I disagree with this; bigtexxx has a point (though it doesn't work in the real world). The "basic legal concept" of equal protection under the law should imo be a universal right for all human beings on Earth - like freedom of expression. It's an idealistic goal, but it should be there. You need not be a Saudi citizen to have influence on its system of law. Every time you put a gallon of gas in your Prius, some portion of that goes to the House of Saud. Their coffers are the system of Saudi law. By not using their gas, you affect their system of law. Unfortunately, in the real world game theory and social dynamics nullifies an individual attempt to affect Saudi Arabia by not using its gas. Too many people will gladly step in and keep on buying their gas while you have an empty gas tank. Batman Jones honestly addressed this dilemma. DBrunk's post sums up my feelings. The companies around you, the countries around you all have their hands dirty. No sense in refusing a juicy chicken sandwich if it satisfies your hunger. Enjoy that sandwhich, go back to work, make money, and donate to the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund as well as Obama's Priorities USA + Action super PAC. Fight their bigoted views with money the right way: not by refusing to spend $7 on a nuggets combo. As for the Saudi/'human rights in petro states' problem, elect candidates into office who will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and make personal choices like driving fuel friendly cars, living close to work, etc.
There's really nothing that's universally right or wrong (morally speaking). For a variety of reasons, ways of thinking change and evolve (and devolve). Even as the World grows smaller, it's still generally impractical to try to impose our beliefs on other cultures, though we may hope that they come around to our way of thinking (and try to nudge them in that direction, as much as pragmatism allows). I tend to agree with carlosc.
I don't think that the existence of borders makes murdering homosexuals right, when it's wrong everywhere else. While some of you might argue that you care more about what happens within your own borders, you should also see that the "offense" you are looking at as a reason for you to boycott that company (giving money to organizations which, among other goals, oppose gay marriage) is much SMALLER than the "offense" committed by the Saudi regime (murdering homosexuals). So, what's lost in terms of how much you should care by the "distance" from where you are is "gained" by how severe the objectionable behavior is.
By our system of values it certainly isn't right. While I don't specifically boycott Chick-Fil-A (I don't eat any fast food), I will say that, as dmc mentioned, it's easier to give up a chicken sandwich than gasoline. I'm against sweatshop labor too, but good luck finding a decent pair of basketball shoes made by laborers making minimum wage. But I would take issue with Nike opening a sweatshop on American soil. My point is really that right and wrong are just constructs. The gay marriage issue for me is mostly a constitutional one truth be told, and while I think that discriminating against gays is wrong (and akin to discriminating on basis of race), I accept that someone born with an entirely different system of beliefs may believe otherwise. I find it less acceptable that someone raised in a country in which it's held self-evident that all men are created equal and are afforded certain rights would discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, race, religion, etc. Societies have cultural norms. We have people who deviate from those norms. If they aren't harming me, I hesitate to condemn one culture from deviating from the norms of another.
Based on the principles espoused in this thread I wonder if any of you own devices made in China? Similar to the gasoline example if your purchasing something made at the Foxconn plant (iPad, iPhone, etc.) your contributing to child labor, generally despicable labor conditions and mounting suicides. Out of sight out of mind much? Pseudo moral outrage to score political points? Intellectual laziness? In addition to Chic-fil-a what else are you standing up against? Gasoline may be considered a necessity to some, but surely expensive crap you do not need, like the Apple products mentioned, should be boycotted. The same applies to all products made in poor conditions or by leveraging children.
I don't think so. I as an individual and a citizen of the United States have every right to hold, express and act on opinions regarding political and social issues in the US. I don't have that same right with regard to the laws of other nations. Sure, I could decide to try to boycott Saudi petroleum or Dijon mustard or whatever, but the international community has created a system that addresses (however inefficiently) objectionable behavior of sovereign nations and I think it is appropriate to allow that process to function.
And this makes supporting bigotry OK how? Of course, that happens all the time. Now that people *know* about Chik-Fil-A's practices, they're changing their consumer behavior. How does this surprise, shock, or upset you? And once again, how does it make supporting bigotry OK? Moral outrage because we don't support bigotry? There are plenty examples of people doing that in this thread, this one comes to mind. This guy's justification of being lazy about your consumer choices/rights is pretty much the embodiment of the "it's hard, so f*** it" mentality. Shameful. Lots of things. I do what I can to the best of my ability to support causes I agree with and avoid supporting those whom I disagree with. Yeah, we all f*** up sometimes or get lazy, but the perfect is not the enemy of the good in that sense. I have no idea why you and other posters are trying to make it seem that way in order to justify, or at the very least excuse, bigotry. Yes, and...? No one has made a single point in this thread that defends Chik-Fil-A or the organizations it supports. Every single post has been directed at attacking those who do not agree with those institutions. That is an admission of defeat, both morally and intellectually. This thread just sucks all kinds of giant monkeyballs from the top down. Some of you are just too stupid for words or well past the point of no return in moral bankruptcy. Perhaps both. The D&D is not only predictable and boring in this sense now, it's just plain depressing. Sam said it best, I'm out for good.
No one has established that being against gay marriage is bigoted. Gays have the same right as anybody else to marry the opposite sex. Equal rights. The rest of society doesn't have the right to marry their sister or brother, either. Is that bigoted?
Way to go BigTexxx. If we support gay marriage we support incest! OF COURSE! Does that also mean if I support Obama I'm a red communist Nazi socialist extreme? Or how about if I support Ron Paul I'm a crazy anarchist?
but WAIT I thought the liberals established that if one is against gays marrying the one they love, then that person is a bigot. What if they love their sister. Who are you to deny them that right? You must be a bigot.
Yes, almost every single gay rights group has established that. That isn't the same rights as everyone else who have the right to marry the people they love. Your rationale is so weak and has been debunked so many times. It is the rationale used to keep interracial marriages from happening. Everyone had the right to marry an opposite sex partner of the same race. Those rights were equal. Do you agree with that?
nope you can't marry your sister your logic is inconsistent and based upon your personal SUBJECTIVE MORAL CODE
Foxconn's clients extend far beyond Apple. Apple constitutes less than a quarter of Foxconn's business which includes Acer, Dell, Intel, Toshiba, Cisco, Microsoft and on and on. Basically, if your using a computing or entertainment device there is a significant chance it includes hardware touched by a Foxconn factory "drone". The same factory where an employee had to write an apology and promise to never use a blow-dryer to dry their hair at the Foxconn dormitory. The same dormitory that has anti-suicide netting under the windows to prevent further jumpers. By the way, I posted this from an Apple device with a Chic-fil-a sandwhich stuffed in my mouth.
