Patronizing businesses based on corporate beliefs

[anriana]

Semi-related to a topic in CS, it seemed that some people thought it was foolish to refuse to patronize businesses based on the political candidate supported by the business. I am not aware of any major businesses supporting specific candidates, but what about other political aspects? For example: Curves donating money to pro-life organizations or certain pharmacies stocking/not stocking EC. I've always made an effort to patronize the corporations that support my beliefs in these regards; do people view that as foolish? Why?

[Amethyst Hunter]

I don't think it's crazy at all. There are certain businesses that I refuse to support, knowing that they do more harm than good in the long run. I will *never* give money to or support:

- any anti-choice organization (including Curves)
- Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A or any other business that explicitly promotes and encourages dominionism and hardline religion abuse (HL and Chick-fil-A both have a history, in fact, of not only supporting dominionism and hostile religious abuse in the States but also in places like South America)
- any Republican organization (being that that party has been almost completely hijacked by said dominionists and anti-choice groups)
- any religious-affiliated organization that tacitly sanctions child abuse and misogyny (aka the Catholic Church)

Those are just a few off the top of my head. In addition, this is not to say that every single religious-related organization is bad, but it definitely sets off alarm bells in my head when religion enters the picture, and I have to do some digging first to be sure that this is a legit group and I can trust them with my money.

What WILL get donations from me:

- animal shelters/adoption organizations
- battered womens/childrens shelters
- people down on their luck for healthcare (like those little canisters you see in stores sometimes about a local family that has a very ill member and has trouble with hospital bills)
- places like Planned Parenthood

And so on.

[Boozy]

I don't think its ridiculous at all.

However, boycotts are difficult. Unless very well-organized, they're rarely effective. A handful of transnationals produce so much of what we consume. Monsanto and Nestle, for example, are horrible companies. But I unknowingly buy their products, and therefore support their actions in the developing world, every single day. Their brand isn't necessarily on the items I buy.

Smaller businesses get hit harder by boycotts.

I use my own personal spending as an extension of my conscience. I live my life in keeping with my values, not necessarily because I feel I'm making a difference, but because I don't want to be a hypocrite.

[Rapscallion]

Of note should be that most businesses (medium size) will try to side with the probable winner of political struggles in order to gain more when the results come in. The large businesses tend to work to get their favoured client into office rather than shilly-shallying around. Small guys get stuffed either way.

Not that I'm a cynic or anything.

Rapscallion

[DesignFox]

I think the difference, too, is that the person in the original thread in question went in and asked an employee a very personal question.

You wouldn't go to the mall and ask the Macy's employee who they are voting for and then make your purchase based on that.

Not to mention the fact that one employee may support one candidate, but the next employee backs another candidate.

The logic is inherently silly.

That's a far cry from say, not buying [company's] product because you know they dump toxic chemicals in the lake.

[Seshat]

Exactly.

We try to live according to our beliefs as well, which includes being somewhat careful which companies our money goes to. But there's a huge difference between doing that and harassing an innocent clerk about who they personally and individually intend to vote for.

For one thing, I firmly believe in the secret ballot. Such a question is just plain rude in a secret-ballot society. I'm the primary election researcher in my family, and I don't ask even my family who they intend to vote for - I just ask them which issues are most important to them and provide them with the available candidates' stated policies on those issues. What they do with that information is their own business.

[daleduke17]

Amethyst, what does Hobby Lobby do? I've never thought that Hobby Lobby was active in anything other than selling hobby materials.

[Sylvia727]

- any anti-choice organization (including Curves)

Curves is not anti-choice. The owner is pro-life, but boycotting Curves because of how Heavin chooses to donate his money is no different than boycotting a store because of how an employee votes in a primary. Snopes says that the founder donates his personal money, not the company's money. In addition, Seattle PI says that he donates his money to pro-life groups, not anti-choice groups. The clinics help pregnant women find alternatives to abortion and provide support for their pregnancies.

