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.

[Abreo]

I might reply to the rest of this in another post because I totally disagree with you but for now I'll just say Chick-Fil-A has been sued for discriminating against their employees before.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/brenda-honeycutt-chick-fil...

They don't say outright that they refuse to hire gay people but clearly they take issue with effeminate men. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-baim/chickfila-the-right-to-be_...

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

 

[Alix Laya]

In the whole equality debate, everyone would agree that each person is entitled to their own opinion.  However, I'm starting to find that a person is only entitled to an opinion concerning gay marriage if it is supporting.  If not, then you're a backwards, discriminating snob who doesn't deserve to have a business.

Chick-fil-A is NOT government-owned.  Therefore, the company is entitled to expressing opinions.  The company was founded on the same principles as Christian bookstores.  Yes, they sell chicken instead of Bibles, but what else makes them different?  (Other than the fact that one is a nation-wide company being publicly attacked.)  They're both in sales, and, you know, you don't have to be Christian to go into either one.  Hating a company because it expresses owners' values is STUPID and DISCRIMINATORY.  The Chick-fil-A company has as much of a right to believe in Christian principles and donate to organizations that express those principles as the Susan G. Komen Foundation had to donate to Planned Parenthood or you have to donate to organizations that support gay marriage.

Now, onto what you posted.

Your first article was about a woman who was fired (what she said she was told) so that she could be a stay-at-home mom and was replaced by a male employee.  The first thing that came to mind was that this law suit came right after Chick-Fil-A's fall from grace.  The second thing I noticed was that the author did not actually talk to the manager that fired her or the company's executives.  We have her word alone, and that is not enough for a decent argument.  The fact that she was replaced by a man is irrelevent; if the company was that sexist, why would they have hired a woman in the first place?  Perhaps the man that replaced her was a better applicant than the other people who applied.

The second article talks about how they discriminate against gay people when hiring.  The first example it gave was that the execs refused to talk to men with earrings.  Well, you know what?  Most managers frown upon piercings and tattoos.  When I went to orientation for my job, we were told that boys could have no piercings, and girls could only have piercings in the traditional lower ear lobe.  It's something about how piercings are considered unsightly, and that's not surprising to see at all in a company that strongly rooted in religion and morals.  (I worked at a public hospital, and it was frowned upon.)  They also talked about how gay people might not be hired depending on the circumstances.  I understand that, too.  I know one gay boy who most of my other gay friends (of which there are several) HATED because he was a gay boy who was called John Doe and not John Doe who happened to be gay.  He did some horrible things to people, and I wouldn't want to hire him- gay, straight, or asexual.  Also, every applicant to any job is judged on history and reputation.  If a person was once a thief or known to be untrustworthy in the community, would you really want to hire them?  I think that the answer to the question of whether or not they would hire gay people was meant to provoke a predjudiced response but actually had the same answer as hiring other people.

Your third post just goes back to what I originally said about how they have the right to be religiously rooted and have opinions.

 

This is Susan G. Komen all over again.  I will say this.  I don't have a problem with gay rights at all.  But Chick-fil-A is just a business expressing its opinion, just like Oreo did.  If I want a chicken sandwich and I happen to be by Chick-fil-A, I'm not letting political implications get in the way of lunch.  If you really disagree with Chick-fil-A having an opinion, you better start boycotting Oreo, too.

[Abreo]

In the whole equality debate, everyone would agree that each person is entitled to their own opinion.  However, I'm starting to find that a person is only entitled to an opinion concerning gay marriage if it is supporting.  If not, then you're a backwards, discriminating snob who doesn't deserve to have a business.

 

They're entitled to their opinion, and I support their right to have one. Hell if Chick-Fil-A thinks homosexuals deserve to be beaten to death and served in-between two buns at their store I wouldn't object to their right to have that opinion either. They can even keep running their business with such opinions, however I personally don't want to go there. 

Chick-fil-A is NOT government-owned.  Therefore, the company is entitled to expressing opinions.  The company was founded on the same principles as Christian bookstores.  Yes, they sell chicken instead of Bibles, but what else makes them different?  (Other than the fact that one is a nation-wide company being publicly attacked.)  They're both in sales, and, you know, you don't have to be Christian to go into either one.  Hating a company because it expresses owners' values is STUPID and DISCRIMINATORY.  The Chick-fil-A company has as much of a right to believe in Christian principles and donate to organizations that express those principles as the Susan G. Komen Foundation had to donate to Planned Parenthood or you have to donate to organizations that support gay marriage.

 

You're making a lot of assumptions about what you think I believe. 

Your first article was about a woman who was fired (what she said she was told) so that she could be a stay-at-home mom and was replaced by a male employee.  The first thing that came to mind was that this law suit came right after Chick-Fil-A's fall from grace.  The second thing I noticed was that the author did not actually talk to the manager that fired her or the company's executives.  We have her word alone, and that is not enough for a decent argument.  The fact that she was replaced by a man is irrelevent; if the company was that sexist, why would they have hired a woman in the first place?  Perhaps the man that replaced her was a better applicant than the other people who applied.

