The Coin Return Foundational Fundraiser is here! Please donate!
A Discussion about Ethical Consumerism
Quid
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
Definitely not a bananaRegistered User regular
In the last few days there's been a bit of a hubbub over denying people or refusing to use a service or product for different reasons. One reason in particular I'd like to discuss is refusing to based on ethical reasons.
Ethics and morality are a messy concept. There's a lot of things people consider immoral. In the states it can range from serving a person of color, to anyone of the LGBTQ community, someone of a specific religion, to someone with politics we disagree with strongly.
What I'd like to discuss is what people think is and is not acceptable to avoid patronizing and/or acceptable to refuse service over. Some people contend it shouldn't matter, others (like myself) argue it is dependent on the context of the situation.
Currently in the U.S. the following are not allowed to be discriminated against legally:
Mind, not all of these apply to everything the government does. For example, everyone over 40 is barred from joining the armed services currently. The point is, what do you think is a viable reason to alter your consumerist preferences.
I also realize this OP is very U.S. centric. I don't mean to exclude other locations but it's become something of a hot topic here lately and it's where my head is at. By no means consider other countries excluded from the discussion, just please specify the country you're talking about if it's not America.
IMPORTANT THREAD RULES:
1. Be civil to each other within this thread. I understand this is potentially a discussion about not being civil to people in other spaces but in this space civility is required.
2. This is not the thread to complain about Democrats or really any other politicians and their opinions regarding civility. They don't post here, this thread isn't about them or what they think, it's about what people here think.
Ethics and morality are a messy concept. There's a lot of things people consider immoral. In the states it can range from serving a person of color, to anyone of the LGBTQ community, someone of a specific religion, to someone with politics we disagree with strongly.
What I'd like to discuss is what people think is and is not acceptable to avoid patronizing and/or acceptable to refuse service over. Some people contend it shouldn't matter, others (like myself) argue it is dependent on the context of the situation.
Currently in the U.S. the following are not allowed to be discriminated against legally:
Race/ethnicity
Religion
Color
National origin
Age (40 and over)
Sexual orientation
Individuals with disabilities
Veteran status
Sex
Height
Weight
Marital status
Gender identity
Genetic information
Mind, not all of these apply to everything the government does. For example, everyone over 40 is barred from joining the armed services currently. The point is, what do you think is a viable reason to alter your consumerist preferences.
I also realize this OP is very U.S. centric. I don't mean to exclude other locations but it's become something of a hot topic here lately and it's where my head is at. By no means consider other countries excluded from the discussion, just please specify the country you're talking about if it's not America.
IMPORTANT THREAD RULES:
1. Be civil to each other within this thread. I understand this is potentially a discussion about not being civil to people in other spaces but in this space civility is required.
2. This is not the thread to complain about Democrats or really any other politicians and their opinions regarding civility. They don't post here, this thread isn't about them or what they think, it's about what people here think.
0
Posts
I just don't think "But it's my political belief" should be a sufficient shield for people to not suffer the consequences of their actions.
It shouldn't be, and the fact that we've let it be has been a large contribution to why we're at the point we're at now.
It's the difference between denying someone for being black, and denying someone cause ya once saw em punch a puppy.
I also think the rules have to be a little different for politicians and other public figures. Hypothetically, a baker couldn't refuse service to a gay couple for homosexual behavior that doesn't happen in his shop; but he could absolutely refuse service to a politician for fascist behavior that happens outside his shop, because the politician is acting in view and on behalf of the public.
The baker could probably refuse service for public displays of affection in his shop as long as he enforced it equally on everyone regardless of the gender(s) involved, because again, behavior, not innate characteristic.
I'm sure this will shortly be poked full of holes :biggrin:
Buying or selling to someone is entering into an implicit (or explicit) contractual relationship, if short lived. Refusal to enter into that relationship where doing so doesn't impinge on a protected class should be uncontroversial. And to the extent where one can discriminate based on a protected class, it is the motive that makes it unethical/immoral/potentially illegal.
Its a BS media story that is being pushed because they hobnob with Trump officials. If David Duke was excluded they wouldn't blink, but Trump and his cronies behavior has been "normalized" so they should somehow be exempt
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Of course, this will often identify you as a very silly goose, so a finger on the pulse of your consumer base is probably important if you plan to kick out all the [political affiliation] from your store and also stay in business.
