A Sad Day In The Life Of Candy

Submitted by on

Printer-friendly version

Author: 

Blog About: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

Jelly Belly Chairman Helps Fund Anti-Trans Campaign

Click Like or Love to appropriately show your appreciation for this post:

Comments

Candy Boycott

Submitted by on

terrynaut's picture

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have been buying jelly belly candy but I won't any more. Grrrr!

- Terry

I'll disagree

Submitted by on

First off, I rather like Jelly Belly, although I only get them on rare occasions since I'm perpetually fighting my weight. So even if I'm not joining any boycott, it won't make much difference...

Anyway, I do oppose this boycott, and hope people will reconsider. The chairman of the board is the one donating to the NOM and privacy groups, not the company. Beyond that, he's donating to groups that are fighting through the political process, and I consider it wrong to try to punish people for participating in politics, even when I don't agree with them. Now, if those groups are doing something beyond the pale, the calculation might change, but I haven't seen anything like that.

If you like the candy, by all means keep buying it. If you disagree with their chairman, donate time or money to opposing groups, and vote accordingly.

titania.jpg

Titania

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

I disagree with you, but I agree with the concept.

Submitted by on

D. Eden's picture

I completely disagree with your reasoning.

I totally agree with the fact that yes, they are using the political system as it is designed to be used - which in and of itself impresses me. But then again, I've been impressed by plenty of cretins in my day. You can be successful and do things the right way, yet still be an idiot.

Where I completely disagree with your reasoning is with regard to a boycott. Boycotting a product is how the consumer votes - it's called voting with your pocket book. By boycotting the company, you make an impression on the owners, whether stockholders or individuals, and they then have to rethink the policies of their company - as well as their employees. Quite often, an individual will lose their job due to their actions outside of the business. If those actions hurt the business it is fully justified.

So - hell yes boycott! Protest, write articles, start a petition - do everything legally within our power to stop this cretin and those like him.

It's a moral imperative. I spent a large portion of my adult life standing between my fellow citizens and the rest of the world in order to protect their rights. I will still defend this man's right to do what he wants within the legal system, but I will also advocate doing everything that can be legally done to oppose him.

Dallas

D. Eden

“Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir.”

Dum Vivimus, Vivamus

This Boycott Makes Sense

Submitted by on

In a shareholder-owned company, perhaps your thoughts would be more relevant. There, the Chairman would be an employee of the shareholders and using his own pay for expressing his own political viewpoints, which might not be the official viewpoint of the company.

Here, though, the entire company is privately held, a family enterprise, and Rowland is not only the Chairman, but is the owner (or at least a significant percentage owner).

That said, though, I still couldn't endorse your view. While political speech is free (if you have enough money to be heard), it doesn't mean it's without counterpoint. Response and discourse is also free. And, calling for and executing a boycott is also free speech.

Rowland says discriminate against TS school kids. A boycott says, "Don't spend your money to support legislation to discriminate against TS school kids." I don't see the problem with the latter.

More like this