 

Well you missed the point entirely. I said Chick-Fil-A had been sued for discrimination because Vertigo said they hasn't gotten into trouble for that before. I was careful not to say that they were definitely guilty of it because I don't know how the cases have/will turn out exactly. Still, Chick-Fil-A has an undeniable history of lawsuits regarding discrimination. 

As far as the actual article in question goes you don't seem to have a grasp of it at all. She was allegedly performing her job very well and was fired to be a stay at home mom. There's an emphasis on a man replacing her but that doesn't seem to be the important part. No the article didn't speak to the managers, it didn't speak to her either, it was merely reporting a court case. When you're being sued it's usually a good idea to shut up just so you don't say something stupid to a news source.

The second article talks about how they discriminate against gay people when hiring...

I'll admit this was just fuel for the fire. The way the quote was worded rubbed me the wrong way at the time I read it, but it's pretty irrelevant since it could be totally innocent.

Your third post just goes back to what I originally said about how they have the right to be religiously rooted and have opinions.

They fired a Muslim for not wanting to participate in prayers. Clearly they don't have the right to do that, even if you think they should.

This is Susan G. Komen all over again.  I will say this.  I don't have a problem with gay rights at all.  But Chick-fil-A is just a business expressing its opinion, just like Oreo did.  If I want a chicken sandwich and I happen to be by Chick-fil-A, I'm not letting political implications get in the way of lunch.  If you really disagree with Chick-fil-A having an opinion, you better start boycotting Oreo, too.

 

That doesn't make any sense. I see Chick-Fil-A as being detrimental to a cause I support, whereas Oreo (and Kraft as a whole) is the opposite (well I doubt they really do anything to support gay-rights but there you go). 

[Abreo]

I'll just respond now.

People can boycott a company if that company may then proceed to use the money people spend on their products and donate them to causes the people would rather not even indirectly support. The company itself has free speech but so does the public and the public can utilize their free speech by boycotting the company. Chick-Fil-A can say whatever they want to, but they have to remember that they're not going to just be able to get on a soap-box and have no consequences. When Oeros did it with gay pride it was clearly a business move and one that appears to have worked out very well for them. If it doesn't work for Chick-Fil-A they can either continue to stick to their guns or back off but whatever they do it's a business decision. They can't act like it's anything else. 

And Chick-Fil-A will fire someone for behaving in a crass or sinful manner outside of work. They can't do that and expect that when they behave in a way their customers don't like that nothing will happen as a result of it. 

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.

 

I don't want my money to go into anyone's pocket who will then use it to fight gay marriage. Why can't I boycott a company for that?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The company itself has free speech but so does the public and the public can utilize their free speech by boycotting the company.

I havn't said otherwise. I'm simply saying that it isn't very enlightened. IE its "We won't do business with you because we don't like you". It's not "We won't do business with you because we disagree with what you are doing". It's a personal attack against the opinions of the owners, not the actions of the company.

Chick-Fil-A can say whatever they want to, but they have to remember that they're not going to just be able to get on a soap-box and have no consequences.

Those consequences should NOT include zoning laws. The state is not allowed to interfere because it disagrees with the opinions of the people at the top. They should be allowed to interfere because it is breaking the law.

I don't want my money to go into anyone's pocket who will then use it to fight gay marriage. Why can't I boycott a company for that?

Let me be clear, you have a right to do it, but it's not very enlightened. If you believe they are wrong, then you should also believe that money will not change the issue.

Refusing to eat at an establishment because of the opinions of the exec is basically one or two steps away from marking the doors of all the people you disagree with so you don't socialise with them, or buy from their place's of work. As Time Magazine and The Atlantic argued, businesses should be judged upon the strength of their products, not the politics of those who lead them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/in-defense-of-e...

[David Zebarah]

"Let me be clear, you have a right to do it, but it's not very enlightened."
What is so unenlightened about that?  If you disagree with how they are using their money, then you don't give them your money.  

"If you believe they are wrong, then you should also believe that money will not change the issue."
Why wouldn't money change the issue?  If they make less money, they'll have less money to give to groups that you disagree with.  And if they make significantly less money and it can be in any way traced to this, they'll stop entirely.  That's how the business world works.

And people aren't boycotting because of upper management's beliefs.  They're doing it because of their ACTIONS.  If the Chik-Fil-A CEO had gone out and publicly denounced gay marriage, that would be one thing.  Instead, he (or the board or whomever) is using the corporation's money to fight it.  The money that we, the customers, gave them.  So if some of the customers don't want their money to be used for that, then they don't eat there.  That's their right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  They earned their money by not pissing off the people that gave it to them.  It's the job of the directors of the company to do the same.

[Hutch Hogan]

Why wouldn't money change the issue?  If they make less money, they'll have less money to give to groups that you disagree with.  And if they make significantly less money and it can be in any way traced to this, they'll stop entirely.  That's how the business world works.

Even if the change in money is not substantial, there is philosophical justification.  If a person feels uncomfortable about a business for any means, it is the responsibility of the business to make amends or to clear the perception, if the business wants that customer. 