Even if I favored abortion, I still wouldn't find anything wrong in this conduct. An "employee" of Curves has a political position. Whether or not you agree with it is irrelevant to your business relation with the company. Heavin's position happens to be doing something constructive about abortion, helping people instead of hurting them.

I don't know much about the other groups you mentioned, but it is important to draw distinctions carefully.

[rahmota]

what does Hobby Lobby do? I've never thought that Hobby Lobby was active in anything other than selling hobby materials

From what I recall without googling them they support family values and other somewhat religious activities/organizations. one of the reasons they are closed on sunday (similar to chic-fil-a) so their employees can spend time with their families (as it says on the local store's door).

You are right in that there needs to be a distinction in the stnad of the employee and the company. when something comes up like chic-fil-a saying we proudly support family values (or whatever) then thats pretty certain its the company doing that. When you have one employee saying somethign like god bless you or somethign then thats not the entire company.

And yeah people sometimes support a company not because they want or dont want to but because keeping track of which mega corp owns or makes this or that product is rather difficult to do. The best thign a person can do is vote with their conscience, live their life to the best of their abilities as an example of what they believe and do the least harm they can.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Tried to reply to this several days ago but kept having posting problems. Think I've figured it out now though (with the help of a couple of kindly mods).

what does Hobby Lobby do? I've never thought that Hobby Lobby was active in anything other than selling hobby materials.

On the surface, they might appear to be nothing more than a simple Christian-based business (given their penchant for closing on Sundays and playing Christian contemporary music like many legitimately Christian-based stores do).

However, Hobby Lobby's founder has been associated in funding directly related to Jerry Falwell, and sponsoring dominionist-friendly "charities" (in which said 'charity' is used as a front for promoting dominionism and essentially blackmailing needy people into converting; there were reports of this kind of dirty deed-doing going on during the chaos of Hurricane Katrina in NOLA).

There are also unconfirmed reports that HL refuses to hire non-dominionist-friendly employees (this has also been said to happen with Chick-fil-A - which, of note, is associated with Focus On The Family - yep, those lovely folks that say 9/11 is the fault of feminists and gay people and people who are friends with either of said groups). How they manage to accomplish that, I don't know (being that it's technically illegal to hire/fire based on religious preferences), but we all know that shady practitioners can and do find their sneaky ways around specific regulations.

Curves is not anti-choice. Snopes says that the founder donates his personal money, not the company's money. In addition, Seattle PI says that he donates his money to pro-life groups, not anti-choice groups. The clinics help pregnant women find alternatives to abortion and provide support for their pregnancies...Heavin's position happens to be doing something constructive about abortion, helping people instead of hurting them.

Actually...I'm sorry to say that's not entirely true - regardless of where the money's coming from.

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2005/12/16/132516/73 - This piece lists several major *explicitly* dominionist/theocracy-happy businesses, and it counts Curves as being one of those to avoid. The author (whom I don't know personally, but can put you in contact with should you decide to investigate further - which I would recommend to anyone concerned about this) - is a former dominionist walkaway and survivor of extreme religion-based abuse who has given such accounts on a walkaways' forum, so needless to say he/she is VERY familiar with dominionist tactics.

Among warning signs that Curves IS very much anti-choice and not helping lower abortion rates constructively is the fact that they are linked to and helping to fund KNOWN extremist threats like the infamous Operation Rescue/Operation Save America (these are the people who are only too happy to bomb Planned Parenthoods and stalk / kill medical staff/patients), who are known to associate with anti-American/anti-government militias (yes, the kinds that *advocate* hardcore violence against government targets they despise).

OR head Randall Terry has *flat-out* said that he wants to establish a theocracy in this country (States) where *everyone* who is not their brand of extremist WILL be forcibly converted, imprisoned and even executed outright (depending on their level of hatred towards certain groups - needless to say, if you're a homosexual, you could basically kiss your ass goodbye in such a theocracy, and if you're female, you'll literally be forced to breed Fundie Nut Warriors For God until you die/they decide to kill you off).

