Do You Boycott Companies Because of Your Beliefs?

Do You Boycott Companies Because of Your Personal Beliefs?Do you ever choose to boycott companies due to their political contributions, religious values, or business practices? When a corporation steps into political or religious debates, it usually makes headlines and often faces significant negative consequences; companies like Ben & Jerry’s are the rare exception. Here are a few examples that led customers to boycott companies taking a stand:

1. In September 2012, the evangelical Christian owners of Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit contesting the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers pay for emergency contraception. The issue was resolved in June 2014 with a 5-4 Supreme Court decision stating that the ACA violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by requiring “closely held” private corporations to cover certain forms of birth control in their health care plans. Some customers said they’d shop at Hobby Lobby more often; others said they’d boycott the chain.

2. After the Southern Baptist founder of Chick-fil-A donated $5 million (through his WinShape Foundation) to groups that oppose same-sex marriage and support conversion therapy (and made public statements denouncing same-sex marriage in June/July 2012), many customers decided to boycott the chain while others gave it more business. In September 2012, the company announced it would no longer give funds to organizations that promote discrimination.

3. Fashion designer and entrepreneur Ivanka Trump has stayed pretty quiet regarding her father’s presidential campaign (except, of course, for her speech at the Republican National Convention). Partly because of that strategy, and partly because her brand isn’t as high-profile as #1 or #2 above, there hasn’t been much in the news about boycotting her fashion line (although some people boycott companies connected to Donald Trump). Still, several Corporette commenters have mentioned not wanting to buy or wear her products. (Other challenges Ivanka has faced this year include a lawsuit accusing her of copying Aquazzurra’s designs and a recall of her scarves for not meeting flammability standards.)

4. Earlier this year, Lands’ End managed to offend customers on both sides of an issue when their website and catalog featured Gloria Steinem. Because of Steinem’s support for reproductive rights, the retailer received many customer complaints, leading it to apologize and remove Steinem from its website (as well as any mention of donations to the ERA Coalition’s Fund for Women’s Equality). The backtracking simply angered those on the other side. A few days ago, CEO Federica Marchionni, whose decision it was to feature Steinem, left the company after less than two years at the top.

Do you boycott companies that do things you disagree with? Or do you simply not pay attention to news stories like those linked above? What about issues like animal testing, sustainability, or working conditions for employees? Would you cross a picket line as a customer? Do you ever visit websites like or Leaping Bunny, or use apps like Buycott? And: when do you forgive/forget and end your boycott? 




  1. AnotherAnon :

    I boycott companies as well as countries…

    • I’ve tried to boycott China for its failure on human rights, free speech, and emissions, but that is im.poss.i.ble. But, I will pay a premium if there is a non-China option.

    • I’m considering boycotting Montreal after their ridiculous pit bull legislation.

      • Anonymous :

        Really? I’m so excited about it and yet also so terrified that they’re going to start exporting them to other provinces without the same protections.

        I had a great experience with the ban in Ontario. The Toronto Star documented the fact that it works. “from 2001 to 2004, pit bulls were more likely than any other breed to bite people and pets in Toronto.
        In 2004, the last full year before the ban, there were 984 licensed pit bulls in the city and 168 reported bites. Last year there were 501 pit bulls registered in Toronto, and just 13 bites. That’s right — the number of reported bites went from 168 to 13. It makes sense to attribute that massive reduction to the province’s pit bull law.”

        • Never too many shoes... :

          Sorry, Anonymous at 3:54 pm, but that analysis is ridiculous. There are less bites as there are less dogs. However, there have been more dog bites overall since the ban:

          • Anonymous :

            The Star investigation addressed this issue – the explosion in other ‘bully’ breeds like Rottweilers and Cane Corsos played a major role. The Global analysis ignores that the dog population as a whole had roughly doubled in the last ten years so you’d expect the total number of bites to increase.

            It’s been a long time since a pet or person was killed by a pit bull in Ontario. Not many other provinces can say the same.

        • I could write a novel on this subject. The only reason pitbulls are trained as attack dogs is because they have such a need to please their owner that they are so easily trainable. If you train a pitbull to be loveable it will be the biggest cuddle bug ever. More small dogs bite than large dogs. People just view them as less scary because their bite covers less territory and has less force.

          It is cruel to require current dog owners to muzzle their perfectly safe dog. Current laws in my state require a dog to be muzzled if it has shown itself to be a danger. It would be very hard to suddenly train an 8 year old dog to wear a muzzle. They also need to be able to pant to cool off, breath and to drink water.

          I just can’t stress enough that there is nothing wrong with responsible pitbull ownership. Check out the pitbull subreddit to see pictures of these “dangerous” dogs cuddling babies and kittens. What they need to do instead is do some real police work and crack down on drug dealers, gangs and dog fighting rings. Not the dogs. I would support a criminal background check to own a pitbull. I would support a requirement that pitbulls be spayed and neutered and microchipped. That’s just good pet ownership. The rest is all BS.

          I am one of those people signing up to transport pitbulls that are leaving Montreal. I can’t believe you would rather see them killed.

          • Never too many shoes... :

            I completely agree. The Ontario law is so awful – the dogs must be muzzled at all times in public spaces and even on your own property if it is not fully fenced. Draconian overreaction by a fame hungry AG.

          • Anonymous :

            It’s totally false that any have to be killed. They can’t be bred and they have to be muzzled in public. Basket muzzles do not restrict breathing or panting.

            A lady was literally eaten alive by a pitbull in her own back yard. It’s a completely reasonable reaction by Montreal to people that can’t be sensible enough not to own vicious dogs.

          • yeah, the two times in my life I was attacked by a dog, the dogs were a chocolate lab and a yorkie terrier. Should those breeds be banned?
            The woman who received the world’s first face transplant had her face eaten off by her lab–it’s a very reasonable reaction to ban labs then, as they’re vicious dogs.

          • Rebecca in Dalals :

            The owners need to disciplined, not the dogs. My dog is half German Shepherd, half Staffordshire Terrier (which falls under the “pit bull” umbrella). She is very reactive to other dogs, we adopted her at 18 months old and we aren’t sure what the first part of her life was like. So it’s hard to tell if that’s her nature or the result of her life as a puppy. We work with a trainer and just manage her reactivity. It’s not super easy but it’s possible. Our trainer specializes in reactive dogs and she says that the worst cases she’s worked with were actually Golden Retrievers. She said she has never had a pit bull that she couldn’t manage.

          • ANON in TX :

            You probably aren’t still reading this, Blonde Lawyer, but thank you for signing up to transport pitties out of Montreal. My heart breaks for all those pups.

            “Mom” to two rescue pits

          • Beach Girl :

            Agreed. Kudos to you blonde lawyer. Pitties are great dogs and reading anonymous’s rants is like reading that of a Trump supporter.

  2. yes to 1, 2, 3, 4 on this post

    Don’t try to boycott everything and don’t exhaustively research – but if I do become aware of something then I put my money where my mouth is.

    • Anonymous :

      Willful ignorance is never an excuse. Failing to ask the questions that ought to be answered is just as bad as disregarding information you already have that a company has deplorable human rights/labor/environmental practices.

      Of course willful ignorance is how and why most people continue to eat meat.

  3. I can’t think of a company with a recent scandal that is one I’ve done or would do business with anyway. I definitely won’t go to Chik-fil-A or Hobby Lobby now, but I wasn’t going to do that anyway. I’ve been thinking about buying a Soda Stream so I can cut down on my aluminum can consumption and I know that some people boycott them. But I think I’d have to weigh environmental concerns against human rights concerns and I just don’t know where I’d come down on that issue. For now I’ve just cut back a lot on my fizzy water intake.

