Does A Company's Political Leanings Determine Where You Shop?

February 24, 2012

Joe.My.God posted the Top GOP Super PAC donors today, noting that one of the top five was PayPal founder Peter Thiel. And just last week news came to light that Urban Outfitters is a large contributor to gay-hating candidate Rick Santorum. In the past I've heard rumblings of places I've shopped at or dined at (damn you Coldstone!) that have given money to anti-gay political groups and it's pretty disheartening. I have a tendency to avoid these places, but some are just unavoidable. Just last week I had to use PayPal. In the past I would have argued that it shouldn't matter, but now that the Republican party is more or less the Anti-Gay Rights party, it's hard not to let it bother me.

Does a company's political contributions have an effect on where and how you spend your money? And more importantly, should it?

Please begin the lively and respectful debate below.

Tags: Political Funding, Republicans, Urban Outfitters, PayPal
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this
Post written by RobHeartsDH (View Author Profile)
About this author: Rob lives in Manhattan with his black pug Riley. When he’s not thinking about daddies, he enjoys writing, eating burritos, watching copious amounts of television, and thinking about his next meal.
View all posts by RobHeartsDH


Weird, youi start off talking about Thiel, but you don't mention that he's gay or that his support is for Ron Paul, the only major party candidate that doesn't care about sexuality (unless of course you look no further research then big media headlines). The other Republicans care who you marry and Obama (who of course has stated specifically that marriage "is between one man and one woman") who only cares about gays for votes. It was like pulling teeth to even get him to follow through on DADT.

So yes, I do care and now have a much higher opinion of PayPal. And, I stay away from Crony corporations like GE and Chase.

Doesn't care about sexuality? Are you joking?

He criticized the Supreme Court ruling that struck down anti-sodomy laws. "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." So much for small government!

He supports the Defense of Marriage Act. He's said, "Why don't you look it up in the dictionary and find out what marriage says. For federal legal purposes the Defense of Marriage Act is proper and it takes care of all the problems."

He supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell, calling it "a decent policy."

These quotes are just from a brief search of his Wikipedia page and this site:

I certainly agree that he isn't as bad as Rick Santorum, but to say that he "doesn't care about sexuality" simply isn't true, and never was.

You said it Doctor! Besides Paul's racism, 'pro-life' positions and wacky mean economic program!

I suppose it doesn't matter to the ranters that Paul's constitutional analysis is correct. There is no constitutional right to privacy in the Constitution. No mention of separation of church and state. No mention, in fact, of any of the rights dreamed into being by the Supreme Court over the past 75 years.

No, none of this matters to screamers. Just what they've painted on their signs. That's all that counts.

However, there is that matter of The Pursuit of Happiness. I'll scream that from the top of my lungs!

There's no mention of the internet in the Constitution: does that mean that the government can completely regulate it despite the First Amendment?

There's no mention of telephones; does that mean the government can tap telephone wires any time it chooses to gain evidence against you for a criminal prosecution, despite the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

There's no mention of airplanes; does that mean pilots should be free to fly when, where, and how they choose?

The Supreme Court doesn't "dream into being" anything - well, except for its recent decision that somehow a corporation is a person. The Constitution is a document written in broad, general terms, with few if any definition of the terms used - specifically written that way so as to be adaptable to a changing world.


You believe in a "living and breathing" Constitution? How about a "living and breathing" car loan, where the terms can be changed at will by the lien holder? Or a "living and breathing" mortgage?

The Constitution is as you say, written in broad terms, but the principles remain the same. Obviously the First Amendment applies to the internet and the Fourth to telephones, per your examples, even though they're not mentioned in the document itself.

The problem, for so-called "progressives" like yourself, is that the Constitution represents a shackle on government power. Going back to Woodrow Wilson (who, as a good progressive, DESPISED the Constitution), progressives have fought to degrade, demean and utterly disregard it. They believe in a utopian world, run by elites who know what's best for us. Fortunately, the Framers were wise men who understood human nature and did their best to aggressively limit the power of the Federal government. They couldn't have imagined a world where the fed could tell you how many gallons of water your toilet can flush or what kind of light bulbs you can buy. (Full disclosure: I'm a descendant of John Adams.)

Thank you, no. And frankly, if you knew the history of the so-called "progressive" movement, you would be ashamed to call yourself one. If you actually have any shame, that is.

Amen, brother. An informed, well-written commentary.

You are correct about so-called "progressives" and you are correct that the constitution was deliberately a shackle on government power.

