not eat
the intellectual fiction known as money.

We do, but that certainly does not stop people from trying to politicize the dickens out of us pretty regularly. There is a certain amount of financial gamesmanship that we do need to engage in in order to stay in business, but it is the difference between hedging and speculation for the most part.

 

[Tahuti]

Friedman was also kind of an idiot. Not that he never did anything useful, but he certainly did far more harm than good.

The point was that in the light of Chick-Fil-A, this may have been a rather prophetic observation.

 

[Lord Gay]

Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable could comment on another point that was made in the other thread. It was mentioned that towns have used their power to keep out "undesirable" businesses, such as strip clubs and adult video stores.

Lucy started this thread with examples of a company using some of their profits to support bigoted organizations. But what about companies that are simply undesirable for the type of business they are? Should local leaders still be able to try to keep them out? I have frequently heard in local news over the years people being upset when a proposal for a 'dirty, filthy sex shop' is made for their neighborhood. People moralising against certain kinds of businesses seems rather similar in practice to what's suggested here.

Should the free market decide, or should locals (via their elected officials) get to pick and choose which businesses are allowed to open regardless of the reason?

 

[Cutlass]

The point was that in the light of Chick-Fil-A, this may have been a rather prophetic observation.

Maybe, maybe not. Now I for one think that a business should have no involvement in politics at all. I don't care what the company leader believe in, so long as it's separated from the operations and policies of the business. It should not support any political cause. So that far Friedman has a point. But the point about the old Henry Ford quote factors as well: A business that only seeks all possible profit at the expense of other other considerations can do a lot of harm, and feel morally justified while doing so. Profit should not be an excuse for recklessness or indifference to the harm they cause.

Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable could comment on another point that was made in the other thread. It was mentioned that towns have used their power to keep out "undesirable" businesses, such as strip clubs and adult video stores.

Lucy started this thread with examples of a company using some of their profits to support bigoted organizations. But what about companies that are simply undesirable for the type of business they are? Should local leaders still be able to try to keep them out? I have frequently heard in local news over the years people being upset when a proposal for a 'dirty, filthy sex shop' is made for their neighborhood. People moralising against certain kinds of businesses seems rather similar in practice to what's suggested here.

Should the free market decide, or should locals (via their elected officials) get to pick and choose which businesses are allowed to open regardless of the reason?

I live in a town that has blocked strip clubs pretty aggressively, despite the fact that there were a couple in town for a long time. Their excuse is that there have been a lot of criminal violent acts on those properties. A company wanted to put one of those large strip clubs in a vacant building in a business district near the highway, but the town blocked it.

Now is this legitimate? There is a political problem called NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard, which is that many people think it's OK to build certain things, just not anywhere that it might inconvenience them. Now this is frequently overused. And a lot of local governments block things that they either have little excuse for blocking, or things that most people would be better off if they did not. And plenty of things that people simply don't like, but don't have a really legitimate reason to block. so while there is a justification for zoning, up to a point, it is something that is frequently misused.

 

[Farm Boy]

How zoning laws are used in practice at the local level is one of the most damning pieces of information against people who favor more local, and less centralized government.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Maybe, maybe not. Now I for one think that a business should have no involvement in politics at all. I don't care what the company leader believe in, so long as it's separated from the operations and policies of the business. It should not support any political cause. So that far Friedman has a point. But the point about the old Henry Ford quote factors as well: A business that only seeks all possible profit at the expense of other other considerations can do a lot of harm, and feel morally justified while doing so. Profit should not be an excuse for recklessness or indifference to the harm they cause.

It is a shame we don't have a separation of church and business tenet built into the Constitution. Perhaps we should.

I live in a town that has blocked strip clubs pretty aggressively, despite the fact that there were a couple in town for a long time. Their excuse is that there have been a lot of criminal violent acts on those properties. A company wanted to put one of those large strip clubs in a vacant building in a business district near the highway, but the town blocked it.

Now is this legitimate? There is a political problem called NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard, which is that many people think it's OK to build certain things, just not anywhere that it might inconvenience them. Now this is frequently overused. And a lot of local governments block things that they either have little excuse for blocking, or things that most people would be better off if they did not. And plenty of things that people simply don't like, but don't have a really legitimate reason to block. so while there is a justification for zoning, up to a point, it is something that is frequently misused.

That is why you frequently find such businesses on county property adjacent to city boundaries, and casinos in Nevada right on the state line wherever there is a major highway.

Many communities are now even trying to find reasons to keep Walmarts from building nearby due to their negative effects on local businesses.

 

[JollyRoger]

University Park and Highland Park are the two wealthy Dallas-area towns that are completely surrounded by Dallas. I have always advocated zoning all the bad stuff at the boundaries of these two "towns" until that agree to get annexed back into Dallas.

 

[bhsup]

Each group has to be taken on a case by case basis. It's pretty impossible to make a blanket statement about companies endorsing groups.

The KKK, for example, is a hate spewing group that burns crosses, lynches people, and just in general are not good folk to put it mildly. I would absolutely boycott any sandwich shop that supported/gave monies/etc to the KKK.

The owners of Chick-Fil-A, on the other hand, are not being hateful with their views (I realize some may argue this point). They are not trying to tell the government what to do regarding gay marriage, they are simply expressing the views of their religion in their business and that's fine. In fact, the boycotts and the shows of support are perfect for this sort of thing. They'll succeed or they'll fail or it'll have no real effect. Either way, it isn't something the government should be getting involved in.

PETA: Well, they openly support ALF which is officially a domestic terrorist group, so any business that supports PETA is by extension supporting terrorism. Just keep that in mind when deciding what to do about a business that supports PETA.

In all three cases above, I'm don't think the government should be getting involved simply because a business publicly announces support for any particular group. Let the public decide whether they succeed or fail.

P.S. - Someone mentioned the KKK adopting highways. They did that in Missouri and took the State to court when the State tried to deny them. The KKK won so the State renamed the highway the Rosa Parks highway.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

I'm OK with the personal decision to boycott, although personally gay marriage isn't the kind of issue that's going to get me to boycott something, one way or another. It just isn't that huge of an issue for me. I personally disagree with it, but its not the hill I'm going to die on (Unless it was a matter of whether churches can REJECT gay marrriages, that IS a hill I will die on)

Even though I disagree with gay marriages, I wouldn't stop using a company's products because they supported it. But I support anyone's right to do so, or to boycott a company that opposes SSM.

What I really DON'T like is the name-calling of "Bigot" by the left (Note, unless anyone asks, I still support their LEGAL right to do so, I am actually going to condemn it, as opposed to simply boycotting which I really didn't take any position on.) And what I really REALLY don't like (And would not allow) is the mayor of Boston or the like actually trying to prevent lawful commerce because of his personal beliefs. And THAT would apply no matter how horrible the groups in question that a law-abiding business is donating too...