Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.
As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that in my purchasing decisions.
I'm opposed to dragging the vitriolic "I refuse to work with you because you're a Publican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/bleeding-heart/homophobe' behavior into a wider arena of life. I'm friends with and work with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. and that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a world where our political differences mean we can't function as a society. I can't get my haircut there--he's racist or sexist or homophobic. No, he's a normally-okay dude who cuts my hair well.
I don't know how to best express this. Jon Stewart kind of talked about it at the Rally for Sanity when he mentioned how we don't cut people off for having a McCain bumper sticker.
Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs.
Are they really decent if they were racist/sexist/homophobic? Just because people were nice to others that didn't fit into their hatepool, I do not feel that makes them generally "decent". No matter what time period you look at, there were people that didn't agree with these "social norms". I would call the such occurrences "decent people".
I understand your message about party differences/etc. but I feel there is a line that can get crossed between differing perspectives and hateful behavior. The latter should not be tolerated, in my opinion.
Deleted comment
You don't have to commit genocide to be racist, you don't have to commit rape to be sexist, you don't have to engage in oppression to be homophobic.
People are complicated. No one is perfect. Everyone has good and bad qualities.
Let's say you were in 1880's Deep South and thought black should vote. Do you think there's no problem if people in town refuse to sell you goods for that? Is a Hollywood blacklist just something to shrug off.
Obviously you should not be forced, as an individual, to purchase goods or services from someone else you don't like. Going any further than that and society can strangle minority viewpoints almost as oppressively as government. If I refuse to deal with you, or anyone who deals with you, or anyone who deals with anyone who deals with you, than we move away from a pluralistic society towards one where the group most in charge at a given moment wins.
What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state? I guess I am "incorrect" for not supporting state-recognized gay marriage. But how was I supposed to determine this before you came along to tell me?
Marriage, in the legal sense, just a particular type of contract, long recognized because of how commonly people wanted to enter into a particular type of economic arrangement. It is non-sensical to think religious institutions should have any say in defining this type of contract, any more than they have a say in defining the contracts that pertain to, say, residential leases. Should religious institutions be able to use Biblical scripture to argue that implied in any residential lease is a warranty that the landlord will have running water, etc? Of course not, that is the exclusive domain of the secular courts. The marriage contract, being no different, should be treated no differently.
You hear other people's opinions and you make up your mind. It's painfully obvious that there isn't an objective repository for this sort of thing; the whole notion of 'inalienable rights" is rather recent and fluffy to begin with.
>What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state?
Yet we live in a society where marriage is legally defined. It's fine to work against abolishing the institution of marriage, but if that's the case witholding that legal definition from an arbitrary segment of the population becomes a petty argument over semantics.
If I have any objection here, it's to the notion of "socially correct." What is the epistemology of social correctness?
From the response it seems there is none, there are just people who are applying force. I don't agree with that.
Welcome to every social interaction ever. You come up with an argument and you get people to agree with it.
Re: "socially correct", do you agree with anti-miscegenation laws? If not, why? The argument for gay people is virtually identical.
[1] Granted, the Civil War Amendments were imposed under martial law, but calls for the repeal of the 14th Amendment are rare.
Thank you.
This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.
That was stupid, this isn't reddit.
libertarians do believe that market pressure should be used instead of government coercion. You'll definitely find plenty of them who do support a boycott of chick-fil-a.
At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation.
The CEO of Chick-fil-A is like 90. If he was just homophobic, sexist, etc, in private, it wouldn't make news anywhere.
I respect anyone's choice to do so.
However, for me personally I see trying to convince other people to share your opinion as just an extension of having an opinion in the first place.
I wouldn't vote for a law to ban gay marriage, but I'd still patronize a business who's owner did.
Unless that owner was doing something more than peacefully trying to coerce people to vote for said law.
Obviously being a massive funder of a campaign against equal rights for the gay community is totally a neutral position which in no way harms gay people, but pointing out the fact that they've been doing it? Why, that makes gay people big meanies who are attacking this nice family for no reason.
As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea.
Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum?
>>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight.
They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy?
>>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome?
Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false.
>>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance.
The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how?
>>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea.
As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right?
>>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.
When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views.
Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
"good people" is not among them.
> Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance
There's the problem. Morals are neither here nor there. You can believe that homosexuality is wrong and still recognize that allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage contract is just and right. I think lying is wrong, but I wouldn't try to advance legislation that prevents liars from getting married.
Nobody is mad at Chick-fil-A for being bigoted in the privacy of their own home. They're mad at Chick-fil-A for their actions and for how they spend their money on bigoted campaigns.
The big deal is that someone that is "famous" said publicly that he doesn't support gay marriage. The LGBT movement, "tolerant" as they are, just can't have that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
There is also a significant difference between "not supporting" something and campaigning to prevent anyone from doing it. I "don't support" tax-exempt religion, but I'm not giving money to a lobbying group to try to end it.
Whereas I, a progressive libertarian (free-market progressive?) believe that worldview to be inconsistent with libertarianism, hence lolbertarian.
Companies, governments, organizations, institutions at large all exert and respond to their own social pressures and cannot be considered in isolation thereof.
Another is the fact that pretty much every apparatus ever erected for the enforcement of "correct views" has ultimately been corrupted and abused.
What could possibly go wrong?
Please let me know where to find the official canon of "correct social views", as I am anxious not to end up in the Gulag accidentally.