"Voting" with Your Pocketbook?

[Ken H.]

A fast food chain, Chick-Fil-A has been in the news lately for its COO Dan Cathy’s strong anti-gay marriage position, fueled by the mayor of Boston recent statement that he would never let Chick-Fil-A operate in Boston because of Cathy’s agenda. (As if as mayor he could actually stop it anyway.)

 

But my query isn’t about this specific example (nor intent to start a debate about Dan Cathy vs. Gay Marriage) but rather a question about how much do you/we, or should we make our where we shop/buy/eat/stay/etc decisions based our own personal alignment with, or lack thereof, a business’s social positions/values?

 

For example, Donna & me deplore Wal-Mart’s labour practices and absolutely will never spend a single dime there for just that reason. But I wonder, does it have an effect we want/expect or are we just spitting in the wind at “Low Low Prices.” Now of course statistically our personal spending doesn’t have a 0.000001 of a percent impact, but can/should enough people do so such that it would/could?

 

And also, the Penn State thread was talking about collateral damage of the imposed NCAA sanctions. E.g. loss of income by ancillary people, e.g. food vendors at games and such, and it got me to thinking about that relative to the above. By refusing to shop at Wal-Mart for example are we just actually creating more societal hardship for those that rely on the ‘Wal-Mart machine’ for a living? E.g. the shelf stocker who works for minimum wage 39.5 hours a week. (Not 40 so WM doesn’t have to provide benefits). If enough people did (or do they?) shop with their conscious so to speak, would/could it really make a difference to e.g. improve the life of that shelf stocker? Or would it actually make his/her life worse; i.e. (s)he gets laid off due to declining business? The law of unintended consequences thing.

 

I full recognize too that there is a segment of the population that has to shop/buy the absolutely cheapest way possible due to economic hardship, regardless of their feelings, supporting or not supporting a company’s social, ecological, political, etc. positions. We have the financial luxury of being able to pay a bit more for things if our conscious directs us to, that others many not.

 

Or do most people just go about their shop/buy/eat/stay decisions with nary a thought to its social impact?

 

Since learning about the Chick-Fil-A thing Donna and me absolutely will never eat there. (Not that we likely would anyway, like most of those sort of places, the nutritional numbers on their food are atrocious.) But others could just as easily decide they will make an extra effort to do so specially because of Dan Cathy’s statements. But do they? Should they/we give consideration to these considerations?

 

[Mike]

The Chick-Fil-A story has been pretty big in Chicago over the past couple of days.

 

First, I tend to think that these stories get manipulated for selfish reasons, and are often overblown. This is not the exclusive province of any particular group or philosophical perspective. As you anticipate can happen, I would guess that for every person who boycotts Chick-Fil-A, at least one more will go there to protest the boycott. There are exceptions, but I think that it makes no difference 99% of the time.

 

I also tend to think that the world is a little more complex than the boycott organizers would have you believe. Chick-Fil-A is a good example. In that instance, we have a company founder who's stated his personal religious belief is that gay marriage is wrong. However, there's been no apparent discrimination, just a guy who replied truthfully when asked about his religious convictions. Not a huge company, Chick-Fil-A donates a very large percentage of its profits to homes for children in crisis, health care for underprivileged children, the construction of schools in Africa, and many other worthy causes. If the boycott were effective, the company would have less resources to do its charitable work, and the folks who might otherwise have jobs to support themselves if employed there would suffer (exactly what you refer to in your illustration about WalMart).

 

I don't mean to get into a debate over Chick-Fil-A or WalMart, but I think your points illustrate that the world (even the world of commerce) is more complicated than a single issue.

 

Overall, I'd guess that boycotts don't have much effect. People at one end of the spectrum will honor the boycott. People at the other end will do more business there to illustrate their support of the business. The 98% in the middle will not care much one way or the other, or if they do get swept up in an initial wave of enthusiasm will forget about it once they learn that Gatorade is on sale for 50% off.

 

There are some circumstances under which I'd boycott a company. For instance, if I knew a company was involved in human rights abuses, I'd stop buying their products. Not necessarily because I'd have any confidence that I'd have any actual impact on their conduct, but because I wouldn't want to be a feel like an accomplice (this probably describes the way you feel about WalMart).

 

Without thinking about the examples I've seen in much detail, I'd say that a boycott is only going to be effective if it prompts the desired reaction in a matter of a few days. If that doesn't happen, interest fades and it just becomes another of the trivial issues that a company deals with, if indeed it makes any difference to them at all.

[Selden]

Last week I saw a "A Guide To Consumer Brands Helping Bankroll..." (I'm not going to use the full title or link, in order to stay away from the "no politics" line), and it was relatively easy because we didn't use most of the brands anyway. However, Waffle House was on the list, and nothing gets between me and a Waffle House when travelling. Regal Theaters is another tough one, because they own most of the theaters in our area, especially the one that consistently shows decent movies, as opposed to the usual blow 'em up CGI crap. But, generally speaking, I try to avoid any business that explicitly supports positions/actions that conflict my own views.

