-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
While “making a purchase is not an endorsement of the philosophy of the business,” there may be other ethical concerns at play. When that business donates $2 million dollars to groups that are hell-bent on denying civil rights to a particular group, an individual’s purchase contributes (albeit by a minuscule amount) to a cause s/he may find morally offensive.
The group, One Million Moms, responded to the rainbow Oreo, created in support of Gay Pride month, called for a boycott of Kraft. Kraft, like Chick-fil-A, entered into advocacy and that advocacy becomes a legitimate factor in the purchasing decision.
The moral dilemma occurs when a person is confronted with the decision to purchase a product from a company that uses its profits for an advocacy that the person finds morally unacceptable. Those who find same-sex marriage morally unacceptable face the dilemma when purchasing Kraft products. Those who see same-sex marriage as a civil liberties issue fact the same dilemma when purchasing from Chick-fil-A.
When a person purchases products from a company with an advocacy agenda, that person is helping to support, even in a minor way, that agenda. A minuscule contribution is still a contribution.
Throughout our history, civil liberties have been denied to various groups of individuals for various reasons. I have heard no reasonable justification for the denial of civil liberties based on sexual orientation. Until Chick-fil-A provides a reasonable justification for their denial of civil liberties, I find their actions morally reprehensible. As much as I like those chicken sandwiches, something else will have to alleviate my hunger and my conscience.
H/T: Michael LaBossiere, HuffPo.
Gene,
I am not sure just how many logical fallacies the bigots can cram into just a few statements, because I lost track. As far as I know, no one on the logical side of the argument in favor of gay or lesbian couples marrying has proposed marriage to animals, cars or plants. I recall that Rick Santorum has danced around the issue of marriage to dogs, but that’s his problem if that is what turns him on. The dog would have to give legal consent though.
I am aware of a few instances of some people being attracted to inanimate objects but I don’t think marriage was in the equation. I am attracted to 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air automobiles, but I don’t think I would care to marry one.
“Bron 1, August 5, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“Can a car or a pet enter into a contract?”
Can a 17 year old join the Marines?”
Can you distinguish between innate capacity and capacity as a case of malum prohibitum? Cars don’t have capacity to consent because they are machines – inanimate objects – and dogs don’t have capacity to contract because they are animals which by the legal definition of capacity are excluded. Legal capacity is an arbitrary limit when it comes to contractual capacity. It has nothing to do with the individual and everything to do with public policy. Some people of legal majority cannot contract because they have been adjudicated to have impaired capacity as a matter of fact. Some people normally with capacity have their capacity via their consent vitiated because of duress as a matter of public policy. Just so, the restrictions against homosexual marriage are matters of public policy and have nothing to do with the individuals and their commitment to each other except to deny them civil rights accorded to other different sex couples. If they are of age? People should be allowed to marry anyone they care to regardless of their gender and they should have the same rights as any married couple. That is equitable. Because it is equitable, it is just.
Exactly, David. That is an important distinction. And let’s not pretend that *denying* someone a civil/human right is the same dilemma as *extending* that right to include more people. Now that blacks enjoy (or suffer) the rights of marriage, tell me how that hurt the sanctity of marriage or abrogate anything else from white folk? Denying the LGBT community their full humanity and rights we all (should) know leads to everything from isolation to suicide.
bettykath, when we give gifts, it is always something by a local artisan. One of my favorite people is a glassblower who makes wonderful goblets and Christmas tree ornaments. Even people who do not celebrate Christmas appreciate a beautiful blown glass ornament. My wife kept three or four of his fantastic ornaments in a glass bowl–that he made. We go to his shop in a tiny out-of-the-way North Carolina village to buy stuff from him. That way we get to pick items before he ships them off to galleries and museum gift shops. Visiting his shop always guarantees an hour or so of wonderful conversation on everything from politics to cats and dogs. Try to find something like that at Wal-Mart or Target.
We also liked local craft fairs and picking up handmade items at the highland games. When he lived in Alaska, our son always sent unique items made by Inuit craftsmen. Our family has not bought a holiday gift item at a big box store in many years, with the exception of when I got my daughter a GPS and video game set.
http://guerardglass.com/art.html
“Can a car or a pet enter into a contract?”
Can a 17 year old join the Marines?
“…Can one then ‘marry’ a car, a pet?…”
Can we put this ridiculously innane conservative canard to rest finally, please? Marriage is first and foremost a legal contract. Can a car or a pet enter into a contract?
God Bless Ted Cruz.
I have not set foot in a Wal Mart for over 25 years now. No, I do not care to support the Walton family buying our government in order to be able to write favorable legislation for their Multinational corporation while hurting all Americans.
why would anyone support that? so why isn’t everyone boycotting
Wal Mart ?
http://youtu.be/BysLCCLdWKA
I was waiting to see how the right would introduce the anti-homosexual topic into this election cycle. Cathy stepped up and provided the religious cover all bigots crave.
From a political science standpoint it’s fascinating to watch the latest tactic employed in the overall strategy of getting the bigots to the polls.