    • Why do people boycott soda stream?

    • I’m the Israeli product boycotting anon below (and I also love seltzer) – you have options besides soda stream! Other companies have caught on and started making seltzer machines.

      • Oh because it’s Israeli? Ok. I’m not into that movement but that makes sense.

        • Yes, the factory used to be in an Israeli settlement in the west bank, and actually moved recently as a result of the boycott. But its still in Israel, which is a problem for some people but not others.

        • It’s not because its Israeli, it’s because of the (former?) location of the factory (illegally occupied West Bank land).

      • Anonymous :

        Please. Yes, the Sodastream factory is Israeli owned and was in the West Bank. And the company and its CEO are 100% for co-existence. In fact, the factory employed 500 Palestinian employees. Who are all out of work now that the factory had been moved.
        I’m 100% pro a 2 state solution and I think the settlements should be dismantled. But BDS (which was behind the Sodastream protests) is an antisemitic and hateful organization. Do your own research and decide.
        I went out and bought a sodastream on purpose to support the company and oppose the BDS BS.

    • 75% of all aluminum ever produced is still in use. It’s one of our most sustainable materials. Just recycle, recycle, recycle :)

      • BabyAssociate :

        Wow is that true?? That’s amazing!

      • Anonymous :

        Other random aluminum fact – it was considered the most valuable metal (more so than silver or gold) at the time the Washington Monument was built, so it was used as the capstone/pinnacle piece of the Monument.

      • That’s what keeps me with the cans! But I live in a very remote place that is far, far from where they are manufactured. My environmental concerns are more about shipping them. But I’ll have to look in to the Soda Stream alternatives. That also just sounds easier than remembering to buy cases at the grocery store.

      • BabyAssociate :

        I really hope these aluminum facts come in handy during pub trivia someday :)

  4. purplesneakers :

    I try and boycott when I can – for instance, in my home country, it’s impossible to boycott something like Hindustan Lever (the local arm of Unilever) because they make pretty much everything. I try and support brands that do good, though, like a clothing brand that recently aired an ad with a same-sex couple.

    I also don’t buy/use anything from Israel, and recently quit Krav Maga as well thanks to its strong ties to the government.

    • I’m an Israeli citizen (and staying anon for this) and also boycott Israeli products to the extent possible – I obviously still travel to Israel regularly to see my family. When I lived in Israel I was very careful to never buy anything manufactured in an Israeli settlement and now that I live in the US I avoid anything Israeli, but especially companies that do business with the Israeli military/state. I also avoid hobby lobby, chick fil a, etc. but boycotting the settlements and Israeli government is the only thing I am really careful and adamant about. I am not sure that consumer boycotts are particularly effective on their own but the Palestinian boycott, divestment, sanctions movement makes me feel that small choices that I make are a part of a larger political platform (although I still believe the consumer end of things is smaller than governmental action). Also, on a visceral level I can’t stomach consuming products created by a political evil I have witnessed first hand.

    • Egypt’s border is just as closed as the Israeli side and you seem unconcerned with that.

      Israel is truly the only safe place left for Jewish people. I encourage you to read the Vanity Fair article about the situation in France. It is extremely eye-opening about the situation for Jewish people in France.

      “France has the largest population of Jews in Europe (and the third largest in the world, after Israel and the United States) and has always been seen as the laboratory to understand what is happening on the Continent. But Jews make up less than 1 percent of the French population. Even so, according to the S.P.C.J., they are the target of 51 percent of all racist acts in France. The country has become Israel’s biggest source of immigrants.”

      And no, I’m neither Jewish nor conservative Christian and I do 100% support a two state solution.

      • Curious, do you believe that Jewish people in the US are not safe? If so, how?

        • Anonymous :

          How can Jewish people from other countries find protection there? The US isn’t accepting refugees from France. Israel is the only place Jewish people can go when the conditions in their original home country are intolerable.

          • Safe, unless you are Ethiopian Jewish. There is a lot of racism and prejudice toward Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Their treatment stops me from ever wanting to visit.

      • Anonymous :

        Thank you for posting this. As an American-Israeli, I also support a 2 state solution. But, this weird fascination that only points the finger at the Israelis (who, yes, can and should do better) is disproportionate. Israel’s human rights record is leaps and bounds above all other countries in the region. But BDS and other human rights activists solely focus on Israel. It is an obsession. And BDS is fueled by hate and anti-semitism.

        I’m 100% for human rights and for making things better. But spend some time to think about why there us an obsession with one country and one religion. And everything else gets ignored/put on the back burner.

        • Anonymous :

          +1 million. Not an Israeli, but I’m an American Jew and I agree with every word of this.

  5. I am surprised by such an argumentative, divisive post on this site. This post targets those of certain faiths and is openly inviting criticism of them. Nothing positive will come from this post. Only two of the targeted retailers above are fashion retailers. What do hobby lobby and chik fil a have to do with career advice? I am very, very disappointed to read this here.

    • The majority of this websites readers are feminists and support access to birth control and same sex marriage. Even in conversations where some readers have said that they vote republican or identify as conservative they also tend to say that they support these issues. Are you really surprised?

      • But many women are pro birth control, but don’t view abortion as an acceptable form of birth control. I especially find sex selection repugnant. I’m continually appalled at women who think this is okay. Allowing 16 different, but not 4, types of birth control isn’t an onerous burden.

    • I’m not surprised, nor am I upset. Although this site is theoretically a fashion site, as many people comment frequently, the real value of the site is in the community of commenters. That is a community that discusses every conceivable topic relevant to the women of this site, from politics to travel recommendations to recipes to relationship advice. Sometimes the discussions get heated and controversial because we have lots of thoughtful, passionate people with a wide range of opinions.

      I don’t see anything in the post that is “opening inviting” criticism of anyone. The boycott descriptions are pretty objective descriptions of example companies.

      If this website were nothing more than day after day of discussions of bell sleeves and exposed zippers, I wouldn’t come here any more. (For the record: against bell sleeves, supportive of exposed zippers)

    • I’m not. I think it’s an interesting discussion that has come up in comments frequently, especially in regard to Ivanka Trump’s line. Yes, three of the four companies listed supported supposedly “conservative”/Republican values (Land’s End doesn’t know what it supports). Chikfila and Hobby Lobby are two of the most high-profile major-corporation issues that have turned into boycotts of the past few years. Yes, they based their arguments on faith, but this post soliciting feedback about how these corporate actions have shaped consumer habits isn’t targeting faith or inviting criticism.

    • ? No, you’re being way too sensitive.

    • Nope. If you want to put your religious beliefs squarely in the public eye, and use them to influence public policy and play politics like these corporations are doing (Hobby Lobby and Chick- fil-a), you don’t get to shield your activities or your religion from criticism. Hard pass. We have the right to freedom of religion in this country— as we should— but that does not extend to protection from criticism. I for one am very tired of having public policy that affects *me* be shaped to religious beliefs I do not hold, and then being told that I’m not allowed to criticize or question that because religion is so sacrosanct and personal.

      And, just to preempt it, criticizing Hobby Lobby re; its challenge to the BC benefit does not equate to generally bashing members of the christian faith. For the same reason, this post does not “target” people of faith. It is very neutral.

    • Sydney Bristow :

      Are there companies that you boycott because the support things you disagree with that are the opposite of the examples above? I feel like that might have happened in California during the Prop 8 battle but I can’t really remember.

