HuffPo reports that Chick-fil-A is facing a much greater push back for their intolerance and opposition to marriage equality than perhaps they had anticipated.
If