Ethics beyond the animals/ conscious consumption

I just moved from an apartment that was a stone’s throw away from a bakery I dubbed HaterCakes.

We all know the story, in 2012, a fundamentalist Xtian baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple, and the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights came down on the owner.
Last June, the US Supreme Court ruled, 7-2 in the baker’s favor, but not on his religious liberty, as he was claiming, but rather on freedom of artistic expression. The bakers secondary argument was that confectionary is his art form, and to create for a couple of queers appearantly ruined his artistic vision.
He does call his shop Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Locally, we boycott him. And he makes wonderful products.

(On the artistic vision note, my ex and I refused to make tie dyes with crosses. We would refer people asking to dyers who were happy to do them. Aesthetically, he found crosses to be uninteresting and unchallenging.
His style, which I replicate, has a lot of flame stitching. A secondary distaste for a cross also arose in how many of them appeared to be on fire. Burning crosses are definitely outside of our ethos. I get the basis of his argument, but as some wise fellow massage therapists once said, racists are not a protected class.
Then 2016 happened.)

I ran across a list of chocolatiers, small batch to industrial scale, from the Food Empowerment Project.
The main spotlight is the use of clhild slaves in cocoa production, but other issues arise.

At one time, they recommended Eden Foods. Now there’s a link to a Pittsburgh newspaper article from 2013 where Eden had joined other companies in fighting to deny contraception to its employees under insurance. (Like the Hobby Lobby case)
Thing is, contraception is usually shouldered by the woman, at least when major money is involved. And insurance covers Viagra, the closest analogy in the pharmaceutical world insofar as it involves sex.
But contraception can also be regulating endometriosis, cystic acne and other hormone related conditions, including perimenopause.

My personal response is to avoid companies who have standards that are in direct contrast to my own. Maybe not a boycott in full, but I definitely use my dollars as a voice.
For example, I neither donate to nor purchase from Salvation Army because their evangelical stance is in direct opposition to my own faith, and I avoid Hobby Lobby because of their paternal position on their employees health. I’ve avoided grocers who actively fought against their employees unionizing or engaging in collective bargaining in an area where most stores were union shops.

So, where do you personally draw the line with company ethics?
How do you respond to companies who have practices that impact their employees beyond the work day?

 

Do you notify the companies/shops?
If so what do you say?

 

There are numerous companies I boycott. I even write their respective CEOs (often in a vitriolic-fueled state) to tell them why I (and others) won't shop or eat with them.

A few examples:

• Salvation Army, Wounded Warrior Project and Susan G. Komen - will NEVER donate since they either treat employees like shit, refuse to fully support their causes, or pocket more than their fair share of donations;
• IKEA - treat employees like shit;

I refuse to align myself with companies who either misappropriate funds, mistreat employees or use animals to test their products.

 

Oh, I will direct people away from Locks of Love for the misappropriation of funds angle.

 

So any business can refuse their services based on something a person is? A hospital can refuse to provide care to a homeless person, a member of any minority, based on faith, or sex, or gender? Or because they have red hair, use glasses or like a certain food?

Plus, I’m asking as a consumer, where do people decide they cannot or will not support a business based on the company’s actions.

 

​

 

That would be discrimination.

Evergreen State University did not sponsor a "no white people day". A group of students called for the day.

The college was shut down. The students reversed the normal "day of absence" in which those of color leave the campus for a day to illustrate their importance to the college.