SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[Ideologue]

I think the reason might be more like I want to eat and wear clothes.

[derspiess]

I think the reason might be more like I want to eat and wear clothes.

Surely there are socialist-minded co-ops you can buy from for both.

And I hope you at least remove or cover up any brand tags on your clothes.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So, Otto, what you're saying is that you wouldn't mind buying from a company that donates heavily to an organization that wants to create a fundamentalist Muslim state with Sharia law in the US, as long as the company and the organization work within the law?

Good to know! 

I probably wouldn't care about that to be honest, no. Such an organization has so little chance of being successful that I'd not care about it to any meaningful degree. If it was a terrorist organization, it'd be illegal for the  business to make those donations in the first place.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If you have the choice between two merchants to obtain the same product and merchant A finincially supports [fill in an activity you find odious] and merchant B financially supports [fill in activity you strongly support] you would be a bit silly to support merchant A through the purchase of their product.  Through that financial transaction you deem to be neutral you are in fact providing the means by with the merchant is able to support the cause you find odious.

There has been a lot written about the impact of choices made by consumers.  I am not sure how one can deny a relationship between the choices a consumer makes and the world they get.

How often are we really faced with such a manufactured choice, though? Okay, so I find out Chik-fil-A is the devil, that happened because of gay media outrage. Ostensibly CFA had been doing that shit forever, but only more recently was it really publicized heavily. How do I know Wendy's or Arby's isn't doing things I dislike, just no crusader has made me aware of it yet? I don't. So my option is to rigorously research everything before I buy it (if I'm going to live this life morally crusading against businesses that sell fast food), or to just trust that whichever business the media makes a fuss about is the one I need to be worried about.

So one problem is for me to be anything but a lazy hypocrite while living this way, I'd need to be doing research on every merchant I do business with. The argument that "well you can just be outraged about the ones you happen to hear about" is nonsense to me. If it's immoral to buy from those businesses, then the onus is on you to research every business you have dealings with.

Another problem is one of comparable product. In your choice, you assume I can just go to Merchant B. CFA makes peach milk shakes, how many fast food places in the shopping center where I'm stopping to get fast food serve those? Answer: Zero. So I'm not actually choosing between like products, but deciding to buy a different product because of corporate behavior unrelated to the food business. Same with say, a supermarket. By far one of the most important things to me with a supermarket is proximity to my house, and if the one 0.5 mi away is owned by a "bad guy" who has politically objectionable opinions, even if the one 10 mi. away is essentially the same business, they aren't comparable choices because one involves a 20mi round trip versus 1 mi at the other.

I think you avoid all this with the common sense view that you're morally responsible for your behavior, not the behavior of others. If your purchase is somehow intrinsically immoral then that's a concern, but if you're buying say, food, clothes, electronic toys or etc, I don't see any moral impingement--and what the merchant does once your money becomes their money is their moral decision for which we are not responsible.

To put it in Christian terms, it's like saying a Christian should only associate with other Christians who are also working to not sin, and not only that, but only Christians actively trying to avoid sinning who themselves only do business with the same. That's a logically ludicrous position and defies the strictures of really any form of ethics worth following.

[crazy canuck]

If you have the choice between two merchants to obtain the same product and merchant A finincially supports [fill in an activity you find odious] and merchant B financially supports [fill in activity you strongly support] you would be a bit silly to support merchant A through the purchase of their product.  Through that financial transaction you deem to be neutral you are in fact providing the means by with the merchant is able to support the cause you find odious.

There has been a lot written about the impact of choices made by consumers.  I am not sure how one can deny a relationship between the choices a consumer makes and the world they get.

How often are we really faced with such a manufactured choice, though? Okay, so I find out Chik-fil-A is the devil, that happened because of gay media outrage. Ostensibly CFA had been doing that shit forever, but only more recently was it really publicized heavily. How do I know Wendy's or Arby's isn't doing things I dislike, just no crusader has made me aware of it yet? I don't. So my option is to rigorously research everything before I buy it (if I'm going to live this life morally crusading against businesses that sell fast food), or to just trust that whichever business the media makes a fuss about is the one I need to be worried about.