It's reported that not even pro-life Catholic and some Christian evangelical groups will touch this bunch with a thousand-foot pole (and in fact most if not all the mainstream groups that call themselves pro-life will not have anything to do with anti-choice extremists that go around stalking and committing violence), so I'd say that's pretty bad. (Another important note: most legitimate pro-lifers, though they may be personally opposed to abortion, won't have an issue (mostly) with birth control; many anti-choice groups would like to see all contraceptives eliminated and banned and are in fact focusing a good deal of their efforts on this in recent years, what with rogue pharmacists thinking they can play God with someone else's medications; of even scarier note is that some dominionist groups are *deliberately* training their people to go into pharmacology for the express purpose of blocking women's access to contraceptives! This problem is severe enough that a couple of states have passed or are trying to pass legislation that *requires* all pharmacies to fulfill their job duty obligations, or to refer the customer to someplace that will - Illinois is one such state that has this law (thank God).)

Curves also is a sponsor of the infamous 700 Club on television, where Pat Robertson's rot is spewed on a regular basis.

In regards to the so-called "pregnancy crisis centers" - I DO NOT trust them and would be EXTREMELY wary of these, if only because the majority of them are deliberately set up and run by explicitly anti-choice/pro-dominionist groups that employ purposely deceiving tactics. Among these charmers is, again, our old 'friend' Operation Rescue, which has a history of buying up buildings (including clinics which dispense birth control and/or abortion services) and evicting the previous tenants, then setting up shop right next door (in some cases literally right next door) to a women's clinic or Planned Parenthood and labeling themselves in such a way so as to confuse women who want the PP (and who may not necessarily be going for an abortion, but birth control and/or medical exams instead (which comprises the vast majority of PP's services) - all the better to attempt indoctrination and harassment).

A few centers have even been known to go beyond their anti-abortion propaganda by *stalking* women who have gone to legitimate clinics and who have had abortions, going so far to track them (license plates as obvious ID, for a start), contact them and then harass them over the phone (free guesses as to the kinds of hateful bile they spew at these women, and the first two don't count).

They also have a history of falsely suggesting or offering a full range of reproductive health services - the same services that PPs do - but what happens more often than not is that the only "service" getting offered is anti-abortion 'counseling' with a heavy dose of religious-tripping guilt/judgmental attitude. Most damning, these places will also refuse or fail to provide comprehensive contraceptive information - the very thing that will help prevent abortions to begin with.

These centers will also make exaggerated claims of financial assistance/healthcare, and then not only fail to follow through on these promises, but also have been known to pressure women into either living at dominionist-operated 'halfway houses' where extremist restrictions apply, and/or giving up the resulting full-termed pregnancy to an explicitly dominionist household (of which several have been spotlighted for extensive abuse - 'boot camps' for youth like Love In Action have come under heavy fire for reports of such, not the least of which includes beatings, total isolation from secular society (dommies are big on building a parallel 'world' where everything is ruled by theocracy; think the kind of abuse that was just highlighted with the raid on that cult in Texas), and even sexual abuse). Essentially, this is literally *contracted* indoctrination into a very likely abusive situation, and I would fear greatly for any children with the unfortunate luck to wind up in such horrifying straits.

I would like to clarify that I don't have any problem with *legitimate* clinics that actually do help women who have decided to carry to term and that don't pile on the ugliness I described above. (I seem to recall that someone on CS has worked at such a place in the past, so YMMV.) The key point, however, is that it MUST 100% be the woman's choice, without any external malicious influence, and I don't trust many of these so-called crisis centers not to have a bad habit of engaging in deception and/or misinformation for the express purpose of basically bullying women into a kind of submission and then turning around and brainwashing/abusing kids for their own sick purposes.

