Who is More Morally Prohibitive? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 07-27-2006, 04:13 AM
Newbie
 
jzt83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28
There are two health food stores near where I live. One sells meat, and the other doesn't sell meat at all. The store that doesn't sell meat allegedly doesn't hire homosexuals, while the store that does sell meat does hire homosexuals. Who is more morally prohibitive; the store that sells meat and hires homosexuals, or the store that doesn't sell meat but discriminates against homosexuals? I'd say the store that sells meat is more morally prohibitive because they advocate the killing of countless animals and contribute to immense suffering; while the store that doesn't sell meat is only limiting the oppurtunties of a miniscule amount of people from being employed. Both are evil in my opinion though. What are your thoughts?
jzt83 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 07-27-2006, 04:32 AM
 
IamJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 19,134
Despite my reservations about your intentions here, I'm moving this post to the Compost Heap, since it's highly debatable.

The ones I pity are the ones who never stick out their neck for something they believe, never know the taste of moral struggle, and never have the thrill of victory. - Jonathan Kozol
IamJen is offline  
#3 Old 07-27-2006, 04:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
~Wonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,182
How dualistic.



Why not think about this optimistically, you have two health food stores near where you live. I wish I had that sort of selection of wonderful health foods.



What good is good if you only focus on the bad?

~Wonder
~Wonder is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 07-27-2006, 04:44 AM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
I personally would not give my money to a store run by a known bigot. Most stores I shop at sell meat - so does my HFS.
bstutzma is offline  
#5 Old 07-27-2006, 04:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
MaryC1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,204
One of the HFS by me sells meat, the other one doesn't. The one that sells meat has a better selection of items though. I don't see selling meat as being morally wrong.

If you're in the US, it sounds like one of the stores is breaking the law though. And how would they know someone is gay? Do they have a question on their application?

Frankly, I don't see the connection....

Mary
MaryC1999 is offline  
#6 Old 07-27-2006, 05:15 AM
Newbie
 
jzt83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryC1999 View Post

One of the HFS by me sells meat, the other one doesn't. The one that sells meat has a better selection of items though. I don't see selling meat as being morally wrong.

If you're in the US, it sounds like one of the stores is breaking the law though. And how would they know someone is gay? Do they have a question on their application?

Frankly, I don't see the connection....

Mary

I guess it is mostly speculation that the store that doesn't sell meat doesn't hire gays. A couple of my friends told my about it and one of them told me that her professor told her about it. I've done some research on the owner of the store and he's a council man here and is a member of a krishna group that is very anti-homosexual. I've also read that many of the workers are members of the Krishna group as well, although the workers seem very normal to me. Back in 2000, a few workers sued the store because they accused the store for firing them because they weren't members of the religion. I have no idea what happened to the case. The owner is also vehemently against gay marriage and has been outspoken about it in debates and speeches; it is very well known that he is absolutely anti-homosexual. There has been some protests about the stores allegeded discrimination, but the protests were only based on allegations. Again, the stores discrimination is solely based on allegations that I am inclined to believe is true.



If it were true, I still think supporting the store that sells meat is more wrong than the store than allegedly does not hire homosexuals because the meat selling store is contributing to immense suffering of countless animals, whereas the other store is just denying employment to a small amount of people. Both are very wrong but the store that sells meat is more wrong than the other. I do reluctantly patronize both stores, as I don't have much alternatives. I think I like to grow my own food someday or start a food-buying club with some other vegans, so I don't have to deal with supporting that which I don't agree with.
jzt83 is offline  
#7 Old 07-27-2006, 05:25 AM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
Apparently, some of us value anti-discrimination laws more than you do.
bstutzma is offline  
#8 Old 07-27-2006, 06:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by bstutzma View Post

Apparently, some of us value anti-discrimination laws more than you do.

Or maybe he/she values them as much as you but opposes the selling of meat much more than you.



(And personally, I would abstain from supporting a discriminatory store because I think discrimination is wrong, not because there's a law against it.)

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#9 Old 07-27-2006, 08:38 AM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJen View Post

Despite my reservations about your intentions here, I'm moving this post to the Compost Heap, since it's highly debatable.



eh, not really. I thought the OP's Q was which one was more prohibitive?



