VeggieBoards banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,134 Posts
Despite my reservations about your intentions here, I'm moving this post to the Compost Heap, since it's highly debatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
How dualistic.<br><br><br><br>
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.<br><br><br><br>
What good is good if you only focus on the bad?<br><br>
~Wonder <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/shy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":shy:">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Frankly, I don't see the connection....<br><br>
Mary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>MaryC1999</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
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.<br><br>
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?<br><br>
Frankly, I don't see the connection....<br><br>
Mary</div>
</div>
<br>
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.<br><br><br><br>
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>bstutzma</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Apparently, some of us value anti-discrimination laws more than you do.</div>
</div>
<br>
Or maybe he/she values them as much as you but opposes the selling of meat much more than you.<br><br><br><br>
(And personally, I would abstain from supporting a discriminatory store because I think discrimination is wrong, not because there's a law against it.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>IamJen</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Despite my reservations about your intentions here, I'm moving this post to the Compost Heap, since it's highly debatable.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
eh, not really. I thought the OP's Q was which one was more <i>prohibitive</i>?<br><br><br><br>
The one that allegedly prohibits <i>both</i> homosexuality and meat eating on moral grounds?<br><br><br><br>
Or the one that doesn't?<br><br><br><br>
Seems pretty clear cut.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Red</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
eh, not really. I thought the OP's Q was which one was more <i>prohibitive</i>?<br><br><br><br>
The one that allegedly prohibits <i>both</i> homosexuality and meat eating on moral grounds?<br><br><br><br>
Or the one that doesn't?<br><br><br><br>
Seems pretty clear cut.</div>
</div>
<br>
Yep, we can clearly infer this from the fact that the OP considered the meat-selling one to be more prohibitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,765 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Sevenseas</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
Yep, we can clearly infer this from the fact that the OP considered the meat-selling one to be more prohibitive.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Right. That was a <i>statement</i> of their leanings. The <i>question</i> was which one do the rest of us consider to be more prohibitive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
..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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">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?</div>
</div>
<br>
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.<br><br><br><br>
I wouldn't shop at the anti-gay store, based on your description in post 6.<br><br><br><br>
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.<br><br><br><br>
ETA: I don't know what the phrase "morally phohibitive" means.<br><br>
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,067 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
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.<br><br><br><br>
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?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
658 Posts
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.<br><br>
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,090 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I'd wonder about that rumor because all of them have to follow the law</div>
</div>
<br>
This is no law protecting homosexuals from discrimination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,227 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>kpickell</strong> <a href="/forum/post/0"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style=""></a><br><br>
This is no law protecting homosexuals from discrimination.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Really??!!<br><br>
That sucks. Nothing in employment law???<br><br>
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
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top