So one problem is for me to be anything but a lazy hypocrite while living this way, I'd need to be doing research on every merchant I do business with. The argument that "well you can just be outraged about the ones you happen to hear about" is nonsense to me. If it's immoral to buy from those businesses, then the onus is on you to research every business you have dealings with.

Another problem is one of comparable product. In your choice, you assume I can just go to Merchant B. CFA makes peach milk shakes, how many fast food places in the shopping center where I'm stopping to get fast food serve those? Answer: Zero. So I'm not actually choosing between like products, but deciding to buy a different product because of corporate behavior unrelated to the food business. Same with say, a supermarket. By far one of the most important things to me with a supermarket is proximity to my house, and if the one 0.5 mi away is owned by a "bad guy" who has politically objectionable opinions, even if the one 10 mi. away is essentially the same business, they aren't comparable choices because one involves a 20mi round trip versus 1 mi at the other.

I think you avoid all this with the common sense view that you're morally responsible for your behavior, not the behavior of others. If your purchase is somehow intrinsically immoral then that's a concern, but if you're buying say, food, clothes, electronic toys or etc, I don't see any moral impingement--and what the merchant does once your money becomes their money is their moral decision for which we are not responsible.

To put it in Christian terms, it's like saying a Christian should only associate with other Christians who are also working to not sin, and not only that, but only Christians actively trying to avoid sinning who themselves only do business with the same. That's a logically ludicrous position and defies the strictures of really any form of ethics worth following.

You are correct.  Being a smart consumer takes effort.  But nobody would bother making any effort if they subscribed to your orginal point that all transactions are nuetral and one should never care how the money is used after the point of purchase.  If consumers dont care then they will never influence how producers and merchants operate.  But there is lots of evidence to the contrary and so a rest easy in knowing you and Ide are in the minority - although for different reasons.

[derspiess]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

[garbon]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Yeah for the most part I just buy whatevs. But if I was confronted with slaves* when going to purchase something? Probably wouldn't go to that store anymore.

*or knew about the slaves toiling in backroom.

[Malthus]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.

[derspiess]

Yeah.  YOU HEAR THAT SCALIA?!!?

[derspiess]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Yeah for the most part I just buy whatevs. But if I was confronted with slaves* when going to purchase something? Probably wouldn't go to that store anymore.

*or knew about the slaves toiling in backroom.

I'd probably tell on them if they have slaves.  That's just not right.

[crazy canuck]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.

Is that why so many corporations now try to market themselves as "green"? 

[Malthus]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.

Is that why so many corporations now try to market themselves as "green"?

"Green" is a statement about a corporation's practices, not its religious beliefs. Corporations often claim that their practices meet certain standards - may even be certified as doing so, or following some industry association's standards of quality.

It is very different from proclaiming that the corporation itself has some sort of religious beliefs or goals quite aside from providing products and services.

[merithyn]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.

It's been clear for a while that that's not the case. There are a number of stores that I will not buy from for a similar reason to the Hobby Lobby mess. (By the way, I stopped shopping at HL a while ago because of their contributions to groups fighting gay marriage.)

As for Otto's statement that it requires an all-or-none approach, I don't agree. I have an advantage of living in a relatively small city, so finding out the general corporate contributions, if there are any, aren't difficult. I shop primarily at the local food co-op or a locally owned grocery store. I've looked into the other stores that I frequent. I know which fast food restaurants I'm comfortable supporting, and I avoid new ones until I've had time to see where they stand.

Are these absolutes? No. But I believe that making my stance known with my credit card is the best option that I have, even if I'm imperfect in it.

[crazy canuck]

I wouldn't say they're in the minority.  I think most people (in the US anyway) want to buy things they like and live their own lives.

Most people also more or less assume corporations are morally indifferent entities designed to pursue business, and lack such attributes as opinions on religious matters.

Is that why so many corporations now try to market themselves as "green"?

"Green" is a statement about a corporation's practices, not its religious beliefs. Corporations often claim that their practices meet certain standards - may even be certified as doing so, or following some industry association's standards of quality.

It is very different from proclaiming that the corporation itself has some sort of religious beliefs or goals quite aside from providing products and services.

Corporations dont have religious beliefs.

[Malthus]

Corporations dont have religious beliefs.

I agree, and think the very notion is absurd ... but evidently, the US Supreme Court thinks otherwise.