Cracker Barrel Fires 73-Year-Old Veteran Who Gave Food To 'Needy' Man

I have not disagreed with that stance. He should have bought the muffin and given it to the man. Of course, that might also be against corporate policy.

It was wrong in that it was against corporate policy.

So I ask you as I have asked others, but have not received an answer, do you believe the corporate policy is a moral policy?

It is a simple question to answer, at least it should be but apparently is not as others have either remained silent or tried to divert it through misdirection or insults.

 

I contend that corporations cannot be held to Bible morality or my interpretation of it.

That is purely a judgement call and even if it is not 'moral' it would not give anyone the right or responsibility to steal from them.

Corporations are not morally obligated to do my job of charitable giving. That is my responsibility.

 

Thank you for answering the question. I respectfully disagree.

I do agree it is a judgement call.

I would say that corporations are morally obligated as it is individuals who are making the decisions on corporate polity and individuals are responsible before God for their decisions in all areas of life.

You are right their decision does not negate our responsibilities on giving to others. That is correct.

 

Why didn't the street person go to Starbucks where the liberals are?

 

But how does one hold corporations to our perceptions of Biblical standards?

So if a corporation, for example, is openly supporting sinful actions and lifestyle by using their profits to support organisation promoting those lifestyles do I have a responsibility to oppose them?

Be the way, in the source article it was stated that part of the problem was that the employee was also consuming food. Would that be an immoral policy?

 

Ben and Jerry's is another liberal establishment that would help street people. We don't have Cracker Barrel here but we do have a hanging judge that would have fed the "hungry" street person for 30 days. There must be more liberal restaurants that would help. It is just mean Republicans that make people go to rescue missions and rehab and get back on their meds. It is surprising that the Democrats still have homeless around since I thought that Reagan caused most of them.

 

I think that would be an excellent topic in a new thread, a most interesting topic.

Yes, I believe people have a responsibility to oppose them. That also would be a most interesting topic for a thread.

 

Did I not see you post that corporations are not individuals for the purposes of political speech and donations?

 

Off topic. Please do not try to derail the thread.

Do you believe CB's corporate policy is a moral policy?

 

Actually it is on topic. The reason is that if my memory serves me correct that your position on this coporate policy is inconsistent, contraditory, but moe importantly hypocritical.


So, are you willing to answer my question?


As far as your question the answer is there is not enough details of the situation for me to answer it. I will say it is not automatically a problem.

 

Please don't feed the commie.

 

I do not believe a corporation is an individual. I believe people are individuals.

Individuals are responsible for their decisions in all areas of life, including the decisions on making corporate policy. If corporate policy is immoral then those people who made that decision made, IMHO, an immoral decision. Just like a church, if the members of a Baptist church vote to adopt an immoral policy then those who voted for that policy made an immoral decision.

Do you agree?

 

Please answer my earlier question. And I will add another, do you believe Hobby Lobby should have to go against their conscience in the obamacare mandate?

 

Normally I would agree but he has backed himself into another corner.

 

Cracker Barrel will be closing if Obama shuts down the electric plants that he wants to as Obama will put us into a depression.

Rev. Mitchell, what is surprising politically about this thread is that the Democrats are raising the issue of homelessness with a Democrat President in power. The Democrats blame the Republicans for the alcoholics, drug addicts, and mentally ill who are over 90% of the homeless. Usually, this issue is only mentioned when there is a Republican President. Here we have the Democrats blaming Obama.

Notice that the concern is not for the poor in the ditch but how to get more money out of the middle class. The county judges in this county do not tolerate trespassing and panhandling. Indianapolis gets hundreds of homeless with the Indy 500 every May because there are a lot of drunken parties on 16th Street by the Speedway. Alcoholics like free booze.

Me, I follow the Baptist Manual and only go into liquor stores to get empty boxes.

 

I believe I answered your questions and will not answer more until you answer mine. This is a practice of yours and some others on the BB, to refuse to answer questions while asking additional questions when previous ones are answered. So please answer my question; Is CB's corporate police a morally acceptable policy? Thanks.

 

This is a practice of yours. You corner yourself with your inconsistent positions, someone picks up on it, and you refuse to answer questions about it. Then you deflect and divert to further avoid answering to it.

Fact is you are busted. Politically you do not want corps to be considered individuals. However, when you think you can condemn a corp then all of the sudden they are made up of individuals. If corps are made up of individuals then they should also be able to donate as much money to political campaigns as they want without laws interferring with that.

Hyportical.

 

Here is what Koblenzer said in an interview with Fox News.

 

Mr. Koblenzer should have toed the line.