 

My problem with Truman Cathy is not with his business practices (I have never eaten at Chick Fil-e, so their being closed on Sundays is no hardship), but with his reference to "the biblical definition of the family unit." Which part of the Bible? The one that permits multiple wives? The one that says you have to marry a woman if you rape her? Incest?

 

[upflying]

Boycotts are feel good symbolism.

While I have no problem with Gay rights, I have never eaten at or even seen a Chick-Fil-A. I would have no hesitation eating at one given the right opportunity.

There is a Walmart near where I live and I could care less about their alleged employment practices. The employees I see at WM always seem happy to me.

If the issue is WM employees are not union members, I say good. If WM was a union shop, WM would raise their prices 25%.

Personal political feelings of business owners is no ones business except theirs.

[pbharvey]

Anyone want a cookie?

 

 

[Mike]

Boycotts are feel good symbolism.

 

Bob said it more succinctly than I did. If I had moral concerns about a company, I wouldn't buy from them. However, I wouldn't expect that this or any broader boycott would have any real impact.

 

However, sometimes boycotts do work. The Kellogg study suggests that companies that already have a reputation problem are most vulnerable. That's interesting when applied to Chick-Fil-A, which is highly rated among fast food joints and is widely applauded for its charitable activities. That suggests that a boycott there probably wouldn't work.

[Ken H.]

Again, not trying to start a discussion about any specific company (or we’ll get bogged down forever in the specifics of that company’s position(s)). I’m more interested in thoughts on 'putting your money where your mouth is'. Not just organized boycotts, but long-term personal buying decisions based on personal beliefs. Do we? Should we?

[Jake]

I just want Chick-Fil-A to keep making the best chicken sandwich going (and they are) and Oreo to make the best cookie for delivering milk to my tummy, nothing more. About the only thing I'm likely to boycott is anything having poor quality or bad service because life is too short.

 

I have little interest in having rightful indignation against the purveyors of products. That said, I love the fact that that Eagle Scout renounced his affiliation with the Boy Scouts. I suppose the difference is that the BSA is supposed to stand for something principled, and they don't make cookies.

 

US Olympic outfits made in China doesn't bother me a bit, and I bleed Red, White, and Blue.

[Quinn]

Interesting. We were just talking about this at lunch today. From past articles that stuck in the wide netting of my mind, was one about not supporting sweatshops caused more damage to the workers than helping the local economy by keeping them in business. Another was the Starbucks boycott over allowing concealed carry in their coffee shops; it was a wash with people that went out of their way to show support. There was even an open carry day at our local restuarant. I remember several businesses who made the news by refusing to be blackmailed by Jessie Jackson calling for boycotts in support of union grievences. Also remember several cases where businesses buckled under and paid for scholarships, training, etc. to be administered by the Rainbow Coallision.

 

On a personal level, there are several Pizza Huts that I no longer patronize because of service issues. But, I did talk with the manager at each place before leaving and explained why they had lost my business. I have also done that with my former insurance company. Just not going back will not get anyone's attention. Even if they notice that sales are down, they will have no idea why. A follow up letter higher up the chain is also a good idea. I don't know if my actions have done any good, but not doing them surely doesn't.

 

-----

 

 

[Ridgerunner]

I for one will increase my use of Chick-Fil-A. The Cathy's are strong in their beliefs and are not afraid of damaging their business for doing what they consider right. That's refreshing. They are also motorcyclists and support the "Ride for Kids" in Atlanta. Another reason to support them.

[moshe_levy]

Again, not trying to start a discussion about any specific company (or well get bogged down forever in the specifics of that companys position(s)). Im more interested in thoughts on 'putting your money where your mouth is'. Not just organized boycotts, but long-term personal buying decisions based on personal beliefs. Do we? Should we?

 

I'd like to hear a compelling argument that we shouldn't, because personally I don't think one exists. The fruits of your labor - your money - is the culmination of all you do productively for profit. A big part of how you spend your day. And where you spend those fruits says EVERYTHING about you. Your morals, your beliefs, your ethics, your character - or lack thereof. There is only a question of facts and education. The more facts you seek, the more educated you are, and to quote an old tagline, "An educated consumer is the best customer."

 

We've had that same discussion here, many times, about supporting your local dealer instead of trying on the jacket there and then running home to buy it online to save a few bucks.