      People have already added their own examples of companies they don’t support for different reasons. You should feel free to do so yourself. Or say that you support the companies listed above because they match your view. My guess is these 4exampkes were given because they are the ones that were either the biggest in the news or were ones we’ve already discussed quite a bit on the s1te.

      • Anonymous4 :

        I was surprised to not find Target on the list above. Among conservative Christians, their policy regarding the transgender bathroom issue was highly upsetting. In my community, there were many who chose to stop shopping there due to that policy, and I found it referenced frequently on conservative news s!tes. It’s more recent than Hobby Lobby or Chik-fil-a, and its inclusion may have made the OP above feel this discussion was more balanced.

        FWIW, I’m not personally boycotting Target.

    • Brunchaholic :

      “Nothing positive will come from this post.” See below for all of the people who contributed thoughtful discussion rather than griping about a perceived religious/political slight. I would say that’s pretty positive.

  6. I do and I don’t. I’m a registered republican and a regular church-goer. I have a fairly libertarian attitude towards many things economically.

    So, I find American Apparel really sketchy and won’t shop there. I will always love Bellamy Young even if she campaigns for Hilary. I eat at Ben & Jerry’s.

    But with music, oh, with music. I love what I love, politics be damned. Everything be damned. I’m going to concerts for the music and have yet to give up on an act b/c they’re on the wrong side of the aisle from me.

    • Second on American Apparel before they tossed that sexists/ creepy CEO Dov. Wouldn’t touch the stuff. I’ll buy from them now.

    • +1 to no American Apparel

    • I very much want to go to Cuba. But I have grave misgivings about spending $ there. I do not like such an unfree state and do not wish to fund it. Even staying at an ostensively private business (hotel for foreign tourists) is essentially staying with the Cuban government.

      • Oh, you should absolutely go to Cuba! I say this as a Cuban American who really hates the Castros. I have relatives there who make their living renting out rooms in their home to tourists.

        I do recommend that you read up before you go, though. You can absolutely go and support the Cuban people rather than the Cuban government, but you have to know where to spend your money. The example you cited as being a private business–a hotel for foreign tourists–is never private in Cuba. All hotels are at least 51% owned by the Cuban government. However, if you stay at an AirBnb, you’re putting money in the pockets of Cubans. I can’t stress enough how important it is to Cubans that they’re able to make money independently of their government. It is such a game-changer. You can also only rent private taxis, only eat at private restaurants, etc.

  7. Don’t want anything to do with 1, 2 or 4. I own a pair of ivanka trump shoes that are a few years old and although I’m never buying anything from her brand again, I am still wearing them. Women’s rights and lgbt rights are huge, emotional issues for me so I’m sure as heck not going to 1 or 2- ever. I’m a little embarrassed that I get so rage-y over 1 and 2 when I’m sure there are companies doing worse things and I’m ignorantly buying their stuff.

    Fwiw it matters little to me that chick fil a may or may not be actively giving money to fund discriminatory legislation right now. It’s owned by folks whose “values” I find abhorrant. They don’t need my business.

    • I boycott Ivanka Trump shoes because the one pair I bought seemed comfy in the store but they KILL my feet.

      I also boycott Chick Fil A because I ate there once and couldn’t understand what all the fuss was about. It’s not that good.

  8. Yes. I boycott anything having to do with Donald Trump including Ivanka’s fashion line, but this isn’t new for me. I didn’t like how he treated people on The Apprentice or his ostentatious style or what I knew about his race discrimination in housing claims. After his comments about Mexicans, I wrote the family off completely. My rage has grown from then.

    I don’t buy anything branded by reality TV stars.

    • “I don’t buy anything branded by reality TV stars.”

      Mostly true, but it’s b/c I’m a snob. I bought a pair of Jessica Simpson shoes (good! very inexpensive) and just had to get over it when I needed something sparkly in a pinch.

      I am maybe just a bad person in some ways.

      • I find myself reaching for shoes and being absolutely surprised they’re Jessica Simpson. I didn’t buy them for a while because of the reality TV thing but now I realize it has been more than a decade since she her “chicken of the sea” time. I’ve started buying her stuff every once in a while. I respect that she has created a successful business while many others of that time are still clinging to their 15 seconds.

        • Although I admit I don’t buy anything with a visible logo. So, still kinda a snob!

        • BabyAssociate :

          +1 I have definitely more than once grabbed a pair of cute heels or flats at DSW and then realized they were Jessica Simpson!

          • She has a billion dollar business, so she must be doing something right.

            Maybe she should run for president.

    • +1

  9. I am considering boycotting companies that rip us off. I am not just talking about drug companies, I am talking about banks that charge high fees for stuff, and also places that sell us adulterated food. Do I think they get enough thru the bad press? No. I will not subsidize them any more. I also will not buy music from people who practice prejudice and hatred of black or white people in their songs. You all know who I am talking about.

  10. My daughter wanted me to take her to Chik-Fil-A last night for a free sandwich. Something to do with homecoming week for the high school. I reminded her that we don’t go there AND I had a meeting to go to, so no time. A friend drove her and she got a free sandwich – so I guess that’s like the opposite of boycotting. My family will only go to your establishment when it costs you money, not when we have to pay.

    • With Chik-Fil-A it’s a balancing act. Their chicken sandwiches and nuggets are made from actual pieces of chicken, so when my kid is in one of those phases where she will only eat processed chicken products, I will sometimes let her have Chik-Fil-A because I figure it’s less disgusting than McDonald’s. In desperate times, nutrition trumps my loftier principles. Not proud of it, though.

      • I eat Jesus chicken. It’s yummy. And it’s also about as “real food” as fast food can get. And they’ve backed off some of their support of causes I don’t agree with.

        • Jesus chicken. I am worried someone is going to hear me laughing…

        • They did provide free food to the first responders at the scene of the Pulse shooting. Not like that makes up for all the awful things their management has said, but I did see it as maybe a sign that they were moving in the right direction.

        • Anonymous :

          I recently started eating Chick Fila again, but only because it is the only “healthy” option near my new office and my toddler needs a place to play occasionally. I sold out.

          I will not buy anything from Hobby Lobby or a Trump company. I just can’t.

        • They also just pledged $5 mil. to support job training for an Atl. nonprofit.

      • Double check McDonald’s. Here in the UK most of their chicken products are made from recognizable chicken fillets. It’s one reason why they’re my proposed fast food retailer.

  11. Tragically, the only suit that has ever remotely fit me off the rack was an Ivanka Trump I bought sometime last year. (I know, tailoring.) I haven’t had to wear it recently, but I twitch a little looking at it now…

  12. Sooo the problem with things like this is that these same companies do a lot of good. Chick Fil A pays its employees more than minimum wage, which is why they have such good employees. They give them Sundays off. They allow for upward mobility. They are just generally a good place to work. They also give back a TON in ways that people on this s!te would approve. So, by boycotting them for one issue, you’re not helping a company that does so much good in other ways and that we want other companies to emulate.

    • I hear you — the world is complex, yo.

      This is why I don’t wade in. No time to verify for myself. Prefer not to live by annecdata / internet rumor. I like the Chick Fil A lemonaide but my kids won’t touch the waffle fries or nuggets even though they are better. With Mom & Pops, I support them b/c they are Mom & Pop stores (and won’t look to politics) but even a McDonald’s is a franchise with a local owner and local employees.

      One small business I buy baked goods from a lot is very religious. Some people are OK with the Amish being Amish but not with homeschooling people who are not Amish (but are otherwise conservative).

      • You do realize that being very religious is not a bad thing, right? In fact, religious people do a lot of good! If they’re very religious, they are likely donating at least 10% of their income. It seems like such an obvious thing, but sometimes this s!te needs a reminder.

