Supporting McDonalds sinful?

[notsmart]

Because bigotry is hate!

Our reasons are love!

HUGE difference!

Loving that single mother who is raising a child on an income that not even one person can live on?

Yeah. Give it to them!

And she goes where? And her child?

 

[colliric]

A bigot, is a person who shows intolerance to opinions, ideals, religions, and lifestyles that differ from their own.

Who actually really doesn’t do that? Everyone does that in some way shape or form.

It’s called self pride. It’s the biggest sin of all…

But every single human being engages in it.

By that definition I’m a bigot because I support the Collingwood Football Club, so I’m Bigoted against supporters of Essendon, Carlton and the other 13 sides of the AFL!

This is why we should not call each other Bigots in such manners, because we all inevitably are.

 

[westboro]

I haven’t read all the threads and don’t know if anyone has offered the article about McDonald’s but you can find it here…

worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70903

I printed the article and hand carried it to the McDonald’s that I frequented and explained that I could not in good conscience go there anymore. The ‘only’ mistake McDonald’s made is in their decision to ‘promote’ the gay lifestyle, as I see it, whereas they should have remained neutral on the issue especially because they are a magnet for children. The fact that they paid for a gay pride parade and installed one of their own directors on the gay lesbian task force is indicative that they are ‘pushing’ this lifestyle, which is the thing that makes them a bad choice of a place to eat!
I have no problem with gay people as it should be. They have their challenges in life just as we all do. My brother was gay. I do have a problem with ‘promoting’ or ‘pushing’ the lifestyle.

 

[KathleenElsie]

IMHO as long as the money that we have is one of God’s Blessing on us then we are responsible for spending it wisely and with God in mind. So no matter what we choose to do with this blessing we will be held accountable someday for the choices we made. If we know or have a strong suspicion of the moral intent of the company we purchase from then IMHO we will be held accountable for either the good or the bad end result we supported.

Each individual and/or family has the right to choose who they will or will not support with the blessing from God.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Good point.

A bigot, is a person who shows intolerance to opinions, ideals, religions, and lifestyles that differ from their own.

So when people from a church are boycotting a business because the business is supporting a lifestyle that goes against that churches beliefs, it shows a strong intolerance for that lifestyle.

They are expecting McDonald’s to base their policies on Christian beliefs.

I see what you mean with your Martin Luther King analogy, and it is an interesting loophole. But I think it’s a different situation in his case when people were being oppressed and denied rights.

This is a perspective I didn’t think about though, and it does complicate things.

As a company that wants me and others to spend our money there they should, as a corporation, remain neutral. When a corporation backs an issue they have more influence then the individual and it can seem to make the issue more acceptable then it really is. If individual employees want to support an issue or cause then that is the employees choice.

 

[Dan_Michael]

Yes, in the future it will be a tax boycott, since taxes have supported a lot of things the Church does not agree with… that separation of Church and State thing in the Constitution.

Let the Church do what it does and who it does it for, and let the State do what it does and who it does it for. Neither agree!!!

Business is made on profit. But, a lot is given back to the community also. There are weeds in the field that were not planted there, but the land owner said to let them grow together… till the harvest, where they will then be separated.

 

[MYLORDANDMYGOD1]

Loving that single mother who is raising a child on an income that not even one person can live on?

Yeah. Give it to them!

And she goes where? And her child?

I’m not quite sure that I understand your post? I am assuming that you mean that my not going to McDonalds is keeping a single mother from supporting her family. If this is correct, my answer would be that I am sure there are also single parents and people in need of work at Wendy’s or Arby’s as well!

 

[MYLORDANDMYGOD1]

So- to those who disagree with boycotts against company’s who do things against which you believe- do you think this is ALWAYS a bad thing?

 

[Joe_5859]

Just everything that promotes sin.

Which, unfortunately, includes almost everything.

Ok, I see your point and agree.

I’ve been having a lengthy conversation with my brother about all this, but I’m having a problem understanding a few things.

a) We are called to stop sin from occurring whenever possible. So if we know our money is going to support sin, shouldn’t we not spend the money? I see that the Principle of Double Effect would make spending the money morally neutral, but shouldn’t we still try to do something about the effect we know our action will have?

