The problem, and danger, with the Chick-Fil-A boycott

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If you don't know about the Chick-Fil-A Boycott issue, here's a brief primer

http://boycottchickfila.com/

Now, here's the issue.

This isn't a boycott that is in response to something the company itself has done. There is no evidence that the company refuses to serve homosexual individuals, or that it discriminates against homosexual individuals when it comes to employment.

Instead, it is primarily to do with what the company does with its profits, and it doesn't do anything criminal or necessarily oppressive with these funds. It supports things that people disagree with.

Other boycotts, over things like Nestlee's actions in Africa, are fundimentally to do with the activities of the company, and the impact that the company is happening.

What this boycott seems to look like to me is less the principled opposition to a company's action, but much more like a witchunt, trying to smoke someone out based upon their opinions.

Now while that's perfectly legal, it isn't exactly very enlightened. If you want to beat people's opinions, engage with them in debate. Attempting to starve them out, just because you disagree with them... not really cool (what's slightly more obviosuly wrong is the death threats etc sent to the copmany's exec - who has recently died of a heart attack).

And more than that, it's starting to set a worrying trend. It may begin something where people think it's okay to discriminate against people on the grounds of their opinions. We've already had several city mayors saying they want Chick-Fil-A out of their cities on the basis of the company leaders opinions. Well here's a newsflash, the zoning laws arn't up to you. You don't get to randomly choose that you don't like someone's opinion, and then ban them from conducting business.

If you want to boycott a company, boycott it for a good reason, because it's doing something wrong, because it's conducting it's policies unethically. Don't boycott a company because it's executive has an opinion and acts on it.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Because companies are not people, nor are companies "friends". There is no social responsibility to a company that you have frequented in the past.

No, companies are not people, but they are entities, and the same principle applies. You have not explained why you should treat a company differently because an individual who works there disagrees with you. If the disagreement is something that manifests in the companies actions, then that's different. But this isn't that kind of case.

 

It doesn't have to.  But if the company wants that customer to come back, then it must please the customer

But the customer isn't being reasonable by disagreeing with the company because of the actions of an individual.

[Hutch Hogan]

No, companies are not people, but they are entities, and the same principle applies.

There is a fundamental difference between a person and an entity.  And different principles apply to how you interact with people as opposed to entities. 

 You have not explained why you should treat a company differently because an individual who works there disagrees with you.

Because if it impinges on my experience.  Then I will go to somewhere where I will not have a negative experience. 

If I knew an individual who told me that he was going to use all of his pay to send donations to the North Korean government (an option that existed in the previous version of their website), I would not want to give funding to this individual and the easiest way for me to do that would be to stop going to the company that he works for. 

I could also rally my friends and tell them that this employee is going to give his pay to the North Korean government and they can decide whether or not they support. 

 

If the disagreement is something that manifests in the companies actions, then that's different. But this isn't that kind of case.

 I don't have to care about the company in this case if I know this individual will make good on his promise. 

And yes, I am justified at taking my business elsewhere, because while I do not know the spending habits of the other employees, there is one that has promised to doing something that I find absolutely grotesque.  So I can move to another company where there is no guarantee of funds being sent to the North Korean government. 

 

It's not that hard. 

[Nicholas R Johnson]

Okay Vertigo, I have some issues with what you're saying after reading the debate going on between you, Hutch, and some others. Before I go into those though, I would like to commend everyone involved from turning this into a flame war. You've all kept the discussion pretty civil. That's very rare on the internet and I'm quite glad to find an internet community that is able to do so. Bravo.

I'd like to start by talking about what a CEO is and what they basically do. CEO  chief executive officer: the corporate executive responsible for the operations of the firm; reports to a board of directors; may appoint other managers (including a president). This definition was found using Princeton's WordNet Search 3.1, http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=chief%20executive%20of.... The duties of a CEO are basically to set the strategy for their company and it's different departments. He (I'm using the male pronoun simply because the CEO in question is male) reports to the Board of Directors. Princeton helps out again with the following: board of directors; a group of persons chosen to govern the affairs of a corporation or other large institution. This boils down to the fact that it's not the CEO's money, it's the corporations money. He doesn't get to just choose what they do with it, as you've said at various times of your debate, the board of directors does. He may also be part of the Board of Directors but that is still the decision of a collective. I haven't bothered looking into Chik-Fil-A's potential CEO Duality because it frankly doesn't matter at this time.

You've also stated that "Then it's the action of a collection of people, acting with their money. It still cannot be seen as the corporation itself." According to Webtser's New World Dictionary a Corporation is defined as such: n. a legal entity, usually a group of people, that has a charter granting it certain legal powers generally given to individuals, as to buy and sell property or to enter into contracts. The people are the company. Everyone who works for the company is the company. Now does the high school student who works the fryer get a chance to vote on each motion brought before the board of directors? No, the logistics would be astronomically convoluted. That's why there is a board of directors to make those decisions. Do you know what the average employee can control though? They have the power to decide what company they work. No one is forcing the avg. employee to work there. Other companies are out there. By working for them and knowing what the higher ups are doing does put some blame on them as well. This also nullifies your argument that those of us who are boycotting innocent employees who may not agree with the board. They are supporting the boards decision simply by still working there. They can always find a new job. It's the individuals responsibility to find out these things and then decide if they choose to be employed there. That's one of the fundamental differences between an employee and a slave. Choice.