        • Yeah, I know a lot of religious people do good things. But donating 10% of their income? So what? It’s most likely going straight back to their churches.

        • Another one :

          Donating 10% of your income to a church is not always a great thing in my mind. I find some charity work done by churches to be offensive.

          • Well, that’s silly. Churches run soup kitchens, give counseling to people who can’t afford it, support worldwide and local missions, etc.

          • Nope…running soup kitchen is a small fraction of what churches do, just a facade. Most of the donations are used to run conversion rackets in poor and developing countries by hook and crook which is a sick business and in no way charity.

          • I have no idea what your sentences mean, so I can’t rebut them.

          • Anonymous :

            It’s not silly. Many churches also run political-adjacent activities that I find abhorrent. Some churches run soup kitchens, some churches organize people to protest at abortion clinics. People can draw the lines where they want.

          • Well…then you should educate yourself about church’s worldwide missions…what they really mean…

          • lapsed Catholic :

            I’ll believe churches do good work with the tithes that parishioners donate get when Catholic Charities USA no longer accepts federal funds in excess of 70%* of their annual budget.

            *CCUSA was about 77% federally funded the last time they posted their financials. They no longer post their financials on their website. I am assuming that this level has stayed constant, with a small decrease.

        • Anonymous :

          I misphrased — I’m OK with people being religious, but many people on this site seem to be OK with only some sorts of religious conservatism (and that seems to be the exception). I don’t use it (or a lack thereof) as a litmus test.

    • I don’t know – in my world, paying slightly above minimum wage doesn’t do a lot to counter driving kids to suicide by support conversion therapy.

      It’s one thing to be against marriage rights (still offensive and awful) but supporting conversion therapy is on a whole other level.

      • You know they stopped supporting organizations like that back in 2012? You know they delivered free food to those at the scene of the Pulse shooting? You know the data on which your statements are based in completely outdated and now, in fact, wrong?

        • Anonymous :

          But have they actually repudiate those conversion therapy organizations? Because once you start supporting something and giving it the level of profile that they did, you have an obligation to not just quietly stop that support and pretend like what you did wasn’t enormously harmful.

        • Anonymous :

          But so what? They only backed off because of a colossal public outcry. I still don’t believe that the values of the company match mine. I’m voting with my feet.

  13. Honestly, I think if Ivanka had called her line by a different name (or dropped the Trump) I may have been able to ignore it and keep buying her stuff. I just can’t make myself wear something that says Trump on it. Even if you put politics aside, the last name just calls to mind ostentatious and tacky things, even though her line typically isn’t. I have been able to bury my head in the sand about Lululemon, so my principles aren’t that strong. The only one I’m egregiously offended by is Hobby Lobby, and I will never step foot in that store.

    • At a size 12/14, it’s pretty clear that lululemon doesn’t want me as a customer.

      I’ve been in a store once with my cousin when they were still making employees do the life coaching thing and it just weirded me out. Who needs to be forced to do a life coaching thing while working retail?

  14. I absolutely will not support Ivanka Trump anymore and I wish this s!te would stop featuring her items.

    • +1

    • Anonymous :

      +2, Kat/Kate, PLEASE no more Trump items. I was ok with her when she was simply standing quietly by her father (because obviously it’s very hard for a child to denounce a parent running for office) but now that she has fully endorsed his bigotry and misogyny by giving a speech on his behalf at the RNC, her products have no place on this s!te.

    • Same. I refuse to buy any Ivanka Trump items. It’s really annoying me right now because she has some shoes that look really cute but I absolutely cannot bring myself to do it.

    • Same. I used to buy Ivanka Trump shoes, now I won’t even consider them. And I have given away or stopped wearing most of the ones I already have. Add her father to the law suits and just no. The woman is married to a Sephardic Jew and she supports her father’s craziness about people who are non-white or non-Christian. I just don’t get it.

      • Anonymous :

        To be fair, I don’t think her father is anti-Semitic. He has used some questionable graphics and said some kind of weird/stereotype-y things like Jews are good at business, but he has not offended Jews nearly as much as he’s offended just about every other minority group (and also not nearly as much as he’s offended women). So I think it’s terrible that she supports him but not because her husband is Jewish.

        • I agree. The Hive is being unfair. Ivanka took Jared Kushner out of the market, but I still like Ivanka’s stuff.I think that irregardless of our politic’s, we should respect nice clotheing and jewelery designed by a VERY acomplished woman, who was able to snag Jared, a perfect 10 in my book. FOOEY b/c I almost could have been in the running for him. But I STILL like Ivanka! YAY!!!!!

        • Are you forgetting the firestorm this summer? And that’s not the only issue!

        • The fact that he hasn’t offended Jews as much as he’s offended “just about every other minority group” (as you say) is not the standard for whether or not he’s anti-semitic.

        • “To be fair, he’s insulted most minority groups, but not really that particular one so much”

    • This is Kat’s site, she can feature whoever she wants. You can choose not to purchase Ivanka Trump’s stuff if it’s featured.

    • Unless I’m mistaken, the February blue dress (linked to in Kate’s post, above) was the last time we have featured her items.

    • Seventh Sister :

      I was in a department store recently and dropped an otherwise inoffensive tan pump like a hot potato when I saw it was from her brand (I think “designed” is a bridge too far). Not my style on any level.

  15. anon in SV :

    Yes. I boycott Hobby Lobby, ChikFilA, Ivanka Trump (which is sad because I already owned some shoes I now won’t wear), American Apparel. I’m definitely most adamant on Hobby Lobby and American Apparel. Also few produce brands over the years due to mistreatment of farm workers (I’m one of those kids that never had fresh grapes in the 80s). I’m sure that there are more but I can’t think of them right now.

  16. I’m Canadian and we don’t have Chik Fil A but I’m obsessed with it. It is the BEST fast food. I eat it every time I’m in the States but I feel really bad about it.

    • legal canuck :

      I know but is the best fast food I have had. I feel bad for eating it but it is so good. And I only get it when I travel….
      When you boycott companies, I feel like I am harming the people in my community who work there. It’s not like they can go an get another job (at least in our ecomony)

  17. I’m conscientious about not buying from a particular country, and several brands. But that doesn’t mean it always works. I’m small in size, and sometimes I give up because the “good” brands that I ought to buy from don’t cater to people my size. Ivanka Trump is one of the few designers who make shoes in size 4. I don’t regret letting her go, but it does make my shopping experience that much harder.

  18. I am a South Asian Muslim woman, and I boycott Ivanka Trump’s cheap [email protected] as well as companies that support the illegal Settlements on the West Bank (Soda Stream, the Estee Lauder group ect,).

    • Me too on all accounts. Also Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A

    • Sydney Bristow :

      I’m unfamiliar with the issue of companies in the West Bank. Do you have a good source for where I can read about that and which companies are involved besides Soda Stream and Estée Lauder?

      • Yes I use this:

        • Also this

        • Sydney Bristow :


          • Anonymous :

            Just be aware that these are not exactly neutral sources.

            For example, all Canadian political parties voted to oppose BDS earlier this year.

          • Anonymous :

            Yeah they are not “neutral” in the sense that its a political conflict that people disagree with. I’m sure there are lists out there for people who won’t shop at stores that support gay marriage or similar. But if you believe in Palestinian human rights/ending the occupation, the BDS website is a good list. Like Ru I am also surprised Kat didn’t mention this issue since its getting so much attention right now.