 

-MKL

[Roadwolf]

Mike, I would like to point out in a short and simple way where Chick-Fil-A has moved from a purely theoretical stance in opposing gay marriage to actively pushing an agenda against it. The other day I was made aware of the fact that in the past couple of years (or it may be closer to 8 years) that their Winshape Foundation has actively funded organizations that have fought at the ballot box to suppress the legalization of gay marriage. Millions and millions of dollars spent on a cause that I am opposed to. Because of this, I no longer am a customer of theirs. Product is good (but overpriced), but I just voted with my wallet (same with Wal-Mart as Ken has pointed out).

[moshe_levy]

Boycotts are feel good symbolism.

 

Is that all they are, Bob?

 

I would disagree. I studied this in school extensively. Here are some companies that, in the past decade alone, have caved to boycotts. You can look up each individual one if you want to see specific details:

 

Nestle, Fruit Of The Loom, Kimberly-Clark, DKNY, DeBeers, Inditex, Aon, Royal Caribbean Cruises, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Staples, Mitsubishi...

 

I could fill a small book with names, back to back. Was some symbolic? Sure. Was some a push for meaningful change? Yes, it was. To paint with a broad brush in this case may be to dismiss things too quickly.

 

Boycotts are only symbolic? Didn't Montgomery Bus boycott change the course of history? Hardly only symbolic. Hardly.

 

-MKL

[David13]

Moshe

I do diametrically oppose what you say there. The bus boycott was the tiniest of tips of an iceberg. The bus boycott changed nothing. It was a whole social attitude going back to before the civil war.

So to say the whole thing was the bus boycott. No. The bus boycott was one tiny symbol in a far greater shift.

Wal-Mart. I understand that issue. But I also understand that it takes no great (or any) skill to set a box of soup cans on a shelf.

I also understand that 'mom and pop' generally had prices that were too high, because they couldn't sell volume, had stock that was not regularly sold, and perhaps not fresh, due to not selling in volume, and there was no alternative, as they were the only store in town.

Starbucks did have open carry night. Til that ended, state wide, not by the company.

I like Starbucks regular coffee, and guns don't scare me, so I don't see it as related.

I did think about the economic vote recently in Colorado. It seems gun sales are up. So there is an important economic vote, as we know guns ain't cheap. Or they are not cheap any more.

I never ate at Chik-A-Fil, and I never would, based on the name, and that they don't have anything that looks good. I don't care about their views at the top. I don't like the idea that they try to justify it with some religious hocus pocus (as I see it.) But it wouldn't affect my purchases.

dc

[moshe_levy]

David-

 

I did not say Montgomery was the be-all-end-all. I simply disputed Bob's assetion that boycotts are empty symbolism. Some are, for sure. Some are not. Some affect real social change for the better.

 

I am a big believer in voting with my pocketbook. Therein lies all my power as a consumer. I do think before I buy stuff. I do think about where it comes from, what my alternatives are, and who the vendor is. That's just me.

 

-MKL

[tallman]

David,

 

The Montgomery Bus Boycott, at the time, was the focal point, for over a year, of the Civil Rights Movement.

 

The actions of the people of Montgomery, black and white, good and bad, did not compete with twitter/facebook/cable news for attention and contemplation.

 

Today, looking back at the entire movement, it may not seem as important, but if it had failed, the civil rights movement

would not have had ML King emerge, until ??, if ever.

And, the movement itself would have been set back considerably.

 

Montgomery itself became a huge part of the attention brought about through the movement.

 

No single action is responsible for the entire outcome but Montgomery was the Valley Forge/Saratoga

of its time.

[Quinn]

Effective boycott: New formula for Coke. Spontaneous and widespread rejection soon brought back "Coke Classic" which became just "Coke" as New Coke fadded into oblivion.

 

-----

 

 

[Mike]

Mike, I would like to point out in a short and simple way where Chick-Fil-A has moved from a purely theoretical stance in opposing gay marriage to actively pushing an agenda against it. The other day I was made aware of the fact that in the past couple of years (or it may be closer to 8 years) that their Winshape Foundation has actively funded organizations that have fought at the ballot box to suppress the legalization of gay marriage. Millions and millions of dollars spent on a cause that I am opposed to. Because of this, I no longer am a customer of theirs. Product is good (but overpriced), but I just voted with my wallet (same with Wal-Mart as Ken has pointed out).

 

Good on ya for thinking through these decisions so carefully. Personally, I can think of very few instances in which my moral concerns swayed my purchasing decisions away from a business. However, it's your/my money and we should certainly spend it as we see fit.

 

But, as I thought of it, I would modify my answer to some degree. It's not an overwhelming factor for me, but I have steered my dollars toward businesses that I think do good deeds, particularly if it's a cause for which I have some personal affinity.

 

These days, if a business plays a big role in assisting or hiring veterans, I'm likely to consider them ahead of their competitors. Likewise, any company that puts its money where its mouth is, in terms of helping disadvantaged or handicapped kids, is one I'll turn to.

