Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

Idiot on Facebook just wrote those supporting a boycott need to think of the gay franchisees who will be hurt by a boycott. Plus, he added most franchisees were ignorant of the stances the CEO advocates.

 

I started thinking about Mayor McCheese in Chicago harumphing that no Chick-Fil-As would be allowed. According to this http://www.wbez.org/black-unemployment-chicago-third-highest-nation-report-finds-100638 the black unemployment rate in Chicago is 19 percent, the third highest in the nation among cities. I would think that a few Chick-Fil-As would employ a few black kids.

Just a thought.

 

yet another scramble for relevance

 

Representing persecuted, straight, white American dullards since 2008.

 

One's boycott is on page 1, the other on page 16. I'll leave it up to the board to decide which goes where.

I think boycotts are a double sword anyway. Gays who boycott businesses who dare oppose them end up inevitably hurting gays who have jobs within said company. Count on it. In this economy, boycotts are the wrong kind of self-serving.

 

Not at all. Money talks. Withholding your dollars from enterprises with which you disagree and supporting those whose practices -- environmental, political, whatever -- you align is a very effective way to make a difference and be heard. In a post-Citizens United world in which corporations can shape and dominate political discourse through Super Pacs, it seems imperative.

 

And the little guy is ultimately screwed Cranberry.

Let me show you how:
Company loses money.
Shareholders bitch.
Policy changed or CEO fired.
CEO's golden parachute becomes waste of money.
Prices go up.

 

This isn't Dow Chemicals making napalm or an oil company spilling its product on the Gulf Coast. They make chicken sandwiches, for crying out loud. Their CEO has a certain view on a certain social issue that in the end hurts no one. There's no evidence he or a store manager in Cairo, Ga., has fired a gay employee, not hired an employee because of sexual orientation or turned a customer away because of sexual orientation. (If they had, we would have heard the screaming). No matter how much money he contributes to an organization against the gay lifestyle, it's not going to stop a committed gay couple from getting married or having a civil union.
Geez, the depths some of you will go to get indignant is unbelievable.

 

I don't know the person you're speaking to but this is what in general ticks me off about these social issues...and yeah we can start with gay marriage. There is too much indignant attitude in it, too much in your face, to hell with what you think PR...which is why America is polarized so much. Done in a different form, civil unions might have already found their way into culture. But no, there's part of that movement that wants to demonize anyone who stands in their way, for whatever reason. And it's why, in my mind, this if it ever becomes the law in 50 states that it won't stop with uniform legality. It will be recognized as special status.

 

I wish the Boy Scouts actually banning openly gay kids from joining would outrage some as much as a fucking chicken restaurant whose owner has political views that differ from some.

I think what the Boy Scouts are doing is reprehensible, but while I don't agree with Chick-fil-A's stance on gay marriage, I think they have a right to feel the way they do.

 

Agree 100 percent.

 

Well, I don't buy that popcorn from Boy Scouts any more, if that helps.