          • Anonymous :

            Lots of people who believe in Palestinian human rights/ending the occupation, including many Canadian political leaders, think BDS is ill conceived at best and feeds or insufficiently condemns antisemitic rhetoric at worst.

          • Anonymous :

            Yes its a very controversial topic, certainly more so than any of the issues raised in the body of the post. I am the Israeli anon above who participates in BDS and I do not think its anti semitic in the slightest, that stance is far from universal, although it is certainly popular amongst elected officials in governments that are allied with/give aide to the Israeli government. I think its quite problematic for a western person to call a non violent palestinian lead initiative “ill conceived”. One of my primary political values is to listen to and take seriously an oppressed person when they ask for me to express solidarity with them in a specific way, and I do not believe the Canadian government (or the US government) has done that.

          • Anonymous :

            But would you be open to the possibility that a political leader could listen to and take seriously an oppressed person and still disagree with supporting the opposed person’s chosen specific way to express solidarity?

            If you know anything about Trudeau or Mulcair – you would know that they are both thoughtful and considerate politicians who take the Palestinian cause extremely seriously but that does not precluded opposing BDS.

            It wasn’t just the Canadian government that opposed BDS – it was every major political party and the leaders of all parties and a solid majority of the House of Commons.

          • Anonymous :

            I am open to that possibility but have no reason to believe that is what has happened here. I know who is and isn’t opposed to BDS. I don’t see the Canadian government or any of the named parties doing anything of substance to improve the situation of the Palestinian people. I do hold my own governments (Israeli and US) largely responsible for the problem, for what its worth. I like Trudeau a lot but really disagree with him on this matter, and in general strongly believe that politicians are lead by the wrong motivators around foreign policy (this happens to be the foreign policy issue I am most passionate about because of my background). There are lots of American politicians whose domestic policies I like a lot but whose foreign policies I cannot get behind. I’m really not trying to pick a huge fight, I know this is a super touchy subject and it is highly personal for me, but I don’t think that mainstream political responses to this issue are even close to adequate.

          • Anonymous :

            I’ll leave this and then end my part of the discussion because I think it’s clear we’ll have to agree to disagree. The West Bank and Gaza is one of Canada’s ‘programs of focus’ (basically an area where Canada focuses extra efforts for international development). I know that this isn’t the kind of action you are seeking but they are not sitting on their hands either.

      • Sydney Bristow :

        I really just needed a jumping off point because, as I said, I was unfamiliar with this issue. I’ll keep in mind that it’s not neutral and look up others. Thanks everyone.

    • Same. I’m actually kind of surprised Kat didn’t mention this.

      • I also think it’s bullsh%t that Cuomo will punish businesses that partake in BDS and I’m not saying this because I am personally a supporter of BDS. Spending your money as you will, as a person or a business, is one of the only true powers an American/business has.

      • I’m not. Kat doesn’t seem like the type.

  19. Sydney Bristow :

    So I don’t shop/eat at any of the listed companies. Hobby Lobby is the only one I have a strict boycott mentality about though and that’s because they pushed a view that I don’t agree with all the way to the Supreme Court and didn’t back down or reverse their stance.

    The Chik-fil-a one is intersting to me since they changed their stance. I think they have a location in NYC now but it’s not anywhere convenient to me. So I don’t eat there but I’m not necessarily boycotting. I don’t agree with their religious views, but I do go to other places owned by revilgious people who’s views I disagree with. In-n-out Burger and Marriott jump to mind. I think the line for me is whether they are publicly supporting something contrary to my views. A Bible quote on a cup doesn’t bug me. Donating to anti-same-sex marriage does.

    I’m not currently buying anything from Lands End, but I am continuing to wear what I already own. I think I’d do the same if I owned any Ivanka merchandise.

    Another one that came up for me several years ago was the Salvation Army. My family decided to “adopt” a family for the holidays and my parents went through the Salvation Army to do it. At the time at least (not sure if it’s still that way) the Salvation Army’s policy denied assistance to same sex couples. It was too late to change but if we do it again my family agreed to find a family through a different organization.

    • Anonymous :

      I love Marriott b/c they have Diet Pepsi always available. I just hate coke.

      Hotels are interesting. They are often Marriott (or other brand) “flagged” but the ownership and the management contract are wholly different.

    • Aunt Jamesina :

      The Salvation Army is actually a church (many people think it’s just a charity), and they absolutely discriminate against same sex couples and gay men who want to stay in their shelters. I avoid them completely.

      • Anonymous :

        The Salvation Army is a really hard one for me because on the one hand, their stance on LGBT issues is awful, but on the other, I am a second-gen immigrant from a developing country where a village school run by the Salvation Army was the only available source of education for a certain young son of a village farmer who went on to immigrate to Canada, get a Phd, and become my dad, so that I quite literally would not exist without the Salvation Army.

  20. BabyAssociate :

    Part of me knows that Chick Fil A has done some bad things and I shouldn’t give them my money, but sometimes as bigger part of me is hungover on a Saturday morning and really wants a chicken biscuit.

  21. Maddie Ross :

    I live in the south and have a three y.o. Boycotting Chic-Fil-A is more punishment to me than to them.

  22. I will never buy another Ivanka Trump item again. I have 2 pairs of her shoes which I will wear because I already bought them, but she supports her father who is leading a white nationalist movement. I will not spend my money supporting such a repugnant family.

    I won’t buy from Hobby Lobby because they actively tried to deny women access to birth control via their lawsuit.

    I guess the difference for me is that I don’t mind if companies are led by people who hold different political/social/religious beliefs that I do. But if I think they are actively doing bad things in the world with their money, I won’t support them.

    • Anonymous :

      I agree with AKB that I am fine patronizing business whose owners hold views I disagree with, but not ok patronizing businesses that have actively done harm based on those beliefs, especially on the scale Trump has.

      I will never buy anything Trump, including Ivanka, again. That is the only company I am vehemently opposed to patronizing on these grounds. I wouldn’t say I “boycott” Hobby Lobby but I’m pretty sure I’ve never shopped there and their actions have certainly made me less inclined to. I like Chik-Fil-A’s food and have never boycotted it, though I’m very happy the founder changed his position on donations, and I eat there with a lot less guilt now. It would never even occur to me to boycott Lands End.

    • Sydney Bristow :

      I think that best describes my line as well.

  23. Anonymous :

    I begin with making a conscious choice to buy from companies with values aligned to mine. So, first I look at Patagonia, Fair Indigo, American Giant, Karen Kane, etc. I try to shop in local stores as not only do they provide jobs in my community, but they also tend to invest in the community by supporting charitable events and paying taxes. I buy locally grown food because I like it, and because it’s better for the local farming community.

    I do not do business with companies that have been proven to break the law. Wells Fargo? No. Volkswagen? No. Walmart? No. I respect everyone’s right to not embrace abortion or gay marriage, but it’s the law — if your company cannot comply with the law, then you don’t get my money.

    I used to buy from Lands’ End, but the combination of the situation with Ms. Steinem, reading a few snarky comments the former CEO made about their products, the fact that the recent offerings are not interesting made it easy to stop, plus most things are poor quality, imported goods made it easy to stop.

    I would never, ever cross a picket line.

    • MargaretO :

      +1 million on the picket line

      • Anonymous :

        picket line isn’t an easy issue for everyone though. Where I am in govt – if I don’t cross, I could lose my job. Usually get around this by crossing and donating to the cause at home.

        • Anonymous :

          I have no compunction about crossing any picket line.

          When I was a kid, our city’s teachers’ union went on strike. Before the strike, union teachers openly discussed the issues in the classroom in a very one-sided way. For example, one teacher told us that the superintendent was a bad man who made lots of money and had a chauffeur while the teachers didn’t get paid enough. Whether or not any of that was true, it was completely inappropriate for the teachers to drag us into it.