 

As I reflect on this a bit more, I'd say that I'm also somewhat distrustful of most boycott efforts, which seem to often distort the facts for selfish interests, without regard to the potential to harm others (like the employees of the targeted companies). They often originate out of organizations or groups whose viewpoints strike me as extreme.

 

But, if someone has put the time and thought into it to arrive at a reasoned decision to boycott, more power to them. It's one of the good things about a free market system--the collective sense of customers' morality can effect positive change.

[Harry_Wilshusen]

I boycott movies of certain actors and actresses.

 

There is a price to pay sometimes. Sadly I will never see The Hottie and The Nottie.

 

[Jake]

Effective boycott: New formula for Coke. Spontaneous and widespread rejection soon brought back "Coke Classic" which became just "Coke" as New Coke fadded into oblivion.

 

My point exactly. That happened because New Coke suffered in quality compared to Coke Classic, it had nothing to do with any social virtue of the company. I'd still send my daughter to Penn State, as offended as I am at what went on there, if they offered the best program for her academic interests. Just not University of Florida, never.

 

And where you spend those fruits says EVERYTHING about you. Your morals, your beliefs, your ethics, your character - or lack thereof.

 

This is well stated, but leaves an awfully high watermark. Are your savings/investments restricted to socially responsible mutual funds only? Do you ride a bike to work, or are you supporting the evil oil companies? I could spend a weekend with you and likely be able to point out a list of things in your life that belies the lofty aspirations of that statement. It's really tough to draw that line, I think, about what we are or are not willing to support with our purchases. Green-friendly laundry detergent just doesn't clean as well as Tide.

 

So, for the most part, I tend to think that this is correct, accepting that it is a broad-brush statement.

 

Boycotts are feel good symbolism.

 

What really matters is one's actions, not what they believe, and I don't equate not buying something as an action. I have far greater respect for the custodian who cleaned up the Wall Street protesters' mess, and the greenskeeper who returned the park back to it's beauty, than the protesters themselves. It's those who served their country in the military, police and fire departments, nurses, social workers and adopters of children, as well as those who have contributed hard-earned money and their time to worthy causes who are deserving of our admiration. Protests and boycotts against companies are just a sideshow, generally unproductive, and usually the efforts of those who feel the world owes them something.

[moshe_levy]

As I reflect on this a bit more, I'd say that I'm also somewhat distrustful of most boycott efforts, which seem to often distort the facts for selfish interests, without regard to the potential to harm others (like the employees of the targeted companies).

 

It is true, one must be very careful to KNOW the facts before acting. Case in point: Just yesterday, an e-mail petition came across my inbox, with the title "Trader Joe's Sells Meat Fed With Drugs!" Open it up, and it's a mother's tale of how her kid got a drug resistant strain salmonilla from eating meat. NOT Trader Joe's meat, but some unspecified brand. Then she goes on to say how Whole Foods sells only antibiotic-free meat.

 

I smelled BS, because the title of the e-mail grabs you, and then the text of the article contradicts the headline (like many newspapers - an effective strategy). So I went to my freezer, which has plenty of Joe's meat in it. All of it - whether organic or not (I have both) was clearly labeled antibiotic-free! So I called Joe's, and sure enough, ALL of it IS antibiotic-free.

 

The moral is this: Boycotts and petitions and movements can be used for marketing purposes (in this case an indirect ad for Whole Foods at the expense of Joe's based on LIES). One who gets caught up in all this without knowing the facts first is subject to be used and abused.

 

Like Mike I move TOWARD businesses more than away from them. Hiring vets? Check. (Truly) American made? Check. Good, positive social causes? Check. Support motorcycles? Check. And so on. In this case as Roadwolf pointed out, the facts are clear, and one can make a decision (as Jim Henson did) to disassociate one's business or dollars from an organization which touts values which one doesn't agree with.

 

Where you put your money says everything about you.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

To clarify that last sentence in light of Jake's post - yes, nobody's perfect. But speaking for myself, I really do try to put each dollar towards something I believe in, keeping in mind functional requirements and a host of other concerns. Nobody's perfect - but at least TRY.

 

-MKL

[Jake]

Maybe I'd be better served by spending a weekend with Mike then, to prove my point. All that deforestation he's causing with the new pad and all...

[Mike]

Maybe I'd be better served by spending a weekend with Mike then, to prove my point. All that deforestation he's causing with the new pad and all...

 

You are welcome at any time, Mr. Jake!

 

In my defense, I do want to point out that I'm engaging in a personal carbon offset efforth. Recognizing the harm to Gaia inflicted through my massive deforestation, I am directing a substantial portion of my income funds to industries that support the production of hops and barley.

[Ken H.]