Going back on-topic, to add to the list of businesses I refuse to patronize, here's another for folks to avoid (and which I'd avoid just for sheer expense alone): Oberweis Dairy. Its founder, Jim Oberweis, has a lengthy failure of a political 'career' (including a recent defeat in a special state election), in which he has flat-out said he would work to defund places like Planned Parenthood (not all of whom provide abortions) and backs the Iraq fiasco 100% *despite* the fact that the *majority* of Americans are ever-increasingly pissed off about that. To give you an idea of how badly Oberweis is viewed even in his own party, he was soundly defeated by a *Democrat* candidate in a historically *heavily* Republican district - the FIRST time *in over 20 years* that such a feat has ever happened.

[Sylvia727]

Amethyst - First of all, I'm not disputing how scary dominism and extremists are. As a person, their terrorism tactics scare me, and as a woman, their 'quiver of arrows' / 'living incubator' policies piss me the **** off.

But I'm not seeing any solid evidence that Heavin donates to them or is connected to them in any way. In fact, the article you linked to cites a source that comes off as very pro-Curves. There's no proof or even an actionable suspicion that he's involved with terrorists.

Heavin has said that he's donated to clinics that discourage abortion, but that's not the same thing. According to the source of the article you linked to, a Planned Parenthood rep, has said that the organizations meet a need of the community. Many impoverished women receive pre- and post-natal care from them that they otherwise could not afford.

The whole circus was stirred up by two journalists who did not check with legitimate sources and exagerrated or lied in order to sell papers. And it worked. People are boycotting Curves because they were told its founder donates Curves profits to religious terrorists, when he really donates his personal money to pro-life clinics.

Just because something's pro-life does NOT mean that it's anti-women. Many women refuse to have abortions, and they deserve to have those options, as I'm sure you'd agree. And no, I haven't contributed any money to these types of organizations, preferring to associate with ones that have philosophies closer to my own. I'm just sick of the knee-jerk many people have that pro-life = anti-women.

[Amethyst Hunter]

But I'm not seeing any solid evidence that Heavin donates to them or is connected to them in any way. In fact, the article you linked to cites a source that comes off as very pro-Curves. There's no proof or even an actionable suspicion that he's involved with terrorists.

I took a look at that Snopes article again, and caught something I missed initially: http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/...central-tx.htm (Warning: Site may be triggering for walkaways)

OR is trumpeting this news on their own site. Unless there's newsbits out there that I've missed, has Heavin ever come out and stated publicly that he and/or his organization will have *nothing* to do with OR and their affiliates (which are claiming that he gave them his stamp of approval)? If it is a false story, and libel laws are applicable, then why is this up on OR's site?

That OR would be gleefully announcing such news is disturbing to me; hence I would still recommend boycotting Curves until it's proven beyond all doubt that they are in no way associated with bona fide domestic terrorists. Even if no money at all is being exchanged here, I still wouldn't trust anybody who might be proven to have in some way endorsed such groups. It makes me wonder (and worry) what else they might be inclined to support (or not support - as in, birth control access)...

Just because something's pro-life does NOT mean that it's anti-women. Many women refuse to have abortions, and they deserve to have those options, as I'm sure you'd agree...I'm just sick of the knee-jerk many people have that pro-life = anti-women.

By the same token, those of us who are pro-choice get the reaction that "pro-choice = murderers." 'Pro-choice' means exactly that: the freedom to choose ANY option, be it contraceptives, adoption, abortion, or anything else, as per the individual's personal beliefs and circumstances. It would be just as wrong to force a woman who doesn't want an abortion to have one (as they do in places like China) as it is to deny a woman who wants an abortion that choice and access.

The reason that many people (including me) automatically go on suspicion when something claims to be "pro-life" is *because* of the nuts that claim to be pro-life and then prove that they're anything but. Anti-choice groups wield a frightening amount of power in the country and they know it; all you need do is look at how this current assministration's handled things in regards to sexual education and resources.

