[remarkEon]

>"We make sandwiches, taking a side on segregation is beyond the scope of our mission".

Idk, "we make [my edit: great] sandwiches", which sounds like a great mission, seems very much entwined with who gets to eat said sandwiches - especially if they're delicious. Since if you are denying certain classes the right to enjoy your awesome sandwiches, your sandwiches probably aren't that great to begin with.

If I steel man your argument about having segregated counter space - that they'd excuse the segregation because if everyone has separate counter space to eat the sandwich the underlying differences don't matter -, what I'm left thinking about is that, well, the experience of having a great sandwich also has to do with the environment in which you eat it. Who wants to eat a delicious sandwich when you have to sit at a crappy table, with crappy chairs and bad service? No one, that's who.

And then we're back to my original point about artificially constraining the market for awesome sandwiches.

[joshuamorton]

I'd think this proves my point: we're having a debate, without an obvious "victor" about whether or not a mission to focus on sandwiches without distraction would lead to fighting segregation.

You say that someone could justify that. I'm saying they could also do the opposite. My point is that a "mission-oriented" code of conduct if you will allows the people who set the mission (read: leadership) to set the ethics too.

Fighting segregation can be part of the mission, or not. But if it isn't, you can't work on it.

[remarkEon]

But there's nothing stopping anyone from starting the "anti-racist sandwich shop"?