This is well stated, but leaves an awfully high watermark. Are your savings/investments restricted to socially responsible mutual funds only? Do you ride a bike to work, or are you supporting the evil oil companies? I could spend a weekend with you and likely be able to point out a list of things in your life that belies the lofty aspirations of that statement. It's really tough to draw that line, I think, about what we are or are not willing to support with our purchases.

You’re right, it is a high watermark and one darn near (short of unplugging completely) impossible to attain. I mean even if one wanted to personally boycott the entire petroleum industry how would they? The keys I’m typing on right now are plastic after all.

 

But I do think our own personal ‘moral compass’ should guide our personal dollars to whatever extent possible.

 

Donna and me certainly have a list of companies whose door we will never darken. And as Harry_Wilshusen mentioned, a list of actors who’s movies we will not watch/support due to their positions on subjects that we do not agree with. (Musicians too for that matter.)

 

But what I guess I struggle with a bit is if it is just feel goodness on our part, a fool’s mission. And the collateral damage thing makes me wonder even more. Does refusing to shop/eat at ABC’s because of their position on this or that case collateral damage more than anything else without any hope at all of affecting change?

 

So far some people in this thread have said yes such is a factor in their spending decisions, some have said no. (And some have talked about how good Chick-fil-a’s food is, decidedly not the point of the thread. ) Are there numbers/studies on this on a broader scale?

[Mike]

Are there numbers/studies on this on a broader scale?

 

Ken, it's not the full study, but somewhere up a few posts I linked to a study at the Kellogg School of Management regarding the effectiveness of boycotts. i was surprised to see that roughly 1/3 were deemed effective. I'm not sure if those are the numbers your looking for.

[upflying]

GM recently ran this ad in support of a recent Gay Pride parade in Detroit. It is reasonable to conclude that GM corporate political philosophy supports Gay marriage. How would this ad affect your decision to buy a new GM vehicle? For a fringe activist, probably a lot. For me personally, not in the least.

[DaveTheAffable]

Since learning about the Chick-Fil-A thing Donna and me absolutely will never eat there. (Not that we likely would anyway, like most of those sort of places, the nutritional numbers on their food are atrocious.) But others could just as easily decide they will make an extra effort to do so specially because of Dan Cathy’s statements. But do they? Should they/we give consideration to these considerations?

 

Ken,

 

Suppose the LGBT group came into your town, identifying the members of all of the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups.

 

They then name each member and identify all the businesses they own. Car washes, gas stations, office supply stores, plumbers, contactors, and on and on.

 

Then publicly vilafying all of those people, and encouraging others to not do business with them.

 

Would you support this?

 

 

[upflying]

Good point Dave. Here in Ca, many employees and owners of small groceries and convenience stores appear to be of Middle Eastern descent. Presumably many are Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims. Due to geography and congestion, almost every street corner in San Francisco has such a store. What is the prevailing opinion of Gays and Gay marriage in those religions?

Besides being frequent targets for armed robbers, I have yet to see any boycotts and protests by Gay rights activists against patronizing stores owned by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

What's going on here? Why the double standard?

[Roadwolf]

Besides being frequent targets for armed robbers, I have yet to see any boycotts and protests by Gay rights activists against patronizing stores owned by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

What's going on here? Why the double standard?

 

And the obvious answer is that those groups are not ACTIVELY pursuing an agenda where they seek to eliminate the right of gays to marry. They are a small minority in the U.S. (strangely enough, often bearing the brunt of conservative Evangelicals themselves, but for different reasons). Muslims, particularly, as I understand it, do not spend millions of dollars trying to keep same sex couples from having the same rights as they do to marry. A significant slice of Christian denominations (and for that matter, corporations that line up doctrinally with that world view), however, do, hence the "protests and boycotts" directed at them ala Chick-Fil-A. I am sure if a prominent business leader or group of any of those religions you mention went down the path of Cathy, they would be getting hit in their pocketbook as well.

[upflying]

Besides being frequent targets for armed robbers, I have yet to see any boycotts and protests by Gay rights activists against patronizing stores owned by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

What's going on here? Why the double standard?

 

And the obvious answer is that those groups are not ACTIVELY pursuing an agenda where they seek to eliminate the right of gays to marry. They are a small minority in the U.S. (strangely enough, often bearing the brunt of conservative Evangelicals themselves, but for different reasons). Muslims, particularly, as I understand it, do not spend millions of dollars trying to keep same sex couples from having the same rights as they do to marry. A significant slice of Christian denominations (and for that matter, corporations that line up doctrinally with that world view), however, do, hence the "protests and boycotts" directed at them ala Chick-Fil-A. I am sure if a prominent business leader or group of any of those religions you mention went down the path of Cathy, they would be getting hit in their pocketbook as well.

