Would you decline to support any political cause because it offended a valued client?

[SeattleUte]

Let's take a neutral example. Lots of clients that pay a lot of fees to lawyers, PR firms, accountants, etc. are amid controversy in the public eye: cigarette companies, forest products companies, health insurers, scores of entities that need lots of professional help. If you were solicited to support a political cause that might injure a valued client, would you decline on that basis alone? That seems natural to me. I'd think I'd owe them that much and more. I think someone who isn't sensitive to that deserves to be fired. Do you agree? (Like I told LA, anyone of you mullahs sends me a valuable piece of work I'm out of here.)

[SeattleUte]

Moderators, please change to read "any political cause..."

[Tim]

Are you referring to financial support?

[SeattleUte]

Are you referring to financial support?

I'm not sure there's a meaningfurl difference between financial support, giving service, time, etc.

[il Padrino Ute]

That's a great question SU, but I'm wondering if this is more relevant to an attorney or someone that works for a large business - advertising, accounting firm, etc. Working for myself, I'm able to keep politics, religion and other non-business related matters separate from work and while the loss of a client is never fun, in my case, it's not a huge amount of money lost.

Also, I don't think I'd drop a client if it supported a political cause that I found offensive, unless it was something as extreme as the KKK or anything else along those lines.

Anyway, I voted no because I believe in not mixing non-business and business and am able to do so because I'm not large scale. I would never tell the client, nor would I expect the client to tell me if it supports a political cause that I find offensive. If a client found out that I supported something and decided to drop me because it was offended by it, that would be there decision and I wouldn't try to convince the client to keep me.

[Tim]

I'm not sure there's a meaningfurl difference between financial support, giving service, time, etc.

There's a difference between supporting a cause ("I support it. I think it's a good thing") and supporting it financially. Are you asking if we'd change our beliefs about a cause if it offended a client, or if we'd stop giving material means to the cause if it offended a client?

[SeattleUte]

There's a difference between supporting a cause ("I support it. I think it's a good thing") and supporting it financially. Are you asking if we'd change our beliefs about a cause if it offended a client, or if we'd stop giving material means to the cause if it offended a client?

Well, support in a public way that matters. If you were a vendor for a forest products company would you hand out leaflets or do a case pro bono or write an op ed column or post on the Internet for Greenpeace?

Let me put it this way. If my law firm did work for the LDS church I wouldn't be here saying what I say. If the LDS Church sent me work I woudn't turn it down.

You all know what I'm driving at. I just find it incredibly naive that LDS business owners are offended that gays don't want to patronize them for showing up on pro prop. 8 donor lists. THer's nothing immoral about that! Business and client getting is a great deal about personal relationships, subjective stuff, how much the clientele like you and respect you as a person as well as a professional. Clients have a right to expect gratitude and loyaty in every way.

The part of Oaks' speech that was most baffling to me was his complaint against "boycotts." (He didn't complain about the speech against prop. 8 supporters; that would have been as or more baffling.)

[il Padrino Ute]

A question for you SU:

If the LDS church encouraged its members to not support a business owned and operated by gays, would you have a problem with that? Perhaps you've stated your thought on this previously and I've missed it. If so, sorry 'bout that.

[SeattleUte]

I think what I mean to say is best stated as, "Would you decline to support a political cause because it offended a valued client."

[SeattleUte]

A question for you SU:

If the LDS church encouraged its members to not support a business owned and operated by gays, would you have a problem with that? Perhaps you've stated your thought on this previously and I've missed it. If so, sorry 'bout that.

That's a good question. Yes I would have a problem with that. I'm not being inconsistent and here's why. A gay business owner is not hurting the LDS Church by owning his business, selling tasty burgers, being a good lawyer, or whatever. That would be a raw effort to encourage discrimination based on an immutable characeristic; bigotry put into practice.

I would have a problem with gays encouraging boycotts of all Mormon owned businesses, but not of businesses owned by people who gave financial support to Proposition 8.

[LA Ute]

(Like I told LA, anyone of you mullahs sends me a valuable piece of work I'm out of here.)

You're at the top of my referral list, SU.

[TripletDaddy]

I think there is a reason most F500 companies support politically neutral causes....United Way, Red Cross, B/G Club of America, local battered womens' shelter, etc.

I would definitely say yes. I am loyal to clients, esp in this current climate. Clients LOVE to know that you are being loyal to them. A few things that are part of my daily regimen simply because of affiliation with current clients:

1. Where I purchase my gasoline
2. Where I purchase sunglasses (not that often, but you get the point)
3. Where I purchase any surf/shorts casual wear
4. Where I take the family for ice cream

Fortunately, with the exception of the gasoline client, most of the clients I deal with are fairly politically neutral themselves, but my point is that I am all for being sensitive to valuable clients.

Ultimately, there is no way to avoid hypocrisy in this issue because both presidential candidates will have one agenda or another that might trickle down and hurt a client. I guess I am simply advocating against the personal involvement of pet causes that directly injure your valued client.

[cowboy]

Doesn't the answer depend on the issue? If the issue is whether or not to build an interstate through some craphole town like Sheridan, then I'm much more likely to be indifferent than if the issue was about my right to own a handgun.

This is my problem with the whole premise of altering our support to please our clients. It's a catch 22. People should be free to choose the businesses they will patronize, but taken to the extreme, that means that money, not the voter, rules our republic.

[landpoke]

Doesn't the answer depend on the issue? If the issue is whether or not to build an interstate through some craphole town like Sheridan, then I'm much more likely to be indifferent than if the issue was about my right to own a handgun.

This is my problem with the whole premise of altering our support to please our clients. It's a catch 22. People should be free to choose the businesses they will patronize, but taken to the extreme, that means that money, not the voter, rules our republic.

You have to let go of this jealousy, it's starting to affect the quality of your posts.

[SeattleUte]

I think there is a reason most F500 companies support politically neutral causes....United Way, Red Cross, B/G Club of America, local battered womens' shelter, etc.

I would definitely say yes. I am loyal to clients, esp in this current climate. Clients LOVE to know that you are being loyal to them. A few things that are part of my daily regimen simply because of affiliation with current clients:

1. Where I purchase my gasoline
2. Where I purchase sunglasses (not that often, but you get the point)
3. Where I purchase any surf/shorts casual wear
4. Where I take the family for ice cream

Fortunately, with the exception of the gasoline client, most of the clients I deal with are fairly politically neutral themselves, but my point is that I am all for being sensitive to valuable clients.

Ultimately, there is no way to avoid hypocrisy in this issue because both presidential candidates will have one agenda or another that might trickle down and hurt a client. I guess I am simply advocating against the personal involvement of pet causes that directly injure your valued client.

The guy that ran the theater in LA and contributed to Prop. 8, dependent on artistic and monetary contributions from the performing arts community in LA, must have been, as my wife woud say, "missing a judgment chip."