If you don't know about the Chick-Fil-A Boycott issue, here's a brief primer
Now, here's the issue.
This isn't a boycott that is in response to something the company itself has done. There is no evidence that the company refuses to serve homosexual individuals, or that it discriminates against homosexual individuals when it comes to employment.
Instead, it is primarily to do with what the company does with its profits, and it doesn't do anything criminal or necessarily oppressive with these funds. It supports things that people disagree with.
Other boycotts, over things like Nestlee's actions in Africa, are fundimentally to do with the activities of the company, and the impact that the company is happening.
What this boycott seems to look like to me is less the principled opposition to a company's action, but much more like a witchunt, trying to smoke someone out based upon their opinions.
Now while that's perfectly legal, it isn't exactly very enlightened. If you want to beat people's opinions, engage with them in debate. Attempting to starve them out, just because you disagree with them... not really cool (what's slightly more obviosuly wrong is the death threats etc sent to the copmany's exec - who has recently died of a heart attack).
And more than that, it's starting to set a worrying trend. It may begin something where people think it's okay to discriminate against people on the grounds of their opinions. We've already had several city mayors saying they want Chick-Fil-A out of their cities on the basis of the company leaders opinions. Well here's a newsflash, the zoning laws arn't up to you. You don't get to randomly choose that you don't like someone's opinion, and then ban them from conducting business.
If you want to boycott a company, boycott it for a good reason, because it's doing something wrong, because it's conducting it's policies unethically. Don't boycott a company because it's executive has an opinion and acts on it.
Well guess what, Christians who own B&Bs who believe homosexuality is sinful may also not want to give double bedded rooms to homosexual couples for the same reason. They don't want to give their resources (in this case beds/a room etc) towards supporting something they disagree with.
It is different, they are a business, but that is a whole other debate. But for the purposes of this, I can object to what they are doing, though I can understand the ethics of why they do it, just as they can object to my boycotting CFA. It's this wonderful thing called empathy, I can understand without agreeing.
So unless you want to be irrational.
Irrational? Coming from the person who want's their bigoted version sexual morality (which comes from the intellectual equivalent of a fairy tale) forced on everybody. My ethical system does not want me to knowingly support causes I disagree with, that isn't irrational. What is irrational is thinking that people should not act upon information they receive. Put your precious Kant's universalizing principle to that and see what great things happen. Why vote? Why push for human rights? Why help the environment?
Vertigo: What is this deal about equating businesses with people all of a sudden? Business =! human. Thought you were a man of God.
I'm not concerned about hurting businesses feelings.
Irrational? Coming from the person who want's their bigoted version sexual morality (which comes from the intellectual equivalent of a fairy tale) forced on everybody.
Erm... where have I advocated making homosexuality illegal? If you're refering to gay marriage, my position on that has nothing to do with morality.
My ethical system does not want me to knowingly support causes I disagree with, that isn't irrational.
I didn't say that it was. What I did say was that in order for it to be rational, you will have to agree with others doing the same thing, as is the case in the incident I mentioned.
What is irrational is thinking that people should not act upon information they receive.
That's far far too broad to make any useful contribution to this discussion.
Business =! human
No, but businesses are made up of people, (this is especially relevant to small business made up of a very small number of people) and they have freedoms too.
You're missing the point. You said that the majority of people who supported the CFA boycot did not have the view "What CFA are doing is wrong, and it is wrong to support them" yet I've pointed out that the vast majority on here have held that view.
I didn't say that, I said, or tried to anyways, that we feel it's wrong for us to support them, not that it's necessarily wrong for you, as you agree with them.
Let's make this real simple. Imagine how childish the following is. You've got a friend. A very good friend. They are very nice, they do all kinds of good things, and then one day you discover that he disagrees with you on some issue, and that he writes letters to the legislature in support of that issue. Do you drop him as a friend? Of course not, how absurd would that be.
No, but you would have an argument about it if I you were into that sort of thing. And I don't mean the sort of argument where objects fly, but the sort of argument where you mock each others belief all in good spirit, sort of how we do it here. And as Jackson wrote you wouldn't feel obligated to support him, or leave it unchallenged. Depending on disposition, it could be raised up for discussion on a regular basis.
Well guess what, Christians who own B&Bs who believe homosexuality is sinful may also not want to give double bedded rooms to homosexual couples for the same reason.
I'm not sure if that is actually legal everywhere, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend a night at such a place if I was aware of it. It's like denying HIV-suffering individuals access to a toilet.
It's like denying HIV-suffering individuals access to a toilet.
How on earth is it remotely like that?
Okay, then that's a prejudice on your part and you should drop it.
These people are simply Christians who don't want to give resources to people who will use them in ways that they consider sinful.
There was only one true Christian, and that was Christ.
1. Christ wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew. He did not worship himself.
2. Just because other Christians often make mistakes, does not make them not "true".