[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by orangehat

But that's essentially what they ARE arguing. If by boycotting they are denying Cathy's 1st amendment rights, it is therefore unconstitutional and should not be allowed

I think you have lost track of reality now. How do you tell someone he is not allowed to choose to not eat at Chick-fil-A? Which is the same as telling the public they must eat at Chick-fil-A. I very much doubt that that is their argument, as you seem to think.

[orangehat]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

I think you have lost track of reality now. How do you tell someone he is not allowed to choose to not eat at Chick-fil-A? Which is the same as telling the public they must eat at Chick-fil-A. I very much doubt that that is their argument, as you seem to think.

A personal boycott is not the same as a public boycott. Just as how an individual (Dan Cathy's speech) is different from a corporation (Chick-Fil-A donating to anti-gay causes), though of course conservatives will disagree.

Corporations are people, my friend.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by orangehat

But that's essentially what they ARE arguing. If by boycotting they are denying Cathy's 1st amendment rights, it is therefore unconstitutional and should not be allowed

Could you just point me to where I can read about someone arguing that a boycott should not be allowed?

[orangehat]

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...chilling-effec

She doesn't say outright that it shouldn't be allowed, but she is saying that boycott is a "suppression" of free speech, which if you think about it is the same thing since you aren't allowed under the constitution to suppress free speech.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by orangehat

A personal boycott is not the same as a public boycott. Just as how an individual (Dan Cathy's speech) is different from a corporation (Chick-Fil-A donating to anti-gay causes), though of course conservatives will disagree.

Corporations are people, my friend.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did Chick-fil-A donate to anti-gay causes or did Dan Cathay donate to anti-gay causes? (Not that being anti gay marriage is the same thing as being anti-gay, but let that pass).

Why do you describe his comments as individual and his donations as corporate? Why not describe his comments as corporate and his donations as individual?

What is the difference between a personal boycott and a public boycott. To me a public boycott is a number of people personally boycotting.

[orangehat]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did Chick-fil-A donate to anti-gay causes or did Dan Cathay donate to anti-gay causes? (Not that being anti gay marriage is the same thing as being anti-gay, but let that pass).

Why do you describe his comments as individual and his donations as corporate? Why not describe his comments as corporate and his donations as individual?

What is the difference between a personal boycott and a public boycott. To me a public boycott is a number of people personally boycotting.

Chick-Fil-A has a charity foundation, which made the actual donation, not from Dan Cathy himself.

When Dan Cathy speaks, he speaks for himself. When his corporation donates, on the other hand, that is a different thing.

And the donations were anti-gay, not just anti-gay marriage. The donations were to a multitude of organizations like Exodus International, which is more about ex-gay therapy.

So you think the Los Angeles olympics and the Moscow olympics were "a number of countries personally boycotting?"

[orangehat]

Oh and, a few weeks back, Amazon's founder donated $2.5 million to a pro-gay marriage organization in Washington state.

He made the donation in his personal name with his wife, not in Amazon's name. That's how it should work.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by orangehat

Oh and, a few weeks back, Amazon's founder donated $2.5 million to a pro-gay marriage organization in Washington state.

He made the donation in his personal name with his wife, not in Amazon's name. That's how it should work.

Maybe you missed the point that Amazon is a publicly owned company and the founder can not speak for the company. Chick-fil-A is privately owned, so the owner can decide company policy. Whether he donates money in his own name or the company name is irrelevant, it is the same thing. That is his right. Are you saying that if Cathy donated money is his own name then you would consider all this a non-story and would not understand why the left is outraged about a man who just follows his own convictions?

I may be the most devoted atheist on MTF and would probably be appalled at Cathy's religious opinions and his desire to see those religious opinions incorporated into the legal process.
But until he does something illegal, what he does with his money is his personal decision. All I can do is make a decision whether to buy one of his chicken sandwiches or not. And from what I have learned this past week, Chick-fil-A is a standout in the fast food business for quality and service. I would make my decision based on that information and if only there was a Chick-fil-A in Toronto I would surely want to try one.

I am not about to research every manufacturer of everything I buy, to check if I approve of the company's charity donations. And I doubt you do. You probably would buy something made in a country where just being gay is a crime, without giving it a moment's thought.

[Echoes]

Originally Posted by orangehat

He made the donation in his personal name with his wife, not in Amazon's name. That's how it should work.

How it should work is keeping your money for yourself instead of donating it to communitarian lobbies that would never improve the lives of the poorest people of your country..