          The strike lasted weeks, during which time we were crowded into the cafeteria and auditorium with inadequate supervision and zero instruction. I lost the opportunity to participate in a special workshop I’d been selected for. Worst of all, my family moved during the strike and my transfer records were incomplete because I couldn’t get grades for the courses that were in progress.

          I understand that unions theoretically equalize bargaining power, but in practice they have become as powerful and corrupt as the interests they’re supposed to be protecting workers against.

          • Yes, my teacher’s union has earned me the entitlement to a whopping $48,000 a year after two master’s degrees and a decade of experience in a fairly HCOL area. Please. If our benefits are so great, why don’t all the people whining about it try to become teachers?

            Don’t let one bad experience color your entire perception.

  24. DataChick :

    I am currently boycotting Beats by Dre. There are a beautiful pair of Beats headphones I want,, but the idea of funding a man who publicly beat a woman and has probably hit other women is sickening to me. Even in his movie Straight outta Compton (which I did not see but followed up on this), he doesn’t even acknowledge this incident. Additionally, I am boycotting Birth of a Nation by Nate Parker given his leadership in a gang rape of a woman who has since committed suicide. When confronted, he essentially said that he thought about and feels bad, but has since moved on. I don’t think so. I know there are a lot of companies to boycott, but these two have been my primary action.

    • DataChick :

      I also remember being in love with Ivanka Trump and her website for millennial women. However, her support of her father (I get it, but I don’t), lack of diversity on the website, and labor practices have made me rethink my girl crush.

    • Anonymous :

      I got Beats by Dre headphones for free when I bought a Macbook Air. You could do that. Although maybe he gets some profits even when they’re given away, I don’t know. You could also buy them secondhand on eBay or the like.

  25. Something very relevant to this *ite (and that I learned on here): I don’t buy cosmetics from companies that test on animals, and that includes the ones that “only test in China.” I feel like with the massive # of beauty companies and Sephora/Ulta making it so easy to explore alternatives, I really don’t have that much of an excuse. Also should add that my beauty routine is pretty standard, so I don’t need any out of the ordinary products.

    • +1 I buy cruelty-free and honestly haven’t had that much trouble finding things to replace what I used to buy that wasn’t cruelty-free. I purchase a lot of ELF and I get a vegan/CF beauty box each month.

      I also buy cruelty-free household products. I stopped using what I term commercially compounded chemical products (because I know everything is a chemical) and use Dr. Bronner’s and vinegar for just about everything cleaning wise.

      I don’t go out of my way to boycott companies, mostly because I don’t have the time and energy to do a whole lot of research on my own. I don’t eat meat and don’t eat fast food generally, so avoiding CFA hasn’t been an issue (I didn’t eat there even when I ate meat years ago). I try to buy second hand clothes when possible (although am certainly not perfect at it) and none of the retailers/manufacturers listed above appeal to me anyhow.

      • legal canuck :

        I don’t buy from companies that test on animals and ones that say they don’t but the sell in China (which forces them to test on animals)

        • Is there a good resource for finding those companies that sell in China but say they don’t test? Perhaps it’s as simple as Googling, but I am being lazy pants.

  26. I don’t buy from 1,3, or 4, but I do eat the nuggets of intolerance and the waffle fries of hatred several times a year….

    • BabyAssociate :

      It’s not our fault the the waffle fries of hatred are just *so much better* than other fries.

    • Anonymous :

      The chicken, egg and cheese biscuits of bigotry are so dang good! I also like the waffle fries of hatred.

    • Anonymous :

      Am I the only one who thinks the waffle fries of hatred are gross? I love the sandwiches of sanctimony, though. Especially the spicy deluxe.

  27. My first initial OBGYN and subsequent birth of baby1 was at a Catholic hospital. I had no initial problem with this…however during my pregnancy I wanted a few tests (for example testing for Down Syndrome) and my very Catholic OBGYN refused to order them for me it was against his beliefs. I switched to another doctor but that really left a bad taste in my mouth.

    So I am boycotting religious-based healthcare (which is very difficult here in Midwest).

    • Sydney Bristow :

      My dad is an atheist doctor at a catholic hospital. I asked him once if the hospital would decline to provide specific care for me if it violated catholic principles. He said that he actually didn’t think its ever come up as a problem so he thought they likely did the procedures. He wasn’t 100% sure, but based on that conversation I think it might depend on the religious based institution or provider.

      • Another anecdote, but my very Catholic aunt wouldn’t let her equally Catholic daughter go to a Catholic OBGYN. Apparently some Catholic doctor somewhere along the line told my aunt that if there was ever a choice between saving mom or baby, any Catholic doctor would have to save the baby. Idk if mom v. baby is ever a real thing but apparently it scared my aunt enough to insist that her daughter had to go to a non-Catholic.

        • Anonymous :

          There are many times that mom v. baby is a real thing. That happened to my sister two years ago at a major university hospital. Her living son would have been an orphan with a brother if they hadn’t focused on saving my sister’s life. It is incredibly rare but incredibly horrible when it happens and you do NOT want to be at a Catholic hospital unless those are your personal beliefs.

        • No Problem :

          My mom (not a Catholic) would not deliver at a Catholic hospital for this reason. And the reason doesn’t even make sense to me. If you save the baby, now you have a baby without a mother who is going to need a lot of support. If you save the mother, she could in theory have another baby, or continue to mother and support her older children if she has them. Still awful to have lost her baby, but not as awful as a baby with no mother for the rest of her/his life.

          Does anybody understand this position better who can help me understand it too?

          • I do. *Cracks knuckles*

            The ostensible reason behind the Catholic doctrine is that it is always wrong to perform a direct killing of a human person, but it is not always wrong to simply let someone die. It is a sin to directly kill the baby to save the mother’s life. It is not a sin to let her die. The other factors that you mention like the value of the woman’s life, her role in caring for her family, her bodily integrity, don’t matter. If both die, well that’s sad, but at least you didn’t kill one. (UGH).

            There’s also what’s called the doctrine of “double effect.” This, if you’ll excuse my french, is a steaming pile of B.S. It’s what “allows” doctors in *some* circumstances to perform abortions with the purpose of saving the mother’s life. But it’s very specific. For example, to treat an ectopic pregnancy (which will kill a woman, all the time, full stop), it is not permissible to do a direct abortion that kills the embryo. But it *is* permissible under the doctrine of double effect to cut out the fallopian tube, and the embryo will die as a secondary “side effect.” The mental slight of hand that you’re supposed to do is pretend that you’re really removing a ‘diseased’ falliopian tube, not “killing the baby.” PLEASE. So much bs.* Likewise, it is permissible to give a mom with cancer chemo, even if it kills the baby, but it is not permissible to end her pregnancy first if that would be therapeutic for her. According to Catholic doctrine/anti-choicers, this is not “an abortion” because it is not a direct killing (and not done because some hussy wanted to ‘shirk her responsibilities’ or whatever).