Is low budget and thrifty executions of Gays by Muslims preferable to the millions spent by Christian groups to prevent Gays from marrying?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16581758

 

[Mike]

We're getting a little off-topic here, as Ken's original post was about the efficacy and effects of boycotts. If anyone wants to start a separate thread about the merits of the underlying topics, go for it!

 

Thanks.

[Roadwolf]

Is low budget and thrifty executions of Gays by Muslims preferable to the millions spent by Christian groups to prevent Gays from marrying?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-16581758

 

Nope, but that is not the case here in the U.S. (plus, the story from the link is of a lone individual, not the overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the U.K. seeking to kill Gays... and if so, they would be as wrong as the small slice of radical Christians that believe it is okay to kill doctors at Abortion clinics, ala George Tiller).

 

If fundamentalist states come down harshly on groups they consider deviants or infidels, they are no more in the right than those in this country who swing the hammer of the state to bar those that seek equality under the law. Pure and simple. And what we have here in the U.S. is distinct groups with the mindset that it is the goal, no, their "godly" duty to keep these deviants from enjoying the same legal protections that they enjoy. That is why they must be confronted in the public square and made to look foolish for their views, whether they are handled that way individually or "corporately" as with Chick-Fil-A.

[Roadwolf]

We're getting a little off-topic here, as Ken's original post was about the efficacy and effects of boycotts. If anyone wants to start a separate thread about the merits of the underlying topics, go for it!

 

Thanks.

 

Nah, I'm done with it... thanks Mike.

[moshe_levy]

But what I guess I struggle with a bit is if it is just feel goodness on our part, a fools mission. And the collateral damage thing makes me wonder even more. Does refusing to shop/eat at ABCs because of their position on this or that case collateral damage more than anything else without any hope at all of affecting change?

 

Ken, isn't this the same as asking if a boycott can indeed be effective, or not? As you have seen, the answer is clearly "it depends."

 

And then there is the individualism of it. Remember your mother asking you "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Same here. I don't really care much how others shop to the extent that I cannot control them, but I do care how I spend my money, even if I'm alone in my opinions.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

Ken,

 

Suppose the LGBT group came into your town, identifying the members of all of the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups.

 

They then name each member and identify all the businesses they own. Car washes, gas stations, office supply stores, plumbers, contactors, and on and on.

 

Then publicly vilafying all of those people, and encouraging others to not do business with them.

 

Would you support this?

 

I don’t support any group (or anyone) vilifying another group (or person) with as such as broad brush as in the scenario you describe. About every way you look at it, it would be wrong. The group coming into town stereotyping the merchants as having a pre-concluded belief would be wrong, labeling them individually based on a presumption of their beliefs is wrong, vilifying them would be wrong, broadcasting it = wrong, anyone acting (i.e. not doing business with) armed with only that information = just as wrong. The whole scenario is fraught with miss-conceptions from start to finish.

 

See the thing is, I thing the statement, "All ______________(fill in any grouping of people here) are all ______________(fill in any descriptor here)" is ALWAYS incorrect. It's nothing but intellectual laziness.

 

Here’s a better scenario with a more positive outcome – A group (I’m going to stay away from naming any specific group) comes into my town, identifying a merchant, with substantiated evidence whose beliefs policies and most importantly – actions, do not agree with theirs. They then make information publicly known in a non-condemning way. People then evaluate it against their own set of beliefs, and along with other factors, make a decision whether or not continue to support that merchant.

 

Now in reality people are far less logical and thoughtful than that, and your scenario is more likely to ever happen than mine I’m sad to say, but you asked what I personally would support. The latter not the former.

 

[Ken H.]

Ken, isn't this the same as asking if a boycott can indeed be effective, or not? As you have seen, the answer is clearly "it depends."

 

And then there is the individualism of it. Remember your mother asking you "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?" Same here. I don't really care much how others shop to the extent that I cannot control them, but I do care how I spend my money, even if I'm alone in my opinions.

Well it’s close, but I have a tendency to think of the word “boycott” in terms of ‘the action of a large group of people.’ The scenario I’m trying to understand here is more individual singular decisions. If a person decides not to eat at ___________ restaurant (and for the 10th time this thread is not about Chick-fil-a! ) because of their __________ policy, is that a good thing or a bad thing? My conscious is saying ‘I don’t want to eat (or shop, or sleep, or whatever) there because they believe/do __________. But in particular from the perspective of potential collateral damage to those people at ___________ not involved with policy setting __________, is my decision both futile, and ultimately counter-productive?

 

If we think ‘voting with your pocketbook’ is a good thing, then I’d like to see more people doing it. Make your purchase decisions on more than taste (in anything not just food) and price. DON”T by the car of your dreams because GMFORTOY does ____________ that you don’t agree with. And encourage more to do the same, and why. We can’t control other’s spending decisions, but we can maybe influence them. Which ultimately should lead to more effective boycotts and change.

