- Dec 19, 2010
That is exactly why this whole thing is so annoying. Do business with whomever you choose, provided race, gender, and sexual orientation are not the impetus behind it. Like you and others have pointed out, it's selective discrimination. If he can choose to no do business based on that, anyone should be able to choose not to do business with someone based on anything at all.Riff Moonraker said:This is where I have a problem with this whole thing. I agree, that you should have the right to do business with whomever you choose... however, if THIS is acceptable, then why is it NOT acceptable for a private business owner to choose not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple if it goes against their religious beliefs? This is where you start to see hypocrits abound, and is one of the biggest problems with hard left liberals, who think that its ok, ONLY if it applies to their way. Either the road goes both ways, or it doesnt go at all.Baresark said:Well, that's cool I guess. Does anyone care who their box supplier is? I mean, were they gonna lose business because of their box supplier? I say that if it will, then by all means, change suppliers. But if you are choosing a company based solely on the owners want to donate their own private money to whichever organization they want, that seems stupid to me. But you have the right to do business with whoever you choose. No one can deny that.
Of course he has a choice to do business with whoever he likes. But lets not sugar coat it. Discrimination is discrimination. As rational people, we should not support a double standard when it comes to any type of discrimination. If one type is OK, another should be OK. Really, the most logical thing to do is allow it all. People have bias built into them, and denying that is the stupidest thing anyone can do. Yeah, there will be some racist assholes out there, but by and large business would go on as usual. Racism will work itself right out of the market, just like sexism does.Zanderinfal said:Not a huge deal in the scheme of things. That said, things worked out for the guy and it doesn't affect buyers of CAH so all power to him for choosing to be with a supplier that he's comfortable working with.
For those crying "discrimination," I think you need to think about it from the guy's point of view. Say you do what he does, right? You send out a fun little card game out to people through a supplier. Easy. But if your supplier funds a political party you unequivocally do not support, you're well within well rights to do business with a different company. Again, it's about being comfortable with who you do business with. It's not like he's stopped working with them for having particular view; it's the funding part that he's clearly not comfortable with. And I mean it's not like he doesn't like the Tea Party for something trivial - it's almost certainly a conflict on multiple levels on various ideas and/or issues.
Also, the guy associated with the Tea Party does seem... well, I'll just say I can really understand why he doesn't want to be associated with him.
Ultimately I don't care so much myself, but the idea is still repugnant. I don't really care about CAH, it doesn't appeal to me. And I always support someone's right to do business with who they choose to do it with.