I wager some of these folks also whimpered with Planned Parenthood when its funds were cut by Komen (for good and appropriate reasons that the media didn't report). Perhaps they should google "Margaret Sanger" and "eugenics" to see exactly what Planned Parenthood's roots are. Evil roots. Evil tree.

(Hope you don't mind me using your fine comment as soapbox for my add-on.)

Well said. Great critique of Woodrow Wilson, Statist. A living and breathing Constitution is a Constitution on its death bed (Mark Levin).


Ummm... I don't think I was screaming, GoNAVY, so I resent your attempt to belittle me by calling me a "screamer." It's childish. Grow up.

Also, I didn't say there was a right to privacy in the Constitution or a separation of church and state. So why is this a reply to my post? It sounds like YOU'RE the one who needs to scream and paint some signs. Get a hold of yourself, stop being so angry, and enroll yourself in charm school.

My point was, in part, that Ron Paul, supposed champion of small government and individual rights, says that the 9th and 10th amendments give Texas the right to regulate sex between consenting adults.

The 9th amendment reads "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So the question isn't about whether people have a right to privacy. The question is, What makes Ron Paul think that these amendments give the government some mythical Right to Intrusion?

So, on the one hand, he calls for individual freedom, and on the other hand, he thinks states should be able to outlaw consensual sex between 2 adults. How does he believe both these things at once? Here's how: he's full of shit. His "constitutional analysis" is NOT right. He's a documented bigot and homophobe who has repackaged his fears and prejudices into something he calls "constitutional analysis," but in reality, he's no better about gay rights than any of the other gay-haters running for the Republican nomination. He's just a friendly-looking old man that speaks bluntly and revels in his ability to play the part of a folk hero. That doesn't mean what he says is true, and it doesn't mean he's not dangerous.


--Read the Federalist Papers
--Take a Constitutional Law course from a reputable mainstream professor
--Read the Supreme Court case law that has arisen under or treated the 9th and 10th Amendments
--Study up on the concept of federalism (which, I am sure, you will be shocked to find out means the complete opposite of what most people today associate with "the federal government")

Once you've completed your assignments, you'll be prepared to write the comment you attempted to write above.

Here's an assignment for you: save the dominant daddy routine for your subs. I'm not buying it, and you don't get to give me assignments. And if Ron Paul, with his degree as an OB/GYN, can pass himself off as a constitutional scholar, so can I, with my degree in Political Science.

Study the case law on the 9th and 10th amendments? Wasn't it you who recently said the courts were full of shit for all the stuff they "invent" about the constitution, like the right to privacy? But somehow their opinions about the 9th and 10th are perfectly valid? Why is that, because you happen to agree with them? Sheesh!

The fact that you view the format of my e-mail as "dominant daddy" commands meant for "subs" is Exhibit A in support of the argument that you and others like you view everything through your gays-are-us construct.

It is a tiny construct. No room for original thinking.

Sorry, Son.

Well put Docpepper. So much for intellectual bullying by some writer's herein.

Before everyone closes their PayPal account, remember Peter only founded it. He sold it to eBay.

Peter Thiel does not own PayPal.

Before everyone closes their PayPal account, remember Peter only founded it. He sold it to eBay.

Peter Thiel does not own PayPal.

Any vote against our rights and freedoms constitutes a form of war (cultural) as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, I would urge any and all who are on the side of justice and fairness to hit them where it hurts most, in their pocket books.
Spread the word to family & friends to boycott those businesses large & small who hurt our cause. Reasoning with them doesn't work, so maybe taking a percentage of their profits will give them cause to pause and rethink their prejudices.

"Any vote against our rights and freedoms constitutes a form or war (cultural)" . .

That is naive and childish thinking that views the entire world through your tiny filter. Instead of engaging in a nuanced debate and dialogue, you instantly declare war and villanize the speaker. Your opinion opponents are not just wrong, they're immoral. Instead, everybody should think exactly like you! You have the monopoly on right! Opposing views are dastardly! Sinister!

That's a child's world. The child wants absolute monarchy, with him as monarch. Not messy democracy, with the choas of - horrors! - differing opinions!

I hear the CEO of GE is unkind to his second child. Boycott GE! Lobby to cancel its defense contracts! The nation's defense doesn't matter! Only my feelings do!

Sorry, that's idea dreck - tantrum-like in its tone. It's the rant of a child.

Go Navy = wack job. Nuanced debate in dialogue with you...ha. All you're about is superiority and name calling. Talk about naive and childish. Must be a Republican.

