Quote Originally Posted by anatess View Post
I'm not battling with you. I just don't understand your point. Please don't leave the conversation. I feel that this is important.

Political stance is great. That's how we get our voices heard. But, there is such a thing as "barking up the wrong tree".

Okay, let's take your "feeding your children healthy" bit. I do too. Therefore, McDonald's is not a good choice of food for children. But, I don't tell people who work at McDonald's they should avoid working at McDonald's because they support unhealthy practice that is detrimental to children. Because, McDonald's is a lot more than just the petrified chicken nuggets. I'd like to hear your opinion on why you would work at McDonald's when you know they are promoting unhealthy practices.

Juxtapose that with Petsmart. They donated $15K to HSUS, sure. If you are sensitive to the whole HSUS thing, don't buy/work at PetSmart. It is your prerogative as a capitalist consumer and there's completely nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with lobbying other people not to buy/work at PetSmart as a support to your cause.

But to tell people who work at PetSmart that they are contributing to the HSUS and, therefore, are harming their pets, is too narrow-minded.

For example, PetSmart stood side-by-side with the herp community in opposing HR 669. Another example is that Petsmart Charities is the largest funder of animal welfare in the US dedicated to saving homeless pets by promoting adoption in their own stores.

People who work for PetSmart, by your definition, also support these activities as much as HSUS.

Just for your information, Petsmart donated $15,000 to the HSUS to lend their support to the spay/neuter program. They didn't give them $15,000 so they can harm your ability to own a pet.

The only way I can resolve your statement is to think that you read an article about PetSmart and PetCo giving money to the HSUS and, without further research into the entirety of PetSmart Charities, you chose to react negatively. Hence, my statement... whatever, man. Okay, fine, woman.
I agree, but be careful about giving Petsmart too much credit in backing HR 669. They were very late in backing it, and we all know that they had their own agenda. They would go bankrupt eventually from it especially if the ''everything non-native to this country is banned'' part went through. All of their sales for not only pets, but also cages and supplies and food would disappear. I think they had no choice in backing it, but still half-heartedly applaud them for doing so. They are a huge player in the business and their backing most likely went a long way in squashing the bill for now. I do understand how much pressure they get to take the stances they take and put the policies in place that they have. I used to service Whole Foods and even ones with severe mouse infestations begged me to not harm/kill the mice, and relocate them somewhere else. Yet another policy I didn't agree with. But we met in the middle on that one