Quote:
Originally Posted by Paperbackstash
I know Starbucks is under fire for the same thing (not wanting their employees to wear T-shirts or symbols expressing support, or anti-support, for BLM or other political statements.) Now they are being boycotted
I do miss the thought that businesses could choose to be neutral if they didn't want to stir feathers in either direction and just focus on, well, their business.
I support BLM, don't get me wrong, and I support protests. I'm uncomfortable with our societal trend of boycotting for political disagreements. I remember reading restaurants were banning customers they knew were Pro-Trump, or vice versa - since when is that okay and legal? To me this is similar. If they do not want to get involved in the current protests, does that mean boycotts, threats, or potential fires/lobby damage?
|
I understand for boycotting a business because you disagree with their politics. For example, Hobby Lobby who gets to ban people who are gay because they disagre with people being gay and it's a religious thing. But for being neutral? That's lame.