Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0404_Dominos_Pizza.html (via shareaholic)

Technically Snopes says it's untrue, but if the corporate heads are donating large amounts of money it's the same damn thing!


( 9 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 22nd, 2010 11:02 pm (UTC)
Tom Monaghan hasn't owned Domino's pizza in over ten years. He sold it in 1998. So, although it is technically true that some of the money he earned from being the owner of the Domino's name DID go into the hands of pro-lifers, any money he makes NOW has nothing to do with Domino's. And although I completely, totally, and emphatically disagree with pro-lifers, I have to take a note outta Snope's book on this one and say that whatever someone chooses to do with their own paycheck is their business. I'm sure pro-war advocates (which ironically also tend to be pro-life O_o) do not appreciate me donating any of my money to Michigan Peaceworks and/or Lenawee Peacemakers, but it's my money to do with as I please and my donation does not somehow morph into a stance by the University of Michigan coming out against the wars just because they happen to sign my paycheck. It becomes my money as soon as it's signed over and UofM no longer has any affiliation with my usage of said money.
Jun. 22nd, 2010 11:29 pm (UTC)
Sure, Dominoes isn't contributing directly. However, when someone contributes publicly I can choose to not contribute to the company/group/school that generates the revenue that furnishes that individual's wages or investments.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 12:38 am (UTC)
Um, wow. Even if this were true, why would a company donating money to a cause be worth outrage? It's not like it's the government. I could see being outraged if you're a stockholder and they're donating your money to a cause you disagree with, but otherwise? If it upsets you so much, don't buy their product. Problem solved. It's a free country. If it's not even the company itself but just someone who works for them, or used to work for them a long time ago, I really don't understand your apparent outrage.

Incidentally, I'm a pro-lifer, by which I mean I'm anti-infanticide. I'm against the murder of babies. Yeah, I can see how that totally makes me a bad person.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 01:32 am (UTC)
I don't have any outrage at all.

This is in regard to the sale Dominoes is having and how it's going around that Dominoes has completely disassociated themselves from people that donate to pro-life groups and how it's 'ok to buy from them' now.

He's not a standing member of the company but he still has shares and holdings so the sale this week will effect his income, contrary to whats been going around.

If someone doesn't want their money to pro-life groups they shouldn't buy the cheap pizza.

If you don't care: chow down.

Just don't act self-righteous because you think you have a PC pizza.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 01:40 am (UTC)
So Domino's is making a deal of this? That seems like a pretty good way to alienate their customers: to pro-life people it sounds like Domino's is actively saying pro-life is bad, and to pro-choice people they probably don't believe them and think they're just trying to cover their butts. Not that I've heard anything about this myself, but I don't really watch TV, so I miss commercials most of the time.

It's a bad idea for companies to get political at all if they want to sell a product, especially one as cheap and common as bad pizza.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 01:42 am (UTC)
This has been going around for years and it's recently come up again. Poppy Z. Brite even has it in her novel Drawing Blood.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 01:45 am (UTC)
Seems like a silly thing to have a controversy about. It's not like pizza has anything to do with abortion anyway. At least, I certainly hope it has nothing to do with it.
Jun. 23rd, 2010 08:37 pm (UTC)
Actually this isn't as it seems. The guy that USED to own Domino's was a pro-life supporter. He sold it. Actually sold it. He's not on their Board, doesn't own shares, he's in no way associated with Domino's since way back in 1998. He SOLD it. Domino's itself has taken no stance either way on the issue. Tom Managhan just happened to be the owner and just happened to support pro-life so some of the money he made via owning Domino's (during the time he DID own Domino's) ultimately went to pro-life groups. In no way was Domino's itself any part of it. It's just where the money came from, just as your paycheck comes from where ever you work and mine comes from UofM.

I DO believe in boycotting companies if you don't agree with the policy of the actual company, but in this case the company had nothing to do with what an independent person within their franchise did with his money. To me, there is a big difference between an actual company donating company monies to a cause and some person within the company doing what they please with their own money. For instance, I am anti-war. Period. Therefore I do not have AT&T service or phones because AT&T - the company, not an individual within it - openly supports pro-war political candidates and supports them 'big'. They were the number one monetary contributor to GW Bush and to McCain, both of whom I do not agree with and thus, I do not support AT&T. However, if just someone within AT&T had donated money to a given warmonger I would have no problem with AT&T as a company because it would have had nothing to do with the company; it would have been simply the act of one individual who happens to earn their money at that company. I see the two situations as vastly different.

It's funny that you mentioned Domino's alienating customers if they had actually taken that stance because that was exactly what a spokesman for Domino's said way back when pro-choice groups originally made a big deal of this. Domino's basically said "we are here to make and sell pizzas and we can't do that if we alienate 50% of the population so of course we have no stance on any controversial issue". :)
Jun. 24th, 2010 12:46 am (UTC)
Oh yes, once you get into one individual feeling like they can tell another individual what to do with their own money (provided illegality is not involved), that's pretty scary territory, at least in a free society. And I totally agree that if you don't agree with how the company itself spends its money, you should certainly feel free to not purchase their product/service, but the original post (though it seems this wasn't intended) gave me more the impression of the former (with a company standing in for an individual, but in such a case, I still think that only shareholders or employees could get morally outraged, as they actually have a stake in the matter).

Good to know Domino's reacted with some sense, then. It would be silly for a company like that to get political.
( 9 comments — Leave a comment )


Not the one

Latest Month

October 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow