The Owl - Feedback

Conversely, would you all gladly support a restaurant whose owner posted the direct opposite?
Im with nick and have said much the same thing in the past, though never so eloquently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

This is absolutely correct. I agree with everything icarus said in that message. Nonetheless, it would turn me off to eating there. Marriage equality rights have nothing to do with a dining experience. Locally sourced alfalfa sprouts and socially conscious all-natural fibers and whatnot? Sure, it's relevant.

But marriage equality? From a restaurant? Now I feel like an agenda is being shoved down my throat, and I've lost my appetite as a potential customer. The fact that I agree wholeheartedly with the underlying message doesn't make it any more palatable.

---

I don't buy this line. I think it's a way to restrict the debate. Like politics and political issues are only for those politician folk. And church leaders, for some reason. But athletes, celebrities, business owners in the local community talking about local issues? No no no, can't have that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

Conversely, would you all gladly support a restaurant whose owner posted the direct opposite?

---

No. I'll never stay at the Venetian, for example, because the owner is a crazy right wing zionist who gave Newt Gingrich like $20 million. But on the other hand, that comes with the territory. You say an opinion, people will change their behavior. Doesn't mean you shouldn't say it if you feel strongly about it. icarusfall will probably lose some customers. But he might gain more.

I understand the argument that one doesn't want to indirectly fund some monstrosity, but there's a point where we cross over into thought police territory. If I found out a local business owner supported drilling for oil in the Arctic, I might have a discussion with him about it, but it wouldn't affect my patronage in and of itself. If he flushed his money down the toilet supporting a candidate who never had a chance of winning, that's his business.

It's a conceit to think we should only support businesses whose owners are political clones of ourselves, but it is typical of today's Like-button-fueled vanity activism. Financially punishing a person who has an honest disagreement with you does nothing to change the world in a better way. I would go to The Owl because the food sounds good and I want to financially support chefs who make good food so more good food will be made. If I think the menu is wonderful but I don't spend money there, will that encourage icarusfall to change anything about his deeply held political convictions or will it simply help dissuade others from opening similar restaurants in that area because The Owl went under?

Hurt the decision makers by voting them out of office. Hurt the corporations that commit crimes by withholding your dollars. But when it comes to everyday individuals having a different opinion - that's going to happen wherever there is free thought.

No, there is no thought police issue.

I'm not asking for every business to hang answers to a political survey in their window. I am saying that it's perfectly acceptable for people to use their platform to influence debate. They don't have to, but they could if they felt strongly about it. But doing so has consequences.

Aren't you not supposed to talk politics or religion over dinner?

This sounds like both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick

I think marriage rights should be scaled back overall, so it's difficult to come out in support of gay marriage rights, though I am a liberal athiest who doesn't vote for Republicans except in exceptional circumstances (we had a real scumball Democrat running for a county office one year - he later went to jail, I think). I haven't thought about it at great length, and I certainly haven't researched it enough to come out with a firm decision, but my gut reaction is that we should provide legal advantages tied to marriage only where there is a child to raise (whether the parents are of the same sex or not). I think it is important to provide a stable home in the formative years, so I support tax breaks and such for partners who are raising children, but marriage seems like an anachronism beyond that. Why fight to expand and codify something so outdated? Is that really "progressive" and individualistic or we still carrying around a security blanket that we should have already outgrown?

If you - male or female, heterosexual or homosexual - leave work in order to raise a child, you should be provided some breaks. However, if your children are grown and you went back to work and are doing fine for yourself making your own money, why should you get a tax break in your working years and and an extra entitlement check in your retirement just because you are/were married?

I bring this up only to remind you that free people have very different reasons for taking very different stands. Maybe some of your potential customers support equal parenting rights and things like affording a gay partner the same considerations as a heterosexual spouse in property matters (next-of-kin, etc.), but oppose extending most marriage rights to anyone, gay or not. If you don't think John and Mary should get a special break, you can't very well claim that Peter and Paul should get that same break.

Anyway, that's for another thread. I just posted that to suggest if you are going to profess support for specific political issues (and these are legal protections being debated, not human rights issues), you will come across as a oversimplifying prig to some people, and it is easy to take something like what you wrote as being haughty and dismissive. Making food simple and changing it around yields tasty results, but ideas are much, more more stubborn.

---

That divorce still hurts, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

... if the rule of the land is that straights can have this, why can't gays?

---

Because hating gays is one of the last "acceptable" bigotries in this country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew

The fact that I agree wholeheartedly with the underlying message doesn't make it any more palatable.

---

I disagree. I choose, to the best of my ability, to support businesses whose ethical stances I agree with. Making those stances public, and not requiring me to spend hours doing investigative Internet actions, is appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icarusfall

On occasion I may use my business as a platform for something I believe in.

---

As you should. At the end of the day it is your business.

I'd eat Hitler's pancakes if they were delicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc Holliday

I'd eat Hitler's pancakes if they were delicious.

---

Belgian waffles taste best when made with real Belgians.

Same with vegan burgers.