By the way, a reminder:

[orangehat]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

Maybe you missed the point that Amazon is a publicly owned company and the founder can not speak for the company. Chick-fil-A is privately owned, so the owner can decide company policy. Whether he donates money in his own name or the company name is irrelevant, it is the same thing. That is his right. Are you saying that if Cathy donated money is his own name then you would consider all this a non-story and would not understand why the left is outraged about a man who just follows his own convictions?

I may be the most devoted atheist on MTF and would probably be appalled at Cathy's religious opinions and his desire to see those religious opinions incorporated into the legal process.
But until he does something illegal, what he does with his money is his personal decision. All I can do is make a decision whether to buy one of his chicken sandwiches or not. And from what I have learned this past week, Chick-fil-A is a standout in the fast food business for quality and service. I would make my decision based on that information and if only there was a Chick-fil-A in Toronto I would surely want to try one.

I am not about to research every manufacturer of everything I buy, to check if I approve of the company's charity donations. And I doubt you do. You probably would buy something made in a country where just being gay is a crime, without giving it a moment's thought.

It's not the same thing, this is why there's all this hubub about Citizen's United.

You should not be allowed to hide behind the face of your corporation, whether private or public, when making donations to political causes.
And yes, IMO if Cathy decided to donate money by himself to an anti-gay organization, this would be a non-issue (for me at least)

The argument that just because you don't check everything before you buy means this is a non-issue is problematic. Though I presume you're one of those people who think recycling/free trade/organic etc etc. is pointless. Just because a lot of people don't recycle, and their impact is far greater on the environment than your choice to recycle, doesn't mean you shouldn't recycle.

I've also heard a lot of arguments about the last point, such as "you buy petrol from middle eastern countries". Yes, it is inevitable that we have to use oil that is delivered by middle eastern countries. But if, say, Mexico started producing oil tomorrow, I would choose only to buy Mexican petrol, even if it meant paying $0.10 more a litre. Of course I still can't control where the buses and the trains get their gas from.

You shouldn't not boycott because you can't successfully boycott everyone. To argue that is silly.

[orangehat]

Originally Posted by Echoes

How it should work is to keep your money for yourself instead of donating it to communautarist lobbies that would never improve the lives of the poorest people of that country..



By the way, a useful reminder:

I'm sure your proposed solution is the "free market" right?

Oh, I forgot, God will come down to save all of us after that.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by orangehat

You should not be allowed to hide behind the face of your corporation, whether private or public, when making donations to political causes.
And yes, IMO if Cathy decided to donate money by himself to an anti-gay organization, this would be a non-issue (for me at least)

Though I presume you're one of those people who think recycling/free trade/organic etc etc. is pointless. Just because a lot of people don't recycle, and their impact is far greater on the environment than your choice to recycle, doesn't mean you shouldn't recycle.

Who was hiding? If he is the owner of Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A gives to a charity, it should be easy to deduce who donated the money.

I recycle, but I avoid fair trade like the plague. They have put too many small coffee farmers out of business with the fees they charge. Only the larger companies can afford the fees to buy the words ''fair trade''. Whatever it means. So the little farmer you think you are helping ends up selling out to the big companies. But a lot of people apparently feel better about drinking their coffee if it says "fair trade'' on the label, even though they have no idea how that coffee was produced.

[orangehat]

Originally Posted by buddyholly

Who was hiding? If he is the owner of Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A gives to a charity, it should be easy to deduce who donated the money.

I recycle, but I avoid fair trade like the plague. They have put too many small coffee farmers out of business with the fees they charge. Only the larger companies can afford the fees to buy the words ''fair trade''. Whatever it means. So the little farmer you think you are helping ends up selling out to the big companies. But a lot of people apparently feel better about drinking their coffee if it says "fair trade'' on the label, even though they have no idea how that coffee was produced.

It's not physical hiding I'm concerned about. It's hiding behind your corporate brand and using your corporation as a speakerphone for you agenda.

Ok we can discuss the benefits/negatives/what can be done better for fair trade another day.
But my original point still stands, regarding the concept of not doing smth because it's not significant enough.

[buddyholly]

Originally Posted by orangehat

It's not physical hiding I'm concerned about. It's hiding behind your corporate brand and using your corporation as a speakerphone for you agenda.

You can be concerned all you want. Did he do anything illegal? If he acted legally, then you should direct your concerns somewhere else.

I don't think churches should be tax free, but boycotting my local church is not going to change anything, not paying taxes is legal for them.

[Rrrainer]

buddyholly, what do you think of romney's tax dodging? legal, yes, but nonetheless, what do you make of it?