Fed up of businesses aligning themselves with politics!

[thehorsehasnowbolted]

I was about to grab a turkey and cranberry sandwich yesterday at a major retailer when I noticed on the package that 5% of that purchase would go to Shelter.

Why are we being increasingly forced nowadays to contribute to causes we may not necessarily agree with in this way? Why don't businesses stick to selling goods? Why the constant virtue signalling? It's annoying

I do not intend to comment on this charity in particular, but I have seen my fair share of pensioners being out of pocket to evict problem tenants who were in a position to pay the rent and look after properties but simply didn't want to and just played the system.

The results of charities activities are not always 100% positive, so customers shouldn't be forced to contribute in this way.

Why do businesses assume that their customers agree with the charities they pick? The constant virtue signalling is patronising and insulting.

So Christian fundamentalists aren't Christian then.

Not speaking for the others but I did several courses of comparative religions at uni; am fully confident that I understand the difference between the teachings of figure Jesus and the practices of today's "Christian" sects. The latter often not bearing much resemblence to the former.

Well, I think a lot of theologians would say that the radical aspect of Jesus's message was that it valued the poor and dispossessed, which was the opposite of the societal norms of the time.

Not speaking for the others but I did several courses of comparative religions at uni; am fully confident that I understand the difference between the teachings of figure Jesus and the practices of today's "Christian" sect

I guess once you go down the virtue signalling and indoctrinating path it somehow becomes addictive. It's difficult to stop.

You are 'confident enough' to preach to Christians about their own religion, telling them they belong to a 'sect' etc. Blimey!

Exactly, Sigma.

I love the way OP goes on about corporations 'indoctrinating' people through charitable donations by sandwich (which people can choose not to buy) but not seeing church as a force for indoctrination. What was it about the mote in God's eye and the beam in your own?

But, to go back to your original post, sandwich businesses work like this:

They offer a range of sandwiches at a price they decide, in locations that they decide, with any other conditions they decide (e.g. donating to charity).

Members of the public are free to buy from them, or not, depending whether they like the fillings, think the price and/or conditions reasonable, and find the location of sale convenient.

If enough people like what the business is offering, the business makes a profit.

If too many people decide not to buy, because they don't like what is on offer, the business doesn't make a profit. It then needs to either change what's on offer or close down.

No-one is forced to buy from them.

I mean, the innkeeper wasn't offering top notch accommodation, but presumably was complying with the relevant legislation of the time 😂and didn't turn Mary and Joseph away to sleep in the street...

Thats pretty tough. I'd hate to be living on the streets after suffering abuse, addiction or losing my home. It's extremely hard to get through to the Shelter helpline because the demand for advice and help is so high. And with the cost of living crisis is bound to put many more people at risk of losing their homes.

But yes you can cross to the other side of the street. I think there's a parable about that.

And at least corporations pay SOME taxes, unlike churches.

Totally agree.

There are shops who support charities who I disagree with. I choose to no longer shop there. End of story.

Bingo

What exactly are we getting wrong about Christianity OP?

Tell me you know nothing about research without telling me you know nothing about research.

You'd think someone with enough time create 38 posts on this over the past 8 hours would have also had the time to at least glance into the topic that's annoyed them so much.

Maybe if they'd bothered to do that they would have stumbled across the SDRs, TFCDs, SFDRs (EU) and CSRDs (EU). They'd then have realised that non-finacial disclosures on sustainability are almost essentially for larger organisations as that's what asset managers and investors are asking for and in some instances are now a regulatory requirement, which means social and charitable action will become more and more common in big buisness (thankfully).

And as the thread appears to have gone sideways a bit into religion. Does the bible not say "a generous person will prosper; whoever refreshes others will be refreshed". And did Jesus himself not say “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"?

You'd think the OP would be greatful of any opportunities to enact Jesus' teachings.

They'd then have realised that non-finacial disclosures on sustainability are almost essentially for larger organisations as that's what asset managers and investors are asking for and in some instances are now a regulatory requirement, which means social and charitable action will become more and more common in big buisness

You've said it yourself. It's apparently mandated by asset managers and investors. Nothing to do with customers (on which these businesses rely on for survival). I've also said upthread that I'm curious about these financial organisations' motives for these whimsical requirements.

Investment now comes with cultural and political strings attached. Sod the customers if they don't agree with them. Happy days ahead

Luke 18:9 onwards. OP sounds a bit like the Pharisee.

This sort of thing is why I have very little to do with organised religion any more. Some of the biggest arseholes I have ever met were in church every Sunday.

All this because of a charitable donation on a sandwich... Somebody has some next level champagne problems.

Plenty of charity free food available, OP. There's no need to elevate your blood pressure over it. Though it's quite entertaining to see a certain brand of Christianity all out and about, red in tooth and claw. I'm just glad there are some decent Christians on the thread showing the rest of us that NACALT.

Proverbs 31: 8-9

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

Sounds like Shelter all right

Though it's quite entertaining to see a certain brand of Christianity all out and about, red in tooth and claw

Really, so many 'experts' on this thread talking about issues you know nothing about. Now you are trying to 'categorise' Christians, right... As I said before, once you go on the preaching, 'know it all' wagon it's difficult to know when to stop

In fact, I very much enjoy this podcast in general because I find history fascinating, and enjoyed it even more to learn that for someone 'important' to die by crucifixion was so radical Paul never quite overcame his discomfort with it - crucifixion was for slaves and the lowest of the low. Those are the people Jesus allied himself with - it went beyond being willing to die, it meant accepting the most humiliating and tortuous death...

podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/175-crucifixion/id1537788786?i=1000557553721

Vote with your feet. But you do have to understand that others will agree with their chosen charity.

I'm not preaching here, OP. You're the one saying that businesses shouldn't be allowed to support charities because it might offend some of their shoppers (who do actually have the choice about where they shop). You're the one who's getting offended about financial support for an organisation that supports homeless people and tenants' rights. Given that we've just had the death of a toddler from black mould due to landlord negligence all over the news, that's actually a pretty awful thing to do.

As I explained in my 'introduction to sandwich businesses' post - yes, businesses rely on their customers. And many have found that an alliance with a charity brings them more new customers than those who walk away. It's down to the bottom line.

They make more profits with their charity links than they do being charity-free, i.e. for every customer who (like you) is offended and walks away, they will get maybe e.g. 1.5 customers who spend more money there. Or maybe 1.1 extra customers.

Whatever! They are pleasing the maximum number of customers. You are in the minority so don't matter, but far more customers will be pleased with their choice.

Welcome to capitalism!

Clearly we're going against the general opinion here but I agree with your original post.

It's not just about disagreeing with certain charities practices either.
The price of the food will be increased because of the donation, and having to pay an inflated price for a charity donation with the current CoL crisis just seems inappropriate.

Plenty of people are living on the breadline and don't have the money to spare for random charities, so why force them to?

Don't buy the sandwich?

People on the breadline are not spending £3 on a pre-prepared sandwich.

I see nothing wrong with businesses donating to charities or other good causes. It's their choice.

Similarly, I see nothing wrong with people boycotting businesses that support things they don't agree with. (In fact, there are a fair few I boycott myself.)

If you don't like what a business chooses to support, don't buy their stuff. You have a choice.