EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
So my question is, how do we define an "anti-gun business" and when do you decide not to buy there anymore?
example, say a national chain (We'll say, Peet's coffee) has a corporate policy against guns in stores, but one particular location their manager allows it and never gives you a problem, is it ok to keep going to that particular location?
or if a national chain didn't allow carry, but one particular franchisee was cool about it, is it ok to visit locations owned by that businessman?
Question #2
If a business bans carry based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, and after being corrected fixes it, is that enough to be forgiven?
Question #3
If a business bans carry but then reverses and decides to allow it, is it apropriate to begin doing business with them again? or should the boycott continue?
Final question, if a restaurant were to allow carry, but treated carrying customers different, like refusing to tend alcohol to someone who is visibly armed, would you stop doing business there?
I'm just curious, what would be an appropriate policy for those cases in your opinion?
example, say a national chain (We'll say, Peet's coffee) has a corporate policy against guns in stores, but one particular location their manager allows it and never gives you a problem, is it ok to keep going to that particular location?
or if a national chain didn't allow carry, but one particular franchisee was cool about it, is it ok to visit locations owned by that businessman?
Question #2
If a business bans carry based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, and after being corrected fixes it, is that enough to be forgiven?
Question #3
If a business bans carry but then reverses and decides to allow it, is it apropriate to begin doing business with them again? or should the boycott continue?
Final question, if a restaurant were to allow carry, but treated carrying customers different, like refusing to tend alcohol to someone who is visibly armed, would you stop doing business there?
I'm just curious, what would be an appropriate policy for those cases in your opinion?