Sorry to disappoint. But once again you unwittingly illustrate the danger of groupthink.

If X thinks this, X must be [insert disfavored condition].

This X is a Democrat. There are Democrats I respect and admire and there are Republicans I respect and admire.

What I do not respect and admire is the under-education so prominently on display in these comments. A form of intellectual illiteracy.

Get off your high horse one is impressed with your supposed superior intellectual's tired and self serving.

Get off your high horse one is impressed with your supposed superior intellectual's tired and self serving.

Short on facts, evidence, and logic? Take the easy way out, the worthless personal attack, e.g., "wack job"

it's a deserved monicker.

you have a particular point of view..and others will do as they want...i feel that not supporting companys that are against your values is a good way to give them the message that in our own eyes they are being discriminatiory. So your comment is great for YOU..not for most.

Glad you mentioned GE, one of the corporations who pay's no taxes on their billions in earnings...must be nice.

Chick-fil-a is another company loaded with homophobia, you should stay away from them. Of course this doesn't matter since I live in a small nation that is loaded with so many flavours of Christianity. I mean, they're not as rabids as what you see in the USA but the poison is still there.

I can suggest an alternative like Alertpay, so far haven't heard of any scandals from them.

Funny, I just read about the Chick-a-fil hoopla this morning with the NYU student protest.

Once I get word that a company I patronize is against the community I jump ship. End of story.

I remember reading on Times magazine a long, long time ago that over 97% of the CEOs in the USA are Republican. Of course, that was in 1998, I wonder if that's still relevant these days.

We can only hope it's still true. I don't think spenders who drain the coffers by starving revenue sources are popular with shareholders.

But your categorical groupthink statement is certainly cute and quaint.

As opposed to yours, GoNavy? All SixClaws commented on was the preponderance (at one time) of Republicans among CEO's. You, not he, are the one espousing categorical groupthink (suggesting non-Republicans are all "spenders who drain the coffers by starving revenue sources"). Sad to think how many closeted gay Republicans will stand up for the government's right to oppress them in the hopes that somehow they'll get to the kapos in the prison camps.

I love it when 'reductio ad Hitlerum' enters the conversation, invalidating the argument completely!

I have to disagree about CHICK-FIL-A® and all this bashing. Do I have problems with their administration in certain areas yes. There retreat being designed to meet the needs of heterosexual couples and not being inclusive is bad. Where I lived and worked before moving to Florida the CHICK-FIL-A® there didn't discriminate against gay kids I have never heard of an incident where a kid was refused access in the educational partnership for college I know they had in the past. I have never seen a gay turned away from the counter nor have I heard of one being abused verbally by choosing to be a customer. I think the fact they had a franchise decided to give some sandwiches to some anti gay people and make it appear it was a corporate donation was wrong both on those trying to demonize the company and the franchise supporting a hate group.

We are never going to find a world that everyone is comfortable with nature. People will push those they perceive outside of mainstream out of their lives and we know we don't need anymore of that. Because a corporation owner doesn't believe that being gay is something they can accept but never brings that to the business table means we should never accept the fact as they get to know people or those in their family younger age and take control of a company and become more accepting we should never give them that chance. Let's not be the group that spews the hate.

Be who you are not what they expect. Show them by example we are a group with values and standards just like they are with our misfits just like theirs. That given the chance we too will sit across a table with the kids yelling and playing and the noise of the world around us and take our partners hand and look into their eyes just because .... we love too.

I appreciate your thorough and nuanced comments. Excellent thinking and well put.

I agree with GONavy. Money quote: "Be who you are not what they expect."

This is not going to go over well with the temper tantrum prone leftists who dominate the gay community, though. Just saying.

Maybe the Leftists weren't up in arms if the Right wingers weren't so busy doing things like you know, trying to ban gay marriages/adoptions/employee rights/discrimination.

Alertpay is fine as just another mercantile outlet, but for convenience and expense, it doesn't amount to candlelight compared to Paypal.

I'll happily continue to do business with the latter.

Anytime I read articles like these, I wonder how much more narrow and venal can the writer or commentator be. It is the mark of a child to filter the entire world through his or her experience, with demands turning to rage when the world declines to conform.

So it is with over-the-top tantrums like the main article.

"Gay-hating" Rick Santorum? Really? Do you have an exact citation for that? Where, exactly, did Rick Santorum say that he "hates" gays. Of course, he may hate petty haters like the author of the phrase "gay-hating" Rick Santorum - but I too take a dim view of that type of over-the-top non-specific categorical bashing.