The people telling me "fuck your feelings" as they push for legistlation that directly harms my family getting upset that a cell phone video of them doing so got leaked and people told them they were shit people? Yeah, no sympathy.
And the real answer should have been, make the damn seats bigger.
The amount of physical space a person takes up is an inherent characteristic, sure; but one that interacts directly with the laws of physics. People who physically take up more than one seat for any reason should have to pay for more than one seat, or the airline should be required to provide roomier seats and eat the cost (i.e., being too big to fit would be treated like a disability, in that it must be accommodated).
edit: I'm intentionally saying "big" instead of "fat." I'm 5'5" and 130 lbs, and I just barely fit comfortably in an airline seat. The average-sized male frame is probably too big to be comfortable, and half of all men have a bigger frame than average.
I've turned away a roofer once because he had developed a reputation of half assing his jobs and shingling roofs in a way that violated their warranty and I refused to be party to him cheating another homeowner out of a decent job and sticking them with a roof that wasn't covered under the manufacturers warranty. Other than that we have a small blacklist of people that kept bouncing checks that we won't take checks from.
I'm pretty sure this list includes classes that are not protected under federal law, but might be protected under individual states' laws.
The protected classes (with regards to employment discrimination) according to the EEOC website are:
That said, I could have sworn that marital status fell under EEOC protection.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Places of public accommodation have the right to refuse service except in cases of:
Race
Color
Religion
National origin
Disability
According to federal law. Nonprofits are exempt. The rest is up to states
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Edit: More on topic, I'm happy that looking in to and being selective about what you buy and who you buy it from doesn't seem to be as frowned upon as it used to be.
This is a good way to look at the situation until you remember that everyone's an asshole to someone.
A restaurant owner cannot refuse service to black people (race is a protected class), but if a restaurant owner felt compelled to they could start refusing service to Democrats, since "Democrat" is not a protected class. It's merely remarkably convenient for that restaurant owner that 89% of blacks voted for Hillary in the 2016 election.
How would they know the person is a democrat? Seems pretty easy to tell if it's based on race in this case, unless they happen to be wearing some sort of apparel declaring them as a democrat. Not as easily identifiable as an elected official.
Easier said then done. Whoever owns the presidency, SCOTUS and congress will have the advantage and too often these organisations are with conservative advantages. If both parties were on equal footing politically then I might agree.
Stores usually don't have to, a pro or anti-LGBT sign can make the distinction clear.
The business owner could make a clear statement about their disdain for Democrats, and Democrats would choose to avoid the establishment on their own, thus solving the business owner's problem. The CEO of Chick-fil-A said that they did not support same sex marriage and the end result was that people who were gay or sympathetic to gays boycotted the chain. He didn't have to stand in a restaurant and point out people who looked like they might be gay and tell them they had to leave, they chose not to come in the first place. Democrats might just be a code for black people in this example, but replace "Democrats" with essentially any social group and you would likely have the same effect.
When a business owner decides to make a political statement, be it something said in an interview, something in their policies, or by refusing service to a member of a politician's staff, they have to weigh the benefit of maintaining some sort of personal moral or ethical high ground (real or imagined) against the potential impact to their revenue. Sometimes it works out well (Chick-fil-A saw a 30% increase in profits that year), sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time it doesn't matter because people forget in a week or two when the next big outrage event occurs.
I think it's ridiculous to kick someone out of your restaurant because they work for a person you don't like (money is money, the foodservice industry is tough), but I also think it's ridiculous that people would be upset about a business owner deciding who they want to serve in the business that they own. In an ideal world, a business owner would be able to refuse service to any person at any time for any reason, but life would be very difficult for certain people if business owners were granted that sort of power so unfortunately we have to curtail it.
Throwing someone out of your restaurant because they work for Trump is kinda dumb, but a dumb decision isn't always a wrong decision. The business owner will just have to accept the repercussions from making a political statement if they get reviewbombed on yelp or boycotted or whatever else, because we live in an era where if someone does something that hurts your leftist/rightist feelings the logical course of action is to find a bunch of other people online who lean the same direction you do and do everything in your power to destroy the person or business in question.