I think I know what you mean by saying “we are called to stop sin from occuring whenever possible”, but, ultimately, the only sin we have control over is our own.

I don’t mean to say that spending money is a morally neutral act. There are, obviously, some things you should not spend your money on.

b) However, all money eventually goes everywhere. So no matter where you spend your money, at Catholic bookstore or at a nightclub, it will eventually wind up supporting sin in some way.

This is how you can drive yourself crazy. What if you buy a book at a Catholic bookstore and the owner uses the profits to treat his staff to lunch at McDonald’s?

c) Also, doesn’t it matter in what way McDonalds is supporting the gay agenda? I mean, it’s like the Planned Parenthood example. If McDonalds is, say, directly paying for housing for gay couples to live in, it would be just like the Planned Parenthood example, and therefore wrong. Right? I’ve been thinking about this so long and hard that I’m starting to confuse myself. Tell me if I’ve got this wrong: It’s ok to give money to a business that will donate to Planned Parenthood, but it’s not ok to give money to Planned Parenthood directly.

If McDonald’s was paying for housing for gay couples, that in and of itself is not morally evil. Providing housing is a morally good thing to do. They have no control over what their employees may choose to do in that house. If McDonald’s was providing gay-only conjugal visit trailers for their employees, then that would definitely be problematic.

As far as the Planned Parenthood example, that’s a tough call. It would definitely be wrong to donate directly to Planned Parenthood. But how do you even find out if a company donates to Planned Parenthood? There is one group that maintains a list, but you have to purchase it, and it is always being updated. And where do you draw the line? If a company does not usually give money to PP, but simply matched a $100 donation of one of their employees through their matching program, does that warrant a boycott? Frankly, I’m more concerned about my tax dollars that go to support Planned Parenthood.

So what are we, as Catholics, supposed to do? I really can’t find an answer to this; my brother and I keep talking ourselves in circles.

I can see both sides. I don’t like knowing that my money is supporting something contrary to my faith. But I frankly don’t have time to monitor every restaurant, store, or product, and it seems unreasonable to require that of people. Almost every large company participates in something morally questionable, whether it is utilizing sweatshop labor or giving money to PP or what-have-you.

You didn’t answer my Satanist comparison; what are you thoughts on it?

I never said that buying The Lord of The Rings doesn’t constitute the support of a business. What I meant is that it’s not the business part you were talking about, it was the actors themselves; they are the gay ones, not New Line Cinema.

I feel the difference is that by giving to a business, you are not only giving to the people in it; you are also giving to whatever they use their business for. By giving to a person, it is either charity or employment, and either way it doesn’t matter what their beliefs are.

It is not wrong to buy a movie with a gay actor in it, because you are not supporting the gay lifestyle, you are supporting the company that made the movie. Movie-watchers are, in a way, the employers of actors; we are partially responsible for their salary. It is not a sin to employ a gay person, obviously, so there’s nothing wrong with buying The Lord of The Rings. I mean, are they going to lead less sinful lifestyles if we make them less wealthy?

You’re right, I didn’t respond to it. Must have glossed over it. I understand your distinction, now, and I think it’s a good one.

With places like Planned Parenthood, it’s much more clear-cut. You know that great moral evils are intentionally being perpetrated by their employees. The very service they offer is a moral evil.

But with a place like McDonald’s “supporting the gay agenda”, it seems less clear. What does that even mean that they “support the gay agenda”? They’re not “selling” anything that specifically promotes homosexuality. They’ve made statements expressing their thoughts on the issue, but is that it?

I think the issue is further complicated when you think of how most of the McDonald’s restaurants are franchised out. My mother-in-law used to work for a guy who owned six or seven McDonald’s restaurants. This guy is basically a small business owner and he is probably not giving any money or support in any way to the “gay agenda”. At worst, the profits that corporate McDonald’s makes off of his franchise fees is what might be going towards that end. So do you boycott this small business owner because of something that is entirely out of his control?

