cubzwin said:
Absurd. Public schools don't check all their vendors to see if the owners or shareholders or corporate executives support causes that some subsets of the population would call discriminatory. That would be an onerous test. Also why stop at public schools? What if all state and federal purchasers refused to buy any products which all or in any part derived from countries that say declare homosexuality is illegal or countries that practice religious or gender discrimination? How about corporations whose products are produced in any part through child labor or even slave labor?
1. Have you seen a state or federal government contract? You have to agree to having a no discrimination policy. Homosexuality isn't one of the categories yet, but is there really a difference conceptually? Federal and state purchasers absolutely do what you are saying for several protected classes.
Also, would you feel the same way if Cal had contracted with the Black Muslim bakery back in the day? Or the Antifa food service? Would you be against a college in 1860 refusing to do business with companies that supported slavery because half the country believed in slavery? Chik's issues aren't important enough to you, but I suspect you'd feel differently about vendor choice if it were an issue that was more important to you.
To be clear I don't have a strong opinion about this, but it is not an unreasonable position.
That and it's an okay chicken sandwich. First thing I've found more overrated than In and Out . Both solid for fast food but get a big "so what" from me
And by the way, no child labor or slave labor clauses that are required to be flowed down to all subcontractors are very common. I'm not positive it is a federal contracting requirement, but it might be