The best option for a business tends to be to happily take anyone's money who will give it to you and to not touch something as divisive as modern politics with a ten foot pole.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
If someone demonstrates that they are a bad person repeatedly I would not want to do business with them. If I’m capable of avoiding it I’d absolutely exercise that right.
She’s also just a plainly horrible person. Attacks the press for doing their job, is constantly insulting and rude, and does it all with that bullshit self righteous and victimized attitude. She is a garbage person through and through.
That’d be enough to say please, I don’t want you here bringing my business down.
in this extremely trying time of fascism and late stage capitalism, I will take all the joys their minor pains grant me
Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
Which is weird, but that's their rules.
like I know papa johns pizza is a terrible company to give money to due to how they treat their employees and that their CEO (I guess is what he is) loves him some trump, while the president of Little Caesar's paid for Rosa Parks' apartment for over 20 years and has a number of actual charities.
Probably because paying for a seat is deeply coupled to reserving that seat, and/or it discourages people from abusing the free seat by making them pay upfront and make a token effort to get their money back.
Ethical consumption lists are generally about how vegan your place is.
When it comes to political ideology, a score system may not align with your own tolerance limits
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Little Ceasar's is also unduly shit on. It's not supposed to be a gourmet, artisan pizza.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
(It's a side note in this 538 article https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-democrat-is-up-big-in-arizonas-senate-race-for-now/)
The difference between kicking someone out for not liking dogs, and kicking someone out because you once saw them punch a puppy.
And then I'd just roll on the floor laughing before they even answered.
Either is fine, imo.
I recognize that this would balkanize the fuck out of the country if it was widespread, and it would suck because I like a lot of art and music and cuisine made by people who would eject me for my political views.
But if that's how we want to roll, it's Constitutional and legal to do so.
I'm aware that the political right are immune to hypocrisy (it's right there on their character sheet), and yet... they've been supporting restricting service for years. I'm also aware that those supporting the former will do impressive mental gymnastics to justify outrage at the latter.
Not aimed at you, Spool, just a general comment on the situation as a whole.
That said, more directly aimed at you, Spool, unless we start seeing "Registered Democrats Only" signs, I think you're safe unless you plan to work as the mouthpiece of the current Administration.
Though at the rate they're tearing through cabinet members and staff, I wouldn't rule you getting a shot at the job before the year is out.
I disagree. Just because you feel strongly doesn't mean its not politically motivated.
You don't think there are republicans who consider abortion life or death levels of seriousness? Or what about the republican who see's a close relation lose a job and have their life fall apart. Or worse commit suicide. And then they see mountains of propaganda blaming democratic policies for the woes. You don't think they are going to feel like their issues are just as serious and repugnant as the ones you are talking about?
From the other side, do you really feel less strongly about republican senators who refuse to stop trump than you do about his aides who are actively campaigning to continue? Should McConnell be given a pass because he isn't an active participant even though he could very likely have enough power to put a stop to it if he should chose? Because you seem to be saying so long as they aren't actively doing harmful things we should show them civility, but I find it unlikely you would feel bad about McConnell being kicked out instead.
Personally I don't see the benefit of widening the divide between left and right ideologies by throwing out the chance for civility and actual discourse. Kicking sanders out of your restaurant is not going to convince republicans that they are wrong about border security. It's going to make them more intransigent.
As always with these discussions there is a very big distinction between what you can do, and what you should do. For the most part there tends to be little disagreement on what can be done, but what should be done will very widely.
This part isn't true.
Of the 15ish teenagers I've been a regular part- or full-time parental figure for in the last decade, two of them have fallen to the alt-right's rhetoric. One has come back (close friend of BC), the other is all-in (close friend of Squeakel and spool18). Stuff like this definitely proves them right, because the rest of the message doesn't penetrate and once you're in, your inputs get gradually more attenuated until we end up with
and I wish I wasn't serious here but
until we end up with a 19yr old kid who has known me since he was 10 years old and talked politics dozens of times over the years, accusing Belasco and me of being leftwing liberal SJWs who support political correctness and the progressive agenda.
which is pretty fucking lol but there it is. Whether actions like that are worth still doing or not is an open question, but they do have an impact on the youth. It took me ~15 years to move away from opinions about political correctness and minority rights that I formed in part because of aggressive and combative 'liberals' at the college I attended. Mockery makes enemies. Your enemies have social media, and the signal is self-selected.