JoshonPC:
The question was rhetorical. I know perfectly well that a disorganized boycott on less than compelling grounds make the boycotter look weak and the object of the boycott strong. In my own personal case, I’m off to Mohammed’s now for some gas. He’s a good person trying to make a living and he’s entitled to his wacky beliefs even if I don’t agree with them.
“I am wondering how far we go with this notion of principled economic punishment via boycott. I have friend, Mohammad, who runs the convenience store I frequent. He is a practicing Muslim. He attends services regularly and I must assume accepts many if not all of the teachings of the Qu’ran. In furthering my opposition to the teachings of the faith to which he obviously subscribes, must I — and others of like mind — boycott his store?”
Maybe. Is your question whether we should or whether we do? As to whether we do, eventually, is anyone’s guess. To the question of how far we should take this idea… well. I must admit that it is not terribly outrageous or inconceivable to boycott any particular establishment on religious grounds to the extent that you feel that: (a) the establishment actively promotes the offending idea(s); (b) the offending idea(s) are socially destructive; (c) the boycott is an effective tool in stopping the spread of socially destructive idea(s); (d) the boycott will do more good than harm to the community.
But, why ask us? You are the only one who knows what you must do.
Swarthmore mom, Firstly, I was comparing Mr. Cathy and the prez. Your injecting Romney is another topic. Secondly, Obama did not have his epiphany on gay marriage until early 2012, just in time for the election cycle. We do agree a lot has changed since 2008. Unfortunately, that doesn’t include the economy.
Anyone can marry anyone using private vows. Common law marriages are recognized in some states. I know a gay couple who did just that. The problem is that they don’t get the civil rights of heterosexual marriage because they can’t register their marriage with the state since they don’t live in a state where their marriage is recognized. They must file their taxes as “single”. They must be sure to have wills. They must be sure to have a medical power of attorney. There are probably other “gottchas”. I just don’t see the point of denying them civil rights. It’s a long hard pull to get those who have the rights to see the injustice of denying those rights to others. But the tide is changing.
I tend to shop with some thought about the corporate reputation. I haven’t been in a Walmart for years. My dislike didn’t become visceral until I found out they took out life insurance policies, payable to Walmart, on their elderly greeters. I’m not a mall shopper except in rare circumstances – out of town and need something specific. Also not one to go to a big chain (local lumber yard, local hardware store, local picture framer) or a fast food place (Subway excepted. The local place has a limited selection).
I read labels. I don’t buy made in China. I’ve been so discouraged in trying to buy items made here for Christmas gifts that I start early and make gifts. Over the years I accumulated lots of nice “stuff” that I no longer need or want. Great gifts for young couples.
I’ve worked hard to rid my diet of the 3 Ps: pesticides, processing and preservatives. Food labels keep me out of the center of the grocery store. A trip around the perimeter and I’m done. The alternative: two food co-ops and the local farmer’s market.
Any corporation that serves CAFO meat, HFCS and GMO ‘food’ will never get my dollars.
If you care about the future of humanity, they shouldn’t get your dollars either.
Big Ag makes us sick so Pharma can sell us drugs.
@Tricksy: A car or pet cannot make an informed consent to a marriage. Neither can a child, in most cases neither can a mentally disabled adult that is of age, nor can an unconscious adult.
The slippery slope does not apply here, because the premise is carefully (and correctly) defined as the choices of consenting, mentally capable adult human beings. Any person or any thing that is not capable of understanding or entering into a long-term contract need not apply.
“Denying civil rights…so I guess we cannot set parameters. Can one then ‘marry’ a car, a pet? Perhaps we might allow religion to define marriage and government to define civil unions.”
Trickys, a question, who’s religion are we going to allow to define marriage, yours are mine? I just bet my religion which is not opposed to same sex marriages and by the way is considered a Christian religion is far different than yours
Well, if the one million mom’s has the affect on Kraft that it had on JC Penny’s – it won’t be noticed. JC Penny’s stood up for equal rights and the larger majority stood with them. The one million moms doesn’t even have 50,000 Facebook fans. Just another group with big mouths and small minds.
mespo:
“I agree that government should be out of the marriage business but I don’t want uncompromising religions taking over the store.”
The inference is clearly to use government to prevent the religious from owning a business. Seems to me government is then involved in religion and marriage and many other aspects of our daily lives.
I dont buy Engineering News Record anymore because they supported the stimulus, dont buy Chic-Fil-A if you dont like their corporate philosophy. Seems reasonable to me.
Swarthmore Mom:
so is Cruz going to win in November?
I dont think he will, he is too much of a libertarian and most people dont like individual liberty because it entails too much personal responsibility.
So I think Texas is safe, most of the Texans I used to work with in the oil field were not bright enough to understand individual liberty anyway.
He will probably only get what he got in the primary and I doubt he will get any more. Maybe some who voted for Dewhurst will vote for Cruz but I think many will not vote or vote for Sadler.
Not to worry, Texas is safe from the tyranny of freedom for awhile longer.