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.

[Julia Chapman]

Did you even... I don't... what?

I really... No. You obviously didn't even read my source. Go look at it. Try again.

The charity branch of the company (Read: A part of this company, not just the CEO.) gives money to a group of people (read: Family Research Council) who have said things like, “They are intolerant. They are hateful. They are vile. They are spiteful...pawns of the enemy.” They also have said that there should be criminal charges for homosexual behavior. Now who sounds intolerant there? Imagine the same things said about Christians, dear. You wouldn't like it. At all.

Really, though. If you look at this for more than two seconds, it's really stupid. Basically what you're saying is a version of "tolerate my intolerance" which, just, no. Sorry.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I did read the source, and I read my source which contradicted it. Yes, there is someone within the FRC that believes in things like don't ask don't tell. That's not that surprising. But there is no support for a bill that would be in favour of killing homosexual individuals. There was lobbying on the bill, but it wasn't in favour of killing them. It was in favour of not recognising homosexuality as something specific from within the content of human rights.

[Julia Chapman]

Yes, and things like DADT are cruel and useless. I hate that I have to be the one who says "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?" but when the president/CEO of something does/believes a thing, that reflects on the entire company. The fact is that the FRC doesn't do good things for society and promotes hatred.

Also, unless you can tell me why they fire women to be stay at home moms, I'm still going to assume that they are sexist. I know you had a girlfriend, and I don't know/care at what stage your relationship is, (meaning that I hope you are happy because you're a human, but I don't care if you're married, engaged, dating, etc.) but if you were to have children and need the money of her job, and she was fired because she had children, you wouldn't be ok with that. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes, and things like DADT are cruel and useless. I hate that I have to be the one who says "CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?" but when the president/CEO of something does/believes a thing, that reflects on the entire company. The fact is that the FRC doesn't do good things for society and promotes hatred.

No, it doesn't promote hatred. It promotes a cause that you disagree with. That isn't the same thing. If you want to argue that it promotes hatred, find some evidence to suggest so. You disagree with them, fine. But hatred is something very very different.

Also, unless you can tell me why they fire women to be stay at home moms, I'm still going to assume that they are sexist.

That's an accusation by a fired employee. It's not been proven to be the case.

I know you had a girlfriend, and I don't know/care at what stage your relationship is, (meaning that I hope you are happy because you're a human, but I don't care if you're married, engaged, dating, etc.) but if you were to have children and need the money of her job, and she was fired because she had children, you wouldn't be ok with that.

Yes, I agree. If people are fired for having children as company policy, that's wrong. And that would be something acceptable to boycott them for, as it's company policy rather than the opinion of the CEO.

I take it then you will now refrain from calling them gay killers, seeing as how they have publicly stated the nature of their lobbying with regard to the bill in question.

[Julia Chapman]

I'm sorry about that, but they (the charity branch of the company) still donate money to a terrible, hateful organization. Homophobia is hateful. That's a fact. I feel like this conversation is done now. Bye!

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm sorry about that, but they (the charity branch of the company) still donate money to a terrible, hateful organization. Homophobia is hateful. That's a fact. I feel like this conversation is done now. Bye!

 

And if you had proof they were guilty of homophobia, you would have a point.

The problem is that you're guilty of something that many on the anti-chick-fil-a side are. Namely, trying to make your opinion the only acceptable one by branding the other as necessarily evil. That's not good debating. If you want to brand them as that, you need it to come naturally by highlighting what they do.

[Suzie Nyman]

I think that it's reasonable to expect that people won't want to give a restaurant their business if they know that some of the money they spend there will go to support groups that are trying to limit people's rights. I certainly wouldn't want to go to a fast-food joint if I knew that I was giving money to a guy who wanted to stop my friend from getting married. 

[Rem]

"If you want to beat some people's opinions, engage with them in debate."

I'm going to explain how this would go:

Me: I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong as God doesn't tell me that it is.