            There are a lot of gestating women here, and those who plan to, so allow me to make a PSA: while incidents of catholic hospitals refusing to perform lifesaving care for a woman are rare (mostly because it’s a rare situation), it does happen. Further, the network of catholic hospitals continues to expand, routinely buying up local hospitals, so sometimes hospitals that you wouldn’t think are “catholic” are now subject to these murderous directives. While that hospital might just tell you to “go to a different one,” consider what will happen if you don’t live somewhere where there are multiple hospitals within a reasonable distance. Some reproductive rights organizations have recently sued catholic hospitals for malpractice, arguing that by following catholic doctrine they have failed to follow the requisite standard of care. As far as I know, most of these lawsuits are being tossed on jurisdictional grounds, but a few may be active. Think about it- this is insane!!! How can it not be malpractice to follow a religious text rather than the standard of care accepted by the medical community!?!?? I have a major problem with the idea that catholic hospitals can step into the role of being a provider of care (and in some places the only provider of care) and refuse to follow medical standards because it makes jesus cry.

            For further reading, I highly recommend the site RH Reality Check for high quality journalism on reproductive health, rights, and a number of other topics.

            *The question of whether there is a moral difference between killing and letting die is a very interesting, complex question in bioethics. If anyone is interested in further reading on the subject (that I think specifically rebuts the double effect principle), I suggest philosopher James Rachels’ essay on the subject.

          • No Problem :

            Thank you, Atheist, for the explanation. I agree that the bioethics issue is very complex.

          • lapsed Catholic :

            Thanks, Atheist! As a lapsed Catholic (now Apatheist), I’ve done a lot of work trying to understand these Catholic ideas. You explained them so much better than I could have. The removing-the-fallopian-tube procedure that decreases a woman’s future fertility instead of administering a simple injection and preserving fertility is medieval.

            FWIW, I needed surgery on my foot a few years ago. I had referrals to two podiatrists. I had to actually call both hospitals to figure out if they followed the Catholic Church’s directives. I refused to even consider the podiatrist at the Catholic hospital.

            The Catholic Church needs to divest their investments in healthcare facilities if they can’t provide the medically accepted standard of care due to their religious beliefs. Maybe they could open a few soup kitchens?

          • Atheist, that’s not what’s going on here.

            If I throw myself in front of a truck because I’m suicidal, that’s a mortal sin. If I throw myself in front of a truck to push a child out of the way, and in doing so, die (which I would have known when I made the decision), that’s heroic and good. The end result in both is the same, but the motivations are different, and therefore, the moral value of those actions is different.

            This isn’t a “steaming pile;” it’s something that is echoed in philosophy, law, and moral reasoning. Look at criminal law, which is founded on the idea that mens rea matters. Or anti-discrimination law, which is all about the intent to discriminate. They echo our gut belief that the “why” is an important consideration when examining the validity of an action. (As but one example, it’s almost always wrong to punch someone in the face, but if that person is attempting to kill you, the face punch is perfectly acceptable.) That the result is the same does not mean that our society or legal system treats the actions as equivalent.

            What the principle of double effect does is, rather than focus on post-action punishment, determines how you should act during the event in question (or rather, all the time). Refusing to give aid to an infant in distress in order to save the life of the mom is not the moral equivalent of shredding babies in the womb ‘cuz the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant.

            That is completely obvious if you think about the decisions people make in a mass casualty situation (for example, helping those whose lives are most in danger first, or letting people die for lack of the ability to give them aid), when it’s okay to not render medical care. But that lack of giving aid wouldn’t be acceptable on a slow day in the ER.

            “The Catholic Church needs to divest their investments in healthcare facilities if they can’t provide the medically accepted standard of care due to their religious beliefs.”

            WOW you’re a bigot. Just substitute in “Muslim” and you’ll understand.

          • lapsed Catholic :

            Yeah. Just go for the ad hominem attack.

            I stand by my statement:

            “[Any religious institution: Jewish, Muslim, JW, Hindu, FSM] needs to divest their investments in healthcare facilities [that employ the public, serve the public, and take taxpayer dollars via medicare, medicaid, VA, and state benefits] if they can’t provide the medically accepted standard of care due to their religious beliefs.”

          • Holy straw man argument, bridget!!! You basically did not address my points at all.

            “Refusing to give aid to an infant in distress in order to save the life of the mom is not the moral equivalent of shredding babies in the womb ‘cuz the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

            I did not say that refusing to give aid to an infant in distress in order to save the life of the mom is the moral equivalent of abortion for non-life threatening reasons. My point is that there are cases where there is no moral difference between killing and letting die. Double effect says the opposite- that there are at least some circumstances where you can use the difference between killing and letting die as the SOLE determinant of whether an action is moral. I think that, in the circumstances described above (i.e. women’s reproductive health care), that that’s bs. You haven’t refuted that. The “why” for removing a woman’s Fallopian tube is EXACTLY THE SAME as the why for performing that same abortion in accordance with modern medical standards: to extract the fetus. To get it out of the woman’s body. To save her life. To kill it. The only difference is the method. Same with performing a dilation and extraction on a miscarrying woman.

            Your point that intent matters in other contexts does not prove that intent makes the moral difference when it comes to women’s reproductive health care, and it certainly doesn’t support double effect, for the reasons stated above. I know that the doctrine of double intent *says* its about intent, but if you actually use your critical thinking skills and analyze the doctrine, you’ll realize that’s not true. You can hold the position that intent matters and also hold the position that double effect is bs.

            Your example of triage also has nothing to do with the decision by catholic hospitals to follow the doctrine of double effect or to let mom die to save the baby. Because those two decisions are not made based on who needs care the most- which is what triage focuses on. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Seriously, maybe you need to go read up on this stuff from philosophers who actually believe it. I assure you that I have, and I assure you that your interpretation is wrong.

            “The Catholic Church needs to divest their investments in healthcare facilities if they can’t provide the medically accepted standard of care due to their religious beliefs.”

            WOW you’re a bigot. Just substitute in “Muslim” and you’ll understand.”

            False again. When Muslim doctrine fails to live up to the standard of medical care, then we’ll make the same statement about Muslim owned hospitals. This has nothing to do with the validity of religion. It has everything to do with legal standards of care. Your religion isn’t carte blanche to fail to live up to your legal duties. If you can’t perform those legal duties, get out of the business. You don’t get to hurt other people because you think it makes jesus cry.

            Try harder, bridget. I understand that holding your position (and believing in “double effect”) requires intellectual dishonesty. I have an actual life to live so I’m going to do that rather than respond to you in more detail- in part because I’ve addressed a lot of your posts here over the last months and find that its usually not worth my time.

            Also, “shredding babies in the womb?” Boo hoo. Where is this mysterious place called “the womb?” Omg, all these babies dying in The Womb. Better call NATO, get some peacekeeping troops up over there. Here’s where I’m going with this: My body isn’t “the womb.” It’s not some abstract place like Arkansas with no moral relevance. But I always appreciate when anti-choicers insist on using only the word “womb” so that we forget there’s a woman surrounding that “baby.” Then you can just delete her from the moral calculus. Easy-peasy.

          • lapsed Catholic :

            Brava Atheist!

      • Anonymous :

        My grandfather, who was a doctor and an atheist, told me starting when I was a teenager that I should never get pregnancy care at a Catholic hospital, because the baby’s life trumps the mother’s life and they aren’t always super open about that fact until there’s a crisis. So while I’m not saying there’s no Catholic hospital out there that might be great, I think wanting to avoid them for that reason is totally legit.

        • +1

          In addition to the novel I wrote above, it’s just blatantly obvious that catholic hospitals would prefer to save the “innocent baby” v. the mother who already had a chance to live. Shudder. Cool if mom wants to make that choice. Not cool if the hospital wants to make that choice for her.

          Ok back to work for me.

    • Anonymous :

      That is not a boycott, it is self-preservation.