I like it when folks proclaim their views. I like living in a robust society where issues and politics and social norms are discussed with vigor.

What I don't like is name-calling or categorical dismissals of people because of their points of view - without ever inquiring into the point of view or exploring the basis for it.

I don't want to be part of any movement or style that recklessly and without definition uses words like "hater" "hate" "racist" or any of the other handy epithets thrown around like yesterday's chewed gum. All meaning is lost and the accusation just looks silly.

... i think i like...
... where you are heading...
... here...
... especially with what seem...
... almost conditional definitions...

... it's "hate" when one is disagreed upon...
... but perhaps "rights" when one disagrees...

... to too easily dismiss on perception...
... of what one *thinks* another must think...
... yet take grievous offense...
... if so dismissed in kind...

... it reminds...
... of the "judge not" continuum...
... that manage deftly to ignore their orchards...

... and do well us children...
... dispel tantrum...
... seeking reason together...



Here are multiple citations in which Rick Santorum denies gays the same rights as straights:

He (and you) may argue that this isn't gay-hating. I'm sure he falls back on that tired old cliché "hate the sinner, love the sinner" – about as meaningful as "hate the red hair, love the redhead".

"Gay-hating" is well-established journalistic shorthand for someone who denies gays the same rights as straights, who thinks of gay people and gay relationships as second-class. By that definition, Santorum is a gay-hater.

His "point of view" and "basis for it" don't "need exploring" any more than an anti-semite's or a racist's "point of view" and "basis for it" need exploring. It's bigotry pure and simple.

"Gay-hating" is well-established journalistic shorthand for someone who denies gays the same rights as straights, who thinks of gay people and gay relationships as second-class. By that definition, Santorum is a gay-hater."

Incorrect. "(Insert outraged class)-hating" is not "well-established journalistic shorthand." It's the quick charge in adolescent opinion-pieces of someone intellectually too lazy to say anything else. It's the favored word of placard-carriers everywhere. My only response when I see it is to laugh at the absurdity of the speaker.

I see that you're hanging on to your opinion and world view as strongly as the "childish" people you have denounced in your various posts on this subject. Are you perhaps one of those "self-loathing gays" we hear so much about, who doesn't believe he's worthy of the same rights and respect as the straight world?

You hit the nail right on the proverbial head...The shoe definitely fit's in this case.

@ GoNavy - Well Said!

You can decide not to be part of a movement that calls these folks 'haters' but you sure will suffer along with the rest of us fags if they get in power. Call them what you wish- they hate you (with God's love of course) and would like to wipe you off the face of the earth. Ignore it at your own peril, I've seen decades of this hateful ignorant shit and no matter what we do- naughty or nice- they will find reasons to hate us. We are a symbol of "sensualness" and 'moral corruption" to quote Frothy Mix - and you can be as "straight" as you want at act and they'll still hate you for whom you love.

I've been involved in the gay movement since 1973- it doesn't matter what we call them or if we try to be 'reasoned' with them- their hatred is blind and powered by fear- as is the whole GOP agenda.

And for those Ron Paul fans- Ayn Rand is GREAT..... for me to POOP on!

The Democrat/Statist agenda is built on lies and fear, the lie and fear that society will collapse without ever-expanding government. The exact opposite is true. Ever-expanding government is eroding our freedom and prosperity, spreading misery, unemployment, poverty and eventually will destroy a civil society. The Left seethes with anger and hatred. Hate Bush, hate capitalism, hate the oil companies, hate the rich, hate Cheney, hate Rove, hate Palin, hate Santorum, hate the large corporations, hate Wal-Mart, hate the military, hate the Church, hate Bible believers, hate Christians, hate God, hate anyone who doesn't bend over and drop their pants for the radical gay agenda. Yeah, I loathe the gay mindset which doesn't mind destroying the country by supporting quacks like Obama if it advances their militant agenda.

Perfectly said, Jockfever. These folks urging that anyone who disagrees with them is a "hater" are the true danger. The widespread use of the accusation in this context is a loud announcement that genuine liberal education has failed the accuser. I wonder how many of these ranters have studied philosophy, Augustine, Aquinas, the great losses of knowledge that occur when groupspeak takes hold.

So glad my liberal Catholic education demanded I think rather than rant.

we'll see you and jockfever at the concentration camp...

Wow Jockfever, your's is the most hateful rant i've heard in a long long time, far surpassing GONavy's...It's quacks like you guy's that are destroying the country, not the libertarians and rationalists who are moving the country forward through social change.