It's not even safe enough to say that you (generic you), as an individual, are pro-choice (unless you're in a group of like minds), because sure as donuts come powdered someone who disagrees with you will leap down your throat and possibly even threaten you for it. You NEVER EVER hear of pro-choice people or groups committing vandalism, violence or oppression towards pro-life individuals/groups; it's always been the other way around. (And I'm inclined to doubt that there are any such instances of pro-choice hostilities; 1) because no pro-choice group has ever been shown to have associated with terrorist activities, and 2) because there'd be a major uproar if it were discovered that there were places forcing pregnant women off the streets and going "hey you should have an abortion and we're gonna give you one whether you like it or not")

Like I said, I don't have a problem with places that don't try to shovel any malicious agendas at women. If someone doesn't want to have an abortion but needs specific resources, that's fine. I just don't trust the assumption that "pro-life" automatically equals "good," because too many malicious people have shown that it's become more of a code for "forcing women to behave how WE think they should."

[DesignFox]

Wow Amethyst. That is one disturbing link you posted there.

[Sylvia727]

OR is trumpeting this news on their own site. Unless there's newsbits out there that I've missed, has Heavin ever come out and stated publicly that he and/or his organization will have *nothing* to do with OR and their affiliates (which are claiming that he gave them his stamp of approval)? If it is a false story, and libel laws are applicable, then why is this up on OR's site?

I would allow the possibility that OR is making this up. They certainly don't mind breaking other laws, and a good lawyer could tie up a libel suit for years and get them off with a slap on the wrist. The lawsuit would also be free publicity for them. In the meantime, OR gets a celebrity endorsement to lend authenticity to their cause.

I thought I had read a statement from him explicitly denying the OR claims and reiterating that it was only the three programs mentioned in the snopes article, but now I can't find it. If he hasn't explicitly denied it, then I would find that very suspicious as well. He probably isn't suing OR for libel because it would just stir up further bad publicity.

That OR would be gleefully announcing such news is disturbing to me; hence I would still recommend boycotting Curves until it's proven beyond all doubt that they are in no way associated with bona fide domestic terrorists.

I assume you mean until Curves is acquited beyond all doubt? Would you still boycott Curves if it was proven that Heavin donated his personal money? Just curious. It's your prerogitive where you spend your money.

The reason that many people (including me) automatically go on suspicion when something claims to be "pro-life" is *because* of the nuts that claim to be pro-life and then prove that they're anything but.

If a guy wearing the robes of a Buddhist monk came up to me and punched me in the face, I'd be tempted to steer away from Buddhists. Even though real Buddhists are pacificists, I'd remember the charlatan who punched me.

It's fine to go on suspicion; in fact, it's rather unhealthy to take everything at face value. But I'd hate to think I was missing out on some friendships or great company just because someone is a different ideology than me.

You NEVER EVER hear of pro-choice people or groups committing vandalism, violence or oppression towards pro-life individuals/groups; it's always been the other way around.

You NEVER EVER hear of pro-life people or groups committing vandalism, violence or oppression towards pro-choice individuals/groups, either. In fact, if you can find me one example of a pro-lifer committing crimes against a pro-choicer, I will cede you victory of this debate. And I'm not being sarcastic or flippant; my entire argument is based on the presumption that pro-lifers shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as anti-choicers. If I'm wrong, then I'd like to know about it.

We pro-lifers don't like the anti-choicers any more than you pro-choicers do; in fact, some of us dislike them more. They make our peaceful and constructive efforts look similiar to violent and destructive efforts.

[Boozy]

Would you still boycott Curves if it was proven that Heavin donated his personal money?

You've mentioned personal money several times now, but I don't necessarily differentiate.

After all, where does Heavin's personal wealth come from if not from his investment in Curves? This company is not non-profit, and he is no volunteer.