 

And people aren't boycotting because of upper management's beliefs.  They're doing it because of their ACTIONS.  If the Chik-Fil-A CEO had gone out and publicly denounced gay marriage, that would be one thing.  Instead, he (or the board or whomever) is using the corporation's money to fight it.  The money that we, the customers, gave them.  So if some of the customers don't want their money to be used for that, then they don't eat there.  That's their right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  They earned their money by not pissing off the people that gave it to them.  It's the job of the directors of the company to do the same.

Even if the CEO had done it personally, if it makes individuals uncomfortable with the business, consumers are within their rights to cease their ties with the business.  This is the enlightened position of true capitalism that Verty doesn't seem to grasp. That trade is voluntary and not compelled. 

If a CEO a restaurant came forward and said something racially bigoted in the public sphere, people would justifiably boycott the establishment that that individual represents.  The same is equally valid for discrimination against homosexuals.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

What is so unenlightened about that?  If you disagree with how they are using their money, then you don't give them your money. 

Because it isn't "them". It's the company's executive. It's their private decision, not a company policy. If you boycott a company on that basis, to be completely consistant, you would need to investigate every single company's entire employee payroll and find out if anyone on their staff gives money to charity's you don't agree with. If the company itself did something against the gay community, that's a different matter, but people boycotting this are prosecuting someone's opinion. That's not enlightened. It's not engaging with people.

And people aren't boycotting because of upper management's beliefs.  They're doing it because of their ACTIONS.

Yes, the upper management's actions. NOT the company's actions. The upper management is made up of free individuals, free to have whatever opinions they want, and take whatever actions they like. The point I'm making is that this is the actions of an individual, and yet the boycott is targeting the company.

Instead, he (or the board or whomever) is using the corporation's money to fight it.  The money that we, the customers, gave them.

You are limiting your targeting to upper management only. If you were to be consistant with this logic, you would target all companies that employ anyone who disagrees and gives money to causes you disagree with.

 

That's their right, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I havn't brought rights into this. I suggest you don't either. Whether or not people have rights to do this isn't in dispute. It's whether or not it is a good idea. The logic behind the boycott isn't sound. They are targetting the company for the actions of individuals. It's not fair. 

[David Zebarah]

"Because it isn't "them". It's the company's executive. It's their private decision, not a company policy."
No, it's not.  If the president were using his personal money, that might be different.  But he's using corporate money to fund his personal beliefs.  If anything, that's the unenlightened part.

"Yes, the upper management's actions. NOT the company's actions."
I already covered this.  It is, in fact, the company's actions since, as a company, they are funding these groups.

"You are limiting your targeting to upper management only. If you were to be consistant with this logic, you would target all companies that employ anyone who disagrees and gives money to causes you disagree with."
Again, this is covered.  People don't care what the president does with the money he earns.  They care about what the company, as a whole, publicly supports.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

No, it's not.  If the president were using his personal money, that might be different.  But he's using corporate money to fund his personal beliefs.  If anything, that's the unenlightened part.

The profits ARE his personal money. It's his business. He's not using the company payroll.

I already covered this.  It is, in fact, the company's actions since, as a company, they are funding these groups

Company profits, which are the private affairs of the CEO

Again, this is covered.  People don't care what the president does with the money he earns.  They care about what the company, as a whole, publicly supports

The company as a whole hasn't registered these opinions, it is the CEO and some of the other board members.

[David Zebarah]

If the business belongs to the CEO, then his views ARE the company's.  If I give the company $6 and $1 of that is pure profit, then I am giving $1 to the company.  I am therefore effectively handing the CEO $1.  Now he uses part of that dollar to support something that I disagree with.  So next time, I give my dollar to someone else.  

Your argument that I need to make sure that nobody in the company donates to something I disagree with doesn't really hold up.  Because whether or not I shop there, they get the same amount of money.  But if I don't shop there, the CEO gets however much less.  There is a direct correlation (and causation) between my spending my money there and the CEO having more money that doesn't exist with a normal employee.  And you can argue bonuses and things like that that employees get, but it's significantly less than that of the profit of the company.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If the business belongs to the CEO, then his views ARE the company's.

No, they are not. They are his. The company and the individual are separate.

If I give the company $6 and $1 of that is pure profit, then I am giving $1 to the company.  I am therefore effectively handing the CEO $1.  Now he uses part of that dollar to support something that I disagree with.  So next time, I give my dollar to someone else. 

 

Question. Why is it only the CEO you care about giving money to? What if the server at the shop you go to opposes gay marriage and donates some of his money to a campaign against it? Why is that any different? It's still the company's money, and you gave it to them. Your argument doesn't work, because it's inconsistent.

There is a direct correlation (and causation) between my spending my money there and the CEO having more money that doesn't exist with a normal employee.

 

That's not true. The less people shop at Chick-fil-a, ultimately, the less they are able to afford to pay their workers. The relationship may not be as direct, but the affect is the same. Money you give goes into the pockets of the workers, and the workers can have their opinions. Just because the direct ammount is more directly linked to the CEO, doesn't make any difference.