The one that allegedly prohibits both homosexuality and meat eating on moral grounds?



Or the one that doesn't?



Seems pretty clear cut.
Red is offline  
#10 Old 07-27-2006, 08:47 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

eh, not really. I thought the OP's Q was which one was more prohibitive?



The one that allegedly prohibits both homosexuality and meat eating on moral grounds?



Or the one that doesn't?



Seems pretty clear cut.

Yep, we can clearly infer this from the fact that the OP considered the meat-selling one to be more prohibitive.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#11 Old 07-27-2006, 08:58 AM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenseas View Post

Yep, we can clearly infer this from the fact that the OP considered the meat-selling one to be more prohibitive.



Right. That was a statement of their leanings. The question was which one do the rest of us consider to be more prohibitive.
Red is offline  
#12 Old 07-27-2006, 09:05 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
..and I thought this question would be judged according to the definition which the OP intended, not according to some other definition that would thus result in answers he/she would have no use for.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#13 Old 07-27-2006, 09:36 AM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
Quote:
If you're in the US, it sounds like one of the stores is breaking the law though. And how would they know someone is gay? Do they have a question on their application?

FYI, it's not illegal in the United States to discriminate against homosexuals. Except for a few select areas of the country were state or local laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, employers can and quite often do refuse to hire people that are gay. Having worked for a gay newspaper I can tell you many stores locally in my area of people being fired when their boss found out they were gay.



I wouldn't shop at the anti-gay store, based on your description in post 6.



I would shop at the other store, and just simply not buy the meat that they sell. It's not like it's a big deal that a store sells meat.



ETA: I don't know what the phrase "morally phohibitive" means.

ETA2: I don't think 10% of the population is a miniscule amount. I find your language a bit offensive, but I assume it's intentional.
kpickell is offline  
#14 Old 07-27-2006, 10:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Sevenseas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 25,067
Oh, and how is not selling meat "prohibiting meat eating on moral grounds"? That store is surely prohibiting a lot of things, like playing computer games (since they probable don't stock them either) and driving cars.

"and I stand

upon a mountain

made of weak and useless men"

Sevenseas is offline  
#15 Old 07-27-2006, 05:27 PM
Newbie
 
jzt83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28
I should rephrase the question. Who is more immoral of the two? I still see the meat selling store as more immoral. The store that doesn't hire homosexuals is only prohibting a small number of people from being hired. They have only around 30 employees, so they are only denying a small amount of people relative to the city population of the city from working there. I am not condoning their actions. The store that sells meat is contributing to the suffering and death of countless animals. I still think the store that sells meat is less moral because they are contributing to more overall suffering in the world. Overall, both are evil though.



Here's a wrench for your wheel: Would you feel justified in purchasing an organic, hemp, union shop made, shirt at a store like Wal-Mart or an organic vegan meal from a restaurant that has slave-like conditions?
jzt83 is offline  
#16 Old 07-27-2006, 06:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
VeggieFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 897
i see no correlation between homosexuality and vegetarianism. i don't get your question.
VeggieFrank is offline  
#17 Old 07-27-2006, 06:36 PM
Banned
 
raw jess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 658
I'd shop at the one that sells meat. My local HFS does sell meat. Whole Foods sells meat. Kroger sells meat. Meijer sells meat. I shop at all of them.

If I found one didn't hire gay people, 1. I'd wonder about that rumor because all of them have to follow the law. 2. if it was a small shop (I believe its under 15 employees...or is it 50? well whatever.) to where they can hire whoever they want, and discriminate as much as they want, then no. I wouldn't shop there at all.
raw jess is offline  
#18 Old 07-27-2006, 07:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
Quote:
I'd wonder about that rumor because all of them have to follow the law

This is no law protecting homosexuals from discrimination.
kpickell is offline  
#19 Old 07-27-2006, 08:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gas4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,227
They're both immoral. You can't compare discrimination and cruelty, except in that the cruelty effects more animals than the discrimination effects people, number wise. Both concepts are both immoral, why choose one over the other?
gas4 is offline  
#20 Old 07-27-2006, 08:15 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gas4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

This is no law protecting homosexuals from discrimination.



Really??!!

That sucks. Nothing in employment law???