 

[Joe_5859]

So- to those who disagree with boycotts against company’s who do things against which you believe- do you think this is ALWAYS a bad thing?

I do not at all think boycotts are a bad thing. They can be good things. A boycott is the voice of the consumer and one of the means at our disposal for working towards change. If done well, they can be very effective.

However, the question in the OP was not “Would it be a good thing to boycott McDonald’s?” The question was “Are Catholics obligated not to eat there, and would eating there be sinful?” The answer to that question seems to me to be an obvious “No.”

I certainly would not discourage anyone from boycotting McDonald’s. I would hope that they also follow up their decision with letters of some sort to let McDonald’s know why they are doing what they are doing.

But should we assume that anyone pulling through the drive-thru at McDonald’s is a sinner who is damaging his or her relationship with God by virtue of the fact that they are ordering some McNuggets and a small fries? No.

 

[MYLORDANDMYGOD1]

With places like Planned Parenthood, it’s much more clear-cut. You know that great moral evils are intentionally being perpetrated by their employees. The very service they offer is a moral evil.

I will agree with you on this! I do place a higher level of priority on the Planned Parenthood issue! I do not give to them, and do my best to avoid giving to those who give to them! Of course, as you said, our own government does! This will most likely be fixed through prayer, and signing petitions and supporting candidates who are against this!

But- regarding the McDonalds issue, my GREATEST area of concern with them is the fact that they said that we are motivated by hate if we don’t support the gay issue! :tsktsk:

If they believe this, then I choose to get my kids Happy Meals elsewhere!

 

[westboro]

Yes, in the future it will be a tax boycott, since taxes have supported a lot of things the Church does not agree with… that separation of Church and State thing in the Constitution.

Actually, there is no such thing as 'separation of Church and State in the Constitution. That is a fallacy. Check your history!

 

[Feste_1242]

I think I know what you mean by saying “we are called to stop sin from occuring whenever possible”, but, ultimately, the only sin we have control over is our own.

True, but if you’re standing next to someone who is about to shoot someone else, you’re morally obligated to try to stop him. It’s a difficult line to draw where you should stop worrying about it.

If McDonald’s was paying for housing for gay couples, that in and of itself is not morally evil. Providing housing is a morally good thing to do. They have no control over what their employees may choose to do in that house. If McDonald’s was providing gay-only conjugal visit trailers for their employees, then that would definitely be problematic.

I guess my gay housing scenario wasn’t very good. What I meant was if they’re paying for housing for *only *gay couples to live in together, and assuming that the gay couples weren’t homeless. Like, if there was a gay couple who had to live in different apartment buildings because the owner didn’t want gay couples living together in his building. Then McDonalds comes along and says, “Here, we’ll let you live together, even though you both already have homes.” You know what I mean?

I can see both sides. I don’t like knowing that my money is supporting something contrary to my faith. But I frankly don’t have time to monitor every restaurant, store, or product, and it seems unreasonable to require that of people. Almost every large company participates in something morally questionable, whether it is utilizing sweatshop labor or giving money to PP or what-have-you.

Yeah, I don’t think we have to kill ourselves trying to find out everything. I say just keep your ears and eyes open, and do the best you can.

But with a place like McDonald’s “supporting the gay agenda”, it seems less clear. What does that even mean that they “support the gay agenda”? They’re not “selling” anything that specifically promotes homosexuality. They’ve made statements expressing their thoughts on the issue, but is that it?

Here, I came across an website today that makes things much more clear: worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f…w&pageId=70903

I think the issue is further complicated when you think of how most of the McDonald’s restaurants are franchised out. My mother-in-law used to work for a guy who owned six or seven McDonald’s restaurants. This guy is basically a small business owner and he is probably not giving any money or support in any way to the “gay agenda”. At worst, the profits that corporate McDonald’s makes off of his franchise fees is what might be going towards that end. So do you boycott this small business owner because of something that is entirely out of his control?

I’m just not sure where to draw all these lines! I think in the particular case you mentioned, it would be ok, because the money is so indirect, as well as a very small amount.

