sonofabear51 said:

---

Oh, Bertola's! Now, those were good days! Cheap drinks and eats, especially the pasta!

---

Its funny. I knew Bertola's as a kid when our folks used to take us there on Sunday nights a couple of times a month. My brothers and I loved going there for the family style food and the bread.... warm bread and delicious food. Its funny because when I was at Cal I went there numerous times but never ate a thing..... Hated to see them close.

packawana said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

packawana said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

I'm still waiting for someone to back up the claim that Chick Fil A discriminates or somehow lacks diversity. There is literally no evidence of that and, in fact, Chick Fil A is one of the better paying jobs for young people of all backgrounds.

The fact that one of its owners has political (really religious) views that people don't like (regarding gay marriage) doesn't mean the company discriminates in how it does business or treats people. That is an important distinction.

And yes, if people want to boycott because of the owners' beliefs, that is your right. But inevitably that leads to a more divided country and has unintended consequences (Bill Maher had a good take on this last weekend).

And for the record, those of you boycotting/avoiding Chick Fil A but eating In N Out might want to do a little research. Where does it end?

---

I'm not entirely sure how you can consider any sort of market as entirely amoral. To take an extreme example -- if a company produced very good food that you like but its owners used the proceeds they made to fund domestic terrorism, would you willingly eat there? This isn't making the insinuation in the Chick-fil-a case at all; rather, it is to demonstrate that moral considerations do drive market forces.

Or, let's the view from an opposite side of the spectrum. Would you levy the same criticism that you're making in the Chick-Fil-A case against Americans who refuse to watch NFL games where players kneel during the National Anthem? It is somewhat analogous to the Chick-Fil-A example.

---

There is a big difference between patronizing a business that supports actual criminal/terrorist violence and patronizing (indirectly) someone with religious/political views that are different than my own. The first person is committing a criminal act; the second is exercising their first amendment right to free speech, free exercise of religion, and free association.

It is not a question of amorality - it is a question of tolerance for people with alternate viewpoints.

Should supporters of opposite sex marriage boycott ALL LGBT-owned businesses because those businesses and support gay marriage?

Should pro-lifers boycott all business with owners or employees who support planned parenthood?

Should Jews boycott christian owned businesses and vice versa?

Should democrats boycott all businesses with republican owners or employees?

Boycotting someone (or a business) because they have opposing/different political or religious views is, by definition, intolerant. And that intolerance will only be reciprocated, leading to more division in our society.

---

Again, that assumes an equivalence of moral positions. You could consider those in the 1800s who justified slavery as a cultural institution as have a different political viewpoint. Is it necessary that those kinds of positions be tolerated? I don't think so.

I guess a better example would be whether by your definition, the division created by not patronizing a business that profits white or black supremacists is considered a net negative for society.

I guess, yes, you could call it intolerance, but all of morality is based on some intolerance of views considered abhorrent. Hurting someone out of malice, would be another example, of intolerance of views. Intolerance of racism would be another.

---

I make no such assumptions of moral equivalence. What I am saying is that the targets of boycotts in recent year are very often (really almost always) targeted because of their political or religious views which are NOT outside the mainstream. The Chick Fil A example is on point - the company was targeted because ONE OF ITS OWNERS had a particular view opposing gay marriage - a view that was consistent with centuries of legal and religious teachings and then held by many certified liberals (including Barack Obama). The owner's view was held by pretty much about 50% of the country, give or take. It doesn't mean he was right, but it does mean he was within the real of reasonable discourse.

And the boycott was not intended to convince - it was intended to punish, ostracize and vilify so that voicing or holding such a view was made verboten. Basically your telling 40-60% of the population that they're views are repugnant.

That type of divisiveness and intolerance gets you, among other things, President Donald Trump.