Comment YJ Re: Different levels


Mozilla foundation's new CEO causes concern due to anti-gay-marriage views


That Costco link (Score: 3, Informative)

by on 2014-04-01 18:55 (#XN)

When I wrote the original article, I was using Costco as an example of a corporation whose CEO's political/personal/religious/other views affect the way they manage the entity, not an example of a corporation which has undergone backlash for said views. The link I connected it to reflects that original example. If you want a good example of Costco backlash, though, try this one. ;)

And in other news: the editors here actually EDIT! Holy crap! I think it looks better than what I originally submitted, too. Thanks!

Now just kill the magenta and comic sans and it'll be perfect. Damn April 1st.

Different levels (Score: 4, Informative)

by on 2014-04-02 03:52 (#XX)

The Costco example was simply an accidental misnaming of merchandise. It was nothing too serious and was quickly remedied by the company when someone complained.

The Firefox example was one individual donating his own money to an organization. Again, hardly an issue and barely related to the company.

Chick-fil-a was using the company's policies to push their religious views. Starting to slide down that slippery slope here.

The Hobby Lobby case was - geez - the company challenging the healthcare of their own employees to serve their own religious beliefs. Sure hope SCOTUS knocks some sense into that company.

Re: Different levels (Score: 1, Insightful)

by on 2014-04-02 22:49 (#YJ)

I'm going to disagree with you there. Both sides in any debate have rights. A customer may have a right to buy something, but a store has a right to not sell and a right to refuse service. Sometimes, for the good of society, we curtail the service provider's rights. Examples would include Utilities, Telecom, Housing, Banking, Transportation. Big ticket items where there are de facto oligarchies entrenched are far too powerful to let them do however they please, so we have laws to (try to) limit that.

That doesn't mean that you can force a baker to sell you a wedding cake when doing so violates their beliefs. Suck it up and move on. Someone else will be happy enough to take your money.

Same thing on health care. No company should be forced to provide it, let alone dictated to which specific features it will/must include. Some companies will provide it, others will not. Let the market decide. Personally, I'd rather have the extra money in my pocket (Especially since I've been laid off four times in ten years. That's money that would have gone straight down the toilet, and instead helped me keep food on the table. Yeah, something bad requiring a hospital stay could have happened. I would have crossed that bridge when I got to it.).

By saying that you hope SCOTUS "knocks some sense into that company" what you're saying is that you're right, they're wrong, and you're willing to use the threat of force, via the government, to get your way.

Here's a simpler idea: Go shop some place else.

What I suspect will actually happen is that people will continue shopping at because they like the product selection and prices, and that's more important than maintaining your ideals. So instead of tightening your belt and going some place whose standards you agree with, you'll soap box against . Either you have integrity or you do not, and crying over morality speaks volumes.

There's one side of the debate that constantly screams about equality and respect over one's choices, yet it's ALWAYS apparent that it really only applies when they agree with you.


Time Reason Points Voter
2014-04-03 12:57 Troll -1
2014-04-03 20:43 Troll -1
2014-04-06 03:24 Insightful +1
2014-04-06 22:06 Underrated +1

Junk Status

Not marked as junk