 

OTOH, if taken to the extreme conclusion the end result is GMFORTOY goes out of business throwing 100s of 1000s GMFORTOY employees into poverty, through no direct action/fault of their own, was not buying your dream car (X1000s of others doing the same) a societal price worth paying?

 

[moshe_levy]

OTOH, if taken to the extreme conclusion the end result is GMFORTOY goes out of business throwing 100s of 1000s GMFORTOY employees into poverty, through no direct action/fault of their own, was not buying your dream car (X1000s of others doing the same) a societal price worth paying?

 

Isn't this self-contradictory? A boycott that would go far enough to push a vendor out of business, through no direct action / fault of the vendor? Can you show a case where this ever happened? By definition, to cause a furor or controversy so extreme that a total boycott results, the vendor must have SOME direct action or fault, no?

 

I think we agree in spirit, yes, to spend where your values lie. I think many people do, whether conciously or subconciously. That is in fact the foundation of the art of marketing itself.

 

-MKL

[TyTass]

Ken,

 

Suppose the LGBT group came into your town, identifying the members of all of the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups.

 

They then name each member and identify all the businesses they own. Car washes, gas stations, office supply stores, plumbers, contactors, and on and on.

 

Then publicly vilafying all of those people, and encouraging others to not do business with them.

 

Would you support this?

 

I don’t support any group (or anyone) vilifying another group (or person) with as such as broad brush as in the scenario you describe. About every way you look at it, it would be wrong. The group coming into town stereotyping the merchants as having a pre-concluded belief would be wrong, labeling them individually based on a presumption of their beliefs is wrong, vilifying them would be wrong, broadcasting it = wrong, anyone acting (i.e. not doing business with) armed with only that information = just as wrong. The whole scenario is fraught with miss-conceptions from start to finish.

 

See the thing is, I thing the statement, "All ______________(fill in any grouping of people here) are all ______________(fill in any descriptor here)" is ALWAYS incorrect. It's nothing but intellectual laziness.

 

Here’s a better scenario with a more positive outcome – A group (I’m going to stay away from naming any specific group) comes into my town, identifying a merchant, with substantiated evidence whose beliefs policies and most importantly – actions, do not agree with theirs. They then make information publicly known in a non-condemning way. People then evaluate it against their own set of beliefs, and along with other factors, make a decision whether or not continue to support that merchant.

 

Now in reality people are far less logical and thoughtful than that, and your scenario is more likely to ever happen than mine I’m sad to say, but you asked what I personally would support. The latter not the former.

Well said Ken, and I couldn't agree more with your post. I'd like to go one further and say that it never ceases to surprise me how fast people move from case-in-point to true-in-every-case by merely attaching some label to that case. And I it surpises me even more when I find myself doing it.

 

The point is ... I think we're all guilty of using labels when it's convenient to us (or when we just don't realize we're doing it). That said ... I concur with your calling it out here.

 

[DaveTheAffable]

Here’s a better scenario with a more positive outcome – A group (I’m going to stay away from naming any specific group) comes into my town, identifying a merchant, with substantiated evidence whose beliefs policies and most importantly – actions, do not agree with theirs. They then make information publicly known in a non-condemning way. People then evaluate it against their own set of beliefs, and along with other factors, make a decision whether or not continue to support that merchant.

 

Now in reality people are far less logical and thoughtful than that, and your scenario is more likely to ever happen than mine I’m sad to say, but you asked what I personally would support. The latter not the former.

 

Ok...so let's personalize it. Instead of a "group", make it an individual. Let me see if I understand.

 

Ken overhears that a BMWST member is a member of the _________ Church.

Ken KNOWS that the offerings collected by that church are in some fashion used to oppose gay marriage.

Ken knows that this BMWST member is a business owner.

In a desire to inform others, Ken "Outs" the member, in a non-condeming way of course, suggesting that other BMWST members make their own decision as to whether or not any of us should do business with them.

 

SURELY that's not what you mean.

 

This thinking is horrible. I dread the day when any of us support "..don't shop there because the owner is __________."

 

The franchisors of Chick Fil A in Hollywood California seem to have a thriving business serving ALL their customers.

 

I think this type of protest can be effective in hurting business, but not necessarily changing the mind of the business owner.

[DaveTheAffable]

Good point Dave. Here in Ca, many employees and owners of small groceries and convenience stores appear to be of Middle Eastern descent. Presumably many are Hindus, Sikhs or Muslims. Due to geography and congestion, almost every street corner in San Francisco has such a store. What is the prevailing opinion of Gays and Gay marriage in those religions?

Besides being frequent targets for armed robbers, I have yet to see any boycotts and protests by Gay rights activists against patronizing stores owned by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus.