Where I live you can't discriminate in employment on a whole host of reasons. In fact you're not legally allowed to ask a person you're interviewing for a job whether they're gay, whether they're married, what religion they like etc etc
gas4 is offline  
#21 Old 07-27-2006, 08:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
Nope, nothing. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion and national origin are prohibited. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected status except in a few cities that have passed their own added non-discrimination amendments.
kpickell is offline  
#22 Old 07-27-2006, 08:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
gas4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

Nope, nothing. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion and national origin are prohibited. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected status except in a few cities that have passed their own added non-discrimination amendments.



That's amazing.

There was recently a civil union law passed here and last month a gay dude my mum knows got civilly united with his partner of like 5yrs.
gas4 is offline  
#23 Old 07-27-2006, 08:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
That's cool. There are a couple states that allow civil unions here too (and one state that allows gay marriage), they just aren't recognized nationally or across state borders.
kpickell is offline  
#24 Old 07-27-2006, 09:09 PM
Veggie Regular
 
troub's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,984
I would probably shop at the one that had the best selection at the best prices, if they were similar then I would shop at the one that didn't sell animal flesh. I'm shopping for food, not sex supplies.
troub is offline  
#25 Old 07-27-2006, 09:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
kpickell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,090
sex supplies? huh?
kpickell is offline  
#26 Old 07-27-2006, 10:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
MZCsmpsns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,467
I didn't read the replies- but how would they know who's homosexual or not? Not to mention, what business is it of theirs of other's sexual orientation??? That's BS. If they're so concerned w/it, then don't ask don't tell. And if they assume based on stereotypes, *bleep* them.

That said, I'd go for the HFS that doesn't judge ppl. I assume the stores are a small local business, and I'd hate to support someone who's against homosexuality. (it baffles me that anybody still is!-seriously-who cares!!!) And again-how would they even know? ...oh wait, I'm sorry, homosexuals are lazy horrible workers that give companies a bad name... PSH!!! bleeping close-minded bleepers. URG! It's 2006, ppl need to get over their crap. OMG, ppl are attracted to the same sex-*gasp* *bleeping bleep* big bleeping deal. They need to get over it!
MZCsmpsns is offline  
#27 Old 07-27-2006, 10:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
MZCsmpsns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,467
Ok, and I know I'm OT, but oh well... it's *bleeped* up that for instance, a couple of good family friends of mine (lesbians together for about 11 years) are allowed to have a child-yet they can't get married-wtf? URG, I hate this country!
MZCsmpsns is offline  
#28 Old 07-29-2006, 02:44 AM
Banned
 
raw jess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 658
This is kind of off topic, but relevant to the previous post. My coworker and her partner, whom I've known for years had a wedding ceremony last year. Their church let them use the church and it was as real as the ceremony part could get. It was great!



A bumper sticker I saw the other day on the way to work said: "To get to heaven: Turn right and go straight"



My "If the fetus you save is gay, will you still support its rights?" is SO much better.
raw jess is offline  
#29 Old 07-29-2006, 01:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Dirty Martini's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 8,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpickell View Post

Nope, nothing. Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion and national origin are prohibited. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected status except in a few cities that have passed their own added non-discrimination amendments.

Right - I think that the important thing to remember is that while homosexuals are not federally recognized as a "protected class" against discrimination, many states and municipalities DO have it written into their laws that such discrimination is illegal.



For instance, many counties in Oregon include "sexual orientation" as a protection, as does the State of Oregon as an employer.



In looking for which counties, I found this state-by-state reference:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/i...tml?record=217



Kind of interesting...
Dirty Martini is offline  
#30 Old 07-29-2006, 07:43 PM
Banned
 
bstutzma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,535
Oooh, oooh, my state is cool!! My state!!! *loves Massachusetts*



Descrimination against a person because of sexual orientation is illegal here, and is why the courts upheld that denying gay marriage was wrong. Many gay couples have married here, and we have not yet been smote from the face of the planet. ;-)



Even Tame, who at first fought with us vehemently against gay marriage in mass, decided that here, the judges made the right decision, due to how our constitution is worded. No "activist judges" here, no matter how hard they try to sell it to you.



Of course, now the conservative scumbags are trying to write descrimination into our constitution. It won't happen. ;-)



Ohhh... sorry, that was pretty off topic too.



;-)
bstutzma is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off