Chick-fil-A PR goes Rogue

[BTExpress]

On many of these issues, 50 percent of people are going to feel differently from you.

That means 50 percent of the businesses you patronize are owned by somebody with similar attitudes as CFA's owner.

So you won't buy a $3 chicken sandwich from his company. But you may have paid $20,000 for a car or $1,000 for airline tickets or $1,000 for hotel reservations from a company whose owner feels the same way (but just isn't as vocal about it). So unless you are going to do due diligence on everything you buy . . . what's really the point?

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Thought this was amusing...

 

[jaydaum]

On many of these issues, 50 percent of people are going to feel differently from you.

That means 50 percent of the businesses you patronize are owned by somebody with similar attitudes as CFA's owner.

So you won't buy a $3 chicken sandwich from his company. But you may have paid $20,000 for a car or $1,000 for airline tickets or $1,000 for hotel reservations from a company whose owner feels the same way (but just isn't as vocal about it). So unless you are going to do due diligence on everything you buy . . . what's really the point?

This is a great thought and I agree up to a certain point.
I am not going to do background checks on the companies I get goods
and services from, but when I do find out something, that information figures
in to my decision making.

 

[BTExpress]

This is a great thought and I agree up to a certain point.
I am not going to do background checks on the companies I get goods
and services from, but when I do find out something, that information figures
in to my decision making.

And that brings up another issue.

Let's say you are thinking of boycotting Company X because of the political views of its owner. But what if said owner was treating his employees better than any of his competitors? What if he refused to outsource any jobs to other countries?

How far do we let ONE issue determine our "to boycott or not to boycott?" decision-making when there could be many things this owner and his company are doing that put others to shame?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

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.

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 heck 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.

How exactly, should gays have used a "different form" to push for gay marriage and civil unions?

Especially when the opposition, for centuries, demonized them as sinners and even implemented laws prohibiting them from having sex with each other?

The opposition are the ones who been doing the demonizing for the past 2,000 years. It's only been in the last 15-20 years or so that gays have felt comfortable calling them out on it.

 

[dog eat dog world]

One "wrong" deserves another I guess. Tit for tat.
Carry on.

Mizzou: We apparently live in a culture where we're not supposed to offend anyone by thinking differently than them. That's what "politically correct" has brought us. And the really goofy part about it, we're supposed to take pride in diversity? I guess that goes so only as you get to choose the diverse that joins you at the table of mankind.

 

[BTExpress]

and even implemented laws prohibiting them from having sex with each other?

About two dozen states still have laws on the books prohibiting adultery, too.

Carrying about the same rate of prosecution, I would guess.

 

[JR]

One "wrong" deserves another I guess. Tit for tat.
Carry on.

Mizzou: We apparently live in a culture where we're not supposed to offend anyone by thinking differently than them. That's what "politically correct" has brought us. And the really goofy part about it, we're supposed to take pride in diversity? I guess that goes so only as you get to choose the diverse that joins you at the table of mankind.

Oh, goodie, the old "politically correct" bullshirt. The PC crowd has defended racism, sexism and homophobia with the old throway "Oh, don't be so PC"

How about stop being racist, sexist and homophobic, none of which have anything to do with "diversity".

And the issue here isn't whether the chief rooster at Chick Fil A doesn't approve of homosexuality. He wants to deprive gays equal rights and is spending a shirtload of money to prevent it. That's why people are boycotting Chick Fil A.

But we don't have to worry about it up here since they don't have any restaurants in Canuckistan .

 

[imjustagirl]

So the argument has seriously become (at some points in this thread) that either you must fight every injustice in the world, or you get to fight none without being called a hypocrite?

 

[Stitch]

One "wrong" deserves another I guess. Tit for tat.
Carry on.

Mizzou: We apparently live in a culture where we're not supposed to offend anyone by thinking differently than them. That's what "politically correct" has brought us. And the really goofy part about it, we're supposed to take pride in diversity? I guess that goes so only as you get to choose the diverse that joins you at the table of mankind.

Oh, goodie, the old "politically correct" bullshirt. The PC crowd has defended racism, sexism and homophobia with the old throway "Oh, don't be so PC"

How about stop being racist, sexist and homophobic, none of which have anything to do with "diversity".

And the issue here isn't whether the chief rooster at Chick Fil A doesn't approve of homosexuality. He wants to deprive gays equal rights and is spending a shirtload of money to prevent it. That's why people are boycotting Chick Fil A.

But we don't have to worry about it up here since they don't have any restaurants in Canuckistan .

Liberty can only be applied to guns, health care, and environmental laws according to whatever interpretation of the Constitution is being used today.

I'm more amazed the proponents of free market solutions to society's problems are against an attempt to use the free market to effect change.

 

[BTExpress]

So the argument has seriously become (at some points in this thread) that either you must fight every injustice in the world, or you get to fight none without being called a hypocrite?

Nobody is tossing around the "H" word.

Just questioning how we can all be so sure that by punishing a company for its stance on ONE issue, we are not also punishing a company that may do MANY OTHER good things. If this owner also contributes his time and money to many causes that you agree with ---- and these donations get smaller over time because his business is suffering --- have you POSSIBLY done more harm than good?

Just seems like we are very quick to throw the villain tag on somebody based on one thing that's hot in the news without seriously doing any real research.

 

[deskslave]

So the argument has seriously become (at some points in this thread) that either you must fight every injustice in the world, or you get to fight none without being called a hypocrite?

Nobody is tossing around the "H" word.

Just questioning how we can all be so sure that by punishing a company for its stance on ONE issue, we are not also punishing a company that may do MANY OTHER good things. If this owner also contributes his time and money to many causes that you agree with ---- and these donations get smaller over time because his business is suffering --- have you POSSIBLY done more harm than good?

Just seems like we are very quick to throw the villain tag on somebody based on one thing that's hot in the news without seriously doing any real research.

Most major corporations have charity arms any more, so there's really no differentiation there.

McDonald's does a ton of charity work. Doesn't exempt from criticism for selling nutritionally bereft garbage. I'm sure BP has a charity. Doesn't excuse it dumping millions of gallons of oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Chick-fil-A is particularly good about supporting various charitable causes, along with things like youth sports teams. But I bet if I asked them to donate a bunch of chicken sandwiches to a fundraiser to build a new outreach center for gay teens, they wouldn't be nearly as forthcoming.