What's going on here? Why the double standard?

 

As Mike has said... that's for another thread, but I can't resist.

 

"As a believer in Mother Earth, I think it is unwise to use her bounty to live a life of drunkenness..." Ooooh. Ahhh. Yes. Deep.

 

"Because I have read the bible, it saddens me to see someone give their life to drunkeness..." Foul! How DARE you! What gives you the right?

 

They are not attacking the disagreement with gay marriage, they are fighting against the specific SOURCE of the persons disagreement.

[TyTass]

Are you saying that Christians are being unfairly picked on, or that Muslims should get picked on more, or what? (JK)

 

As for your last point ... about why people wish to attack the source of income of a business owner who has opposing viewpoint to theirs?

 

While it's not an answer I subscribe to personally ascribe to, I can already see the justification ... "To support their business is to condone their viewpoint or to support their actions."

 

We've seen that justification both offered in other discussions and refuted as not a viable justification, with many people here on the opposite sides of that justification.

 

It is indeed difficult to remain 100% consistant and/or relevant.

 

 

[DaveTheAffable]

Are you saying that Christians are being unfairly picked on, or that Muslims should get picked on more, or what? (JK)

 

Neither!

 

But there ARE different responses to the same opinion, when it comes from a different base/belief.

[pbharvey]

Supporting or withholding your money from a business is one thing but an elected official deciding that "we don't want your kind here" is just unbelievable to me. Gay marriage is illegal in Illinois and yet the mayor of Chicago says Chick-Fil-A doesn't represent the Chicago way? Truly amazing.

 

As for Chick-Fil-A, I wish every fast food place was run as well as they are. Fast friendly service and very, very clean.

 

In other news, the head spokesman for Chick-Fil-A died unexpectedly this morning.

 

 

[Huzband]

I haven't read all of this thread, nor do I care to. It's obvious Ken has an agenda, & that's his right. His agenda, & those here that agree with him, is if you don't agree with he & his like, you're to be vilified & deemed backward. He isn't the only one on this board to take such a position, be it gay "rights", hybrid/electric cars, what have you.

 

My point is, I'm tired of my Christian nation being expected to constantly apologize for our beliefs.

 

You want to form a civil union with a person of the same sex? Fine. While I don't agree with it, I won't go to gubment to stop it, as you will to promote it. Just don't try to muddy the waters between a civil union & marriage.

 

But to say that a Christian business owner doesn't have the right to speak his mind & express his beliefs is just Stalinist.

[ratfink]

I didn't get the memo that we have an official state religion now.

 

I have been told that even though I was raised a Catholic that I'm not a real Christian ???? Hope the christians get that all sorted out some day.

 

On the Original topic: I think that the group boycotts are more a demonstration of soldarity. Sometimes they may have a real impact (Califonia Table Grapes?). In other cases more symbolic or feel good as Bob stated earlier.

[beemerman2k]

Supporting or withholding your money from a business is one thing but an elected official deciding that "we don't want your kind here" is just unbelievable to me. Gay marriage is illegal in Illinois and yet the mayor of Chicago says Chick-Fil-A doesn't represent the Chicago way? Truly amazing.

 

Yeah, I must say I agree with your view here. Moderator Edit: the following stricken comment is left visible as an example of the type of content that is unacceptable on this forum Mayor Mennino (Boston's Mayor) isn't setting a good precedent here. Such actions do not belong in government. If the people of Boston so decide not to spend their money at this restaurant, that's their decision.

 

Having said that, I can sorta see why the Mayor is taking his stand. Not that I doubt the sincerety of his position, but this kind of move will cement his legacy in this town forever. Boston has a significantly high number of educated, young, single, upwardly mobile, asset rich, professionals. The Mayor has aligned himself with this demographic. So at the end of the day, I see it as a shameless, self promoting political move. All he had to do, though, is simply voice his extreme displeasure and leave it at that. Taking it as far as he has could well back fire on him.

 

Still, I do feel it raises concerns and questions that we need to be asking ourselves about the role of government in our society.

[Huzband]

Evidently you haven't been paying attention. While we don't have a state religion, ( which is why the Pilgrims left King George & England in the first place)our Constitution is founded on Christian beliefs.

Solidarity. Another Stalinist belief.

[David13]

Let us leave the green seedless grapes out of this discussion. I happen to be horribly addicted to them and would gladly kill if I could not get them. I just returned from the store with 10 pounds of them, which will last not one week.

I don't care who picks them, nor what picks them. I seriously must have them.

As to the GM products, I probably would not ever again, even if you put a gun to my head, purchase another GM vehicle. It has nothing to do with union labor, their bankruptcy nor political or other views.

dc

[Roadwolf]

our Constitution is founded on Christian beliefs.

 

and this myth gets regurgitated once again. Sigh.