    • Beth Childs :

      Late in the day, but more anecdata: A friend of mine recently suffered a miscarriage. When she went for treatment in the early stages of this traumatic event at the closest hospital (Catholic), they refused to provide the D&C she needed, as they considered it an abortion even though it was clear the fetus would never survive. Fortunately, we live in an area where there were other non-religious affiliated hospitals nearby that provided the treatment she needed, but I can’t imagine the anguish she endured being turned away and having to find healthcare elsewhere because of the beliefs of a religious institution.

    • Aunt Jamesina :

      The really scary thing is just how many hospitals are now part of Catholic hospital networks (and their names are no longer so obviously Catholic with all of the mergers).

    • Seventh Sister :

      In my city, several of the larger hospitals are religiously affiliated (Jewish, Methodist, Episcopal) but not Catholic and I’ve been pleased with my experiences at those places. Then again, those institutions don’t appear to have religiously-based rules/standards that don’t permit certain tests or procedures.

  28. I really disagree with the concept of not shopping at a place because they have different religious or political views than I do. Part of living in a multicultural, pluralist society is being able to interact with people with different views. The only time I would boycott a product is based on the product itself, not the beliefs of its maker – like if it were made using child labor, low environmental standards or animal testing or something else related to the product itself. Otherwise it seems we would need to research the beliefs of everyone who makes or sells a product before shopping for anything.

    • Anonymous :

      But couldn’t you say at the same time that if those companies want to participate in the marketplace of a multicultural, pluralist society than they shouldn’t alienate people with opposing view points? It’s one thing to have differing view points, it’s another to push it onto your employees (i.e. Hobby Lobby).

      • +1 I’m so sick of being told to be tolerant and respectful of the rich and powerful while they are actively advocating the oppression of others.

    • Aunt Jamesina :

      Interacting with somebody with whom you disagree is quite different from giving them money when they’ll turn around and use that money for something you consider unethical.

  29. LandsEnd? :

    I have no problem with Lands End at all. Gloria Steinem, yes iconic figure for the womens movement. Whether or not you support her reproductive rights stance, we are all beneficiaries of the womens movement in the 60s that she was part of.

    I appreciate that Lands End is also conscious of all spectrum of womens shapes and sizes. It’s one of the few affordable places to get Plus, Tall and Petite sized clothes that are fairly good quality.

    • the problem for me is that they apologized for featuring and celebrating Gloria Steinem, not because they featured her.

    • Aunt Jamesina :

      Yeah, I think all of the posters who said they boycotted Land’s End felt that the way they backed down on featuring her was problematic, not that she herself is an issue.

  30. I don’t buy food products / pet food products made in China. I don’t trust the quality.

  31. KS IT Chick :

    Another who boycotts 1 & 2. I also boycott Papa John’s Pizza and the Darden Group of restaurants (Chile’s, Olive Garden, Red Lobster) for their opposition to the Affordable Care Act and their very public acting to cut employee hours to assure that their frontline staff would not be eligible for health insurance. Same with Whole Foods.

  32. More often than boycotting, I buy a product BECAUSE it fits my values. I only ever buy Fair trade coffee or chocolate, for example. I try to spend money locally and with ethical companies when possible. I buy my occasional fast food fix at McDonald’s because in the UK their food sourcing is pretty good and I trust that and their hygiene more than an independent cheap fried chicken shop. I buy books at charity shops (though that’s ethically questionable as the authors don’t get royalties) or waterstones rather than Amazon where practical, and I never ever pirate books, films, TV or music.

    • Anonymous :

      Yes to all. In addition to fair trade, I look for coffee that is bird friendly/shade grown. I love coffee, but it is an environmental disaster because of clear cutting rainforests for cheaper growing operations.

    • Yes, this.

  33. New Tampanian :

    I’m late to this but there are two companies that I will not purchase from: E-Harmony and Chick-Fil-A.
    That said, if someone happens to have chick fil a breakfast things in the office, I’ll eat one. They’ve already paid and I am just eating extras haha

    I don’t know what hobby lobby is so that one doesn’t come up in my life.

  34. Anonymous :

    Just adding that I’m super proud of us as a community for being able to discuss very divisive issues in a civilized manner. There’s a lot of different topics on this thread and even when there has been vehement disagreement – everyone has worked hard to be civil.

  35. Well Seasoned :

    Yes, definitely. I will never buy anything with an Ivanka Trump label, won’t stay at a Trump property or hotel and will not step into Hobby Lobby. We just threw a bridal shower and someone wanted to get decorative items there but I refused and found them on Etsy.

    We also have a conference coming up and my husband initially thought it was in North Carolina. We agreed we could not go based on the bathroom law (HB2), but it turned out that the conference was actually in another state. But we were agreed that if it were in North Carolina we would absolutely pass. Voting with my feet is part of sticking to my guns and taking action on what principles are important to me.

  36. I try to buy beauty products that are not tested on animals; I try to shop at stores with a reputation for treating their employees well; and I really love spending money at Christian stores that are closed on Sundays. A company that is willing to give up a day of revenue so that their employees have a consistent day off is worth it to me.

    My only real boycott is of “Black Thursday.” If a store makes it employees come in at 10 pm on Thanksgiving evening, they don’t get my money… for the entire year.

    • Anonymous :

      Amen to Black Thursday. My family is far flung but we all get together at Thanksgiving. Except for the cousins who work in retail. It makes me so angry.

  37. Nothing from China unless it’s secondhand. It ticks me off that companies will not list the country of manufacture on their website – I order clothes and then have to return them when they come with that “Made in China” label. Vietnam and Bangladesh are probably not that much better, though.

    No movies with Jane Fonda (my dad was in Vietnam) or Woody Allen. That’s actually really easy now because it’s not like any of Allen’s movies over the past two decades have been any good. And of course no Roman Polanski movies.

    • Anonymous :

      + 1 million to no WA or RP

    • Anonymous :

      I boycott Woody Allen & Roman Polanski too. I really wanted to see Blue Jasmine in theaters but I wouldn’t go because I didn’t want to put money in that sicko’s pocket.

  38. UK based so my stores are different but I try to support companies which are employee-owned (John Lewis, Waitrose), were early adopters of the living wage (Lidl) and avoid those who were using workfare labour. I am a total hypocrite when it comes to tax dodging, I’ll avoid Starbucks but use Amazon – there are no local home / garden stores and it is just too convenient.

    I also try to support local businesses as much as possible (buy veg from local co-op, health food stores, go to local restaurants and cafes versus chains, buy my eco cleaning products from Oxfam etc).

  39. I draw a distinction between whether or no the company’s owners are simply expressing their beliefs, which is one thing, or if they are seeking to impose those beliefs on their employees, customers and others. That is why I still eat Chik-fil-a but will never, ever, ever give Hobby Lobby a dime.

  40. Absolutely – I boycott Sea World, The Mirage LV, Shedd Aquarium, and anywhere that has whales or captive dolphins. It’s beyond cruel, and it supports the hunt of dolphins in Taiji, Japan. (It’s a lot to type out, watch The Cove, which won an Oscar, for the rundown!). I also boycott secondary companies such as AmEx, FedEx and Groupon that promote and assist these corporations.

    NEVER buy a ticket to a show with captive dolphins, and NEVER swim with them in captivity.

  41. Rebecca in Dallas :

    The only companies that I actively boycott are cosmetic/health brands that test on animals. I will only buy certified cruelty-free brands. There are soooo many great brands that are cruelty-free, there is just no need.

    I do boycott circuses and Sea World (and similar places) as well.

Add a Comment

Thank you for commenting. On the off chance that your comment goes to moderation, note that a moderation message will only appear if you enter an email address. If you have any questions please check out our commenting policy.

work fashion blog press mentions