Them: I believe that homosexuality is wrong as God tells me that it is.

There you go. Not the longest of debates, to be honest.

Moreover...I don't get what you're trying to say. "Boycotting a company because it has opinions that you don't like is bad?" I'm sorry, I'm trying to see this from your opinion, but I can't. Yeah, it's bad, in a way, but that's like saying that just because a huge franchise puts small businesses in the capitalist graveyard, you should still go to Walmart. Thats a dangerous path to walk down.

And please don't get me wrong--if somebody were to boycott a company because of its opinions which I supported, I would probably say the same thing. Humans have a right to support and patronize whatever seller they want. Perhaps shopping at Walmart isn't necessarily nice or healthy towards the economy as a whole, but I acknowledge the customer's right to indulge in whatever ethical beliefs they have, even if I don't agree with them. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I'm going to explain how this would go:

Me: I do not believe that homosexuality is wrong as God doesn't tell me that it is.

Them: I believe that homosexuality is wrong as God tells me that it is.

There you go. Not the longest of debates, to be honest.

That's not a debate. That's a statement of positions.

 

Moreover...I don't get what you're trying to say. "Boycotting a company because it has opinions that you don't like is bad?" I'm sorry, I'm trying to see this from your opinion, but I can't. Yeah, it's bad, in a way, but that's like saying that just because a huge franchise puts small businesses in the capitalist graveyard, you should still go to Walmart. Thats a dangerous path to walk down.

 

Your talking there about business practices. I've been trying to explain those are different to the opinions of the CEO. Yes, I agree, if you see business practices you dislike, then yes, stop using that business. In that circumstance, it makes sense. The business needs money, its practices should be geared towards getting it money, you deprive them of money thereby proving that this action costs more than it makes. But this is the opinion of the CEO. Not a business practice

 

Humans have a right to support and patronize whatever seller they want.

I'm not suggesting they don't. I'm suggesting this isn't a secenrio where its wise to use that right.

[Rem]

"That's not a debate. That's a statement of positions."

Ah, so you understand.

@ Everything else:

Look. I owe nothing to any corporation. I do not have a debt to them, and as best I can tell I don't have any civic duty to buy chicken hamburgers from a fast food joint. I buy from who I want. Sometimes it's to purchase superior products, or to save the most money. Or maybe its because its a business that I want to support because it's run by my friend. Point is, I'm not obligated to Chik-Fil-A, and I can do whatever I want in regards to shopping there as a result.

Give me one reason to shop there, is what I'm saying. Give anyone one reason to shop there.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Look. I owe nothing to any corporation. I do not have a debt to them, and as best I can tell I don't have any civic duty to buy chicken hamburgers from a fast food joint. I buy from who I want.

 

I'm not saying that you do. I'm saying that the reasoning to not shop there used by the people supporting the boycott is faulty. If you refuse to shop there on the basis of the rationale in question, you are not being consistant.

Give me one reason to shop there, is what I'm saying. Give anyone one reason to shop there.

You are misunderstanding me. My argument is not "you should eat there" my argument is "the rationale behind the boycott is flawed"

The point is, if you object to Chick fil A on the grounds that you will be giving money to people whom you disagree with

A) You therefore now have an obligation to investigate every place you purchase from to see if they employ someone whom you disagree with

B) You probably will give more money to people you agree with, than you do not agree with.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

yes I think they have the right to have different opinions, but I definitely also have the right to discriminate based on peoples opinions.

 

The problem with this argument is that in order to be consistant, you must now investigate the opinions of everyone who works for every company you trade with, and make sure none of them give money to causes you disagree with.

If the company was conducting anti-gay policies, then that's different, but they're not.

what they have done is make it like a dollar to chick-fil-a is a dollar against gay people and I don't want to put my money against gay people if I can knowingly help it.

 

No, that's what the media have done. The company has withdrawn from the debate. The CEO is entitled to his opinions.