(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 03:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  They are a SRB - their job is to run the Hoot in any manner they see fit. They are not policing campus thought,

ANY manner they see fit?

So, if they saw fit, they could put up swastika decorations?

I thought not.

Stop protecting the students from chicken sandwiches made by people with different beliefs. Start procuring chicken sandwiches of good quality and reasonable price.

If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

And so long as a business is not discriminating, then yes, they can run a business in any manner they see fit. They are not no longer purchasing Chick-fil-a because it is a Christian company, but because of the actions they take as a company (apparently by donating to specific organizations). That method of decision making has historical precedent with things like the South African divestment due to apartheid.

Your logic seems to be severely lacking here - you want students who run the business to be forced to buy a product from a company so that students buying a product from the student business have the option to buy the product the SRB doesn’t want to purchase. Are you going to make it compulsory that students who go to the Hoot but Chick-Fil-a sandwiches too? And does the Hoot not have the ability to ever drop a product from their catalog?

I think they’re making a stupid decision, but what products they carry is their decision. And as long as they are not discriminating, I see no reason why they shouldn’t do it (outside of possibly losing business).

And to your swastika hypothetical - the Hoot can try, but I would support the university canceling their lease/pulling their space for publicly displaying a swastika in such a manner. The Hoot can do it, but would face consequences for those actions.