You say that it's unenlightened to boycott them because we are just avoiding them and not engaging them in discussion. I find that to be false. It's not like the CEO or the Board of Directors are making themselves available to debate this in an open forum with John Q. Public. They're just going about, business as usual. The only way as a consumer I can make my proverbial voice heard is by not buying their product. I don't want my hard earned money to go to organizations like the ones they've been donating too. The only way I can do so in a manner they will take seriously is by not giving them my money. 

"If you want to boycott a company, boycott it for a good reason, because it's doing something wrong, because it's conducting it's policies unethically. Don't boycott a company because it's executive has an opinion and acts on it."

 

I feel they are conducting themselves unethically. By voting to donate money to those groups the company made it policy to move against equality for the LGBT community and their rights as human beings. It's the companies policy to give money to lobby groups that I don't agree with. I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, or creed. 

[Livi]

You, sir, are my hero. This is such a well thought out, well researched argument. Kudos.

Also, I would like to add on just a little bit: "punishment" keeps being brought up. The whole "boycott it because it's doing something wrong" thing is not exactly the issue here. I'm not really trying to punish anyone, because I don't think that would actually change much. I just don't want a portion of my money going to causes I don't agree with, and I'm pretty sure it's that way for most everyone else boycotting. This has been said, but I don't think said directly in comparison to punishment, so I'm just putting it out there. Punishment should not really be part of this debate.

I'd also like to apologize, especially to Vertigo, if I got a little snarky earlier, particularly in my last post. Just, ugh. Gay marriage is something that's a really important issue, in my opinion. Probably the most important to me, in terms of national politics. But I shouldn't have let my frustration show, because what I want with this issue is progress, and that's no way to achieve it. This is actually a unique apology for me to be making, since I'm such an avoidant personality that I rarely ever argue at all. I guess if I hold it all in for so long it comes out a little nasty, and I'm sorry for that.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You've also stated that "Then it's the action of a collection of people, acting with their money. It still cannot be seen as the corporation itself." According to Webtser's New World Dictionary a Corporation is defined as such: n. a legal entity, usually a group of people, that has a charter granting it certain legal powers generally given to individuals, as to buy and sell property or to enter into contracts. The people are the company. Everyone who works for the company is the company.

 

If you are saying "everyone who works for the company is the company" then you have to end the boycott now. Why? Because it is inconsistent. Yes the CEO of the company is acting as the company, but so is everyone else who takes a paycheck. And if everyone who works for a company is the company, then if you are going to boycott Chick-Fil-A for being a company that donates money to a cause you disagree with, you will have to investigate every other company you do business with, to ensure there is no one else in it who donates their money to causes you disagree with. Like I said, if company policy was changed to somehow be homophobic (by which I mean the service itself that they provide) then you'd have a legitimate complaint. But this isn't company policy.

You say that it's unenlightened to boycott them because we are just avoiding them and not engaging them in discussion. I find that to be false. It's not like the CEO or the Board of Directors are making themselves available to debate this in an open forum with John Q. Public. They're just going about, business as usual. The only way as a consumer I can make my proverbial voice heard is by not buying their product. I don't want my hard earned money to go to organizations like the ones they've been donating too. The only way I can do so in a manner they will take seriously is by not giving them my money.

But you only seem to care if the CEO does the donating. The money the CEO is the company's money as much as John Q working on the till's wages is the company's money. The only distinction between the two situations is that there is one extra degree of separation.

I feel they are conducting themselves unethically. By voting to donate money to those groups the company made it policy to move against equality for the LGBT community and their rights as human beings. It's the companies policy to give money to lobby groups that I don't agree with. I think everyone should be treated equally regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, or creed.

You are making the assumption that LGBT groups are a special distinction of people, in the same way that black/white/asian/hispanic etc people are. This isn't the case. These people believe that homosexuality is a pattern of behaviour, not a personal attribute. You may disagree, but you cannot objectively accuse these people of doing something wrong. Fact is, it is just your opinion.

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

As many people have pointed out before, this whole civil rights issue of today with gay marriage is the exact same nonsense that went on in the sixties and seventies for blacks. Had this been back then, had those standards been carried along into this time. Had a company refused to hire/serve a black lad/lassie or supported those who would wish to suppress the blacks right, you're damn right they'd be boycotted. 

They're allowed to be dicks, we're just allowed to boycott them. Simple.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

As I have said before, this isn't like the civil rights movement of the 1960s, for the simple reason that there was, at that time, no disagreement about whether or not you were "born" black. Being black was a fundimental part of who you were, no question. With the homosexual issue, it is not so clear. The lines of disagreement are between those who see homosexuality as an innate and fundamental characteristics, where the behaviour is indivisible from the self, and those who see behaviour and self as distinct.

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

I've yet to see what that question has to do with removing/withholding civil rights for no other reason than religious bigotry. On happy news, gay marriage for Scotland, booya! 

[Hutch Hogan]

w00t

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

1. It is up for debate in the extreme whether marriage is a civil right.

2. If homosexuality is a pattern of behaviour, it is by nature to be treated differently. IE no one would seriously claim that a vegetarian can eat meat. Why? Because their pattern of behaviour dictates otherwise. In the same way, a gay couple cannot marry, simply because their pattern of behaviour does not match that of marriage. Now you may argue that the gay couple did not choose to be gay, but that's where the heart of the debate lies. Is homosexuality something we are, or something we do.

[Tòmachan ~blogs admin ~]

Do explain one simple question Verty.
Why does it matter?
Why does it matter whether or not a pair of gay lads or lesbian lassies get hitched? 
How does their choice affect you in the slightest?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Simple. In the long term it undermines the society by diluting the meaning of marriage to be only about romantic relationships, in much the same way that no-fault divorce did. In that respect, it is not in my interest.