 

[MYLORDANDMYGOD1]

I do not at all think boycotts are a bad thing. They can be good things. A boycott is the voice of the consumer and one of the means at our disposal for working towards change. If done well, they can be very effective.

However, the question in the OP was not “Would it be a good thing to boycott McDonald’s?” The question was “Are Catholics obligated not to eat there, and would eating there be sinful?” The answer to that question seems to me to be an obvious “No.”

I certainly would not discourage anyone from boycotting McDonald’s. I would hope that they also follow up their decision with letters of some sort to let McDonald’s know why they are doing what they are doing.

But should we assume that anyone pulling through the drive-thru at McDonald’s is a sinner who is damaging his or her relationship with God by virtue of the fact that they are ordering some McNuggets and a small fries? No.

I totally agree with you! :yup:

 

[westboro]

QUOTE=Joe 5859;4106241]I do not at all think boycotts are a bad thing. They can be good things. A boycott is the voice of the consumer and one of the means at our disposal for working towards change. If done well, they can be very effective.

Last year’s boycott against Walmart proved very effective. They tried to force thier employees to avoid saying Merry Christmas and not long after a boycott was organized to which they buckled under and changed thier policy as well as issueing an apology!

 

[MYLORDANDMYGOD1]

Last year’s boycott against Walmart proved very effective. They tried to force thier employees to avoid saying Merry Christmas and not long after a boycott was organized to which they buckled under and changed thier policy as well as issueing an apology!

Amen! Praise God! They also stopped giving funds to Planned Parenthood! Boycotting can help! :angel1:

 

[royal_archer]

Boycotting a business because they support a gay lifestyle, which goes against Christian morals, is bigotry.

How isn’t it?

Bigot a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

You posted the definition, so it shouldn’t be too hard to connect the dots.

In this case, Christian groups are being utterly intolerant of a gay lifestyle, to the point where they will boycott businesses because they expect them to conform to a Christian mindset.

It’s clear cut bigotry.

It seems some people have trouble relating the definition of a bigot to their own actions. But this case is truly a textbook definition.

ANY meaning indiscriminate or wide spread intollerance not intollerance of specific issues. now would you consider yourself a bigot for opposing David Duke’s lifestyle (presuming you are not tollerant of his lifestyle)

 

[royal_archer]

Good point.

A bigot, is a person who shows intolerance to opinions, ideals, religions, and lifestyles that differ from their own.

So when people from a church are boycotting a business because the business is supporting a lifestyle that goes against that churches beliefs, it shows a strong intolerance for that lifestyle.

They are expecting McDonald’s to base their policies on Christian beliefs.

I see what you mean with your Martin Luther King analogy, and it is an interesting loophole. But I think it’s a different situation in his case when people were being oppressed and denied rights.

This is a perspective I didn’t think about though, and it does complicate things.

The disconnect is with the breadth of the disagreement. Biggotry is when a person is not willing to tollerate anything other than those things that agree with their opinion. All or nothing. This is different from most people who have three categories, Those things I agree with, those things I disagree with but tollerate, and those things I disagree with and can not tollerate. It is that third category, or lack thereof that sepparates biggots from non bigots. I am sure there were many things that MLK disagreed with but tollerated.

 

[royal_archer]

Yes, in the future it will be a tax boycott, since taxes have supported a lot of things the Church does not agree with… that separation of Church and State thing in the Constitution.

…

Since when does the church not agree with the separation of church and state? On the contrary, there are many references in the bible distancing religion from secular law.

 

[Hobble]

The disconnect is with the breadth of the disagreement. Biggotry is when a person is not willing to tollerate anything other than those things that agree with their opinion. All or nothing. This is different from most people who have three categories, Those things I agree with, those things I disagree with but tollerate, and those things I disagree with and can not tollerate. It is that third category, or lack thereof that sepparates biggots from non bigots. I am sure there were many things that MLK disagreed with but tollerated.

I see. Alright, I was wrong.
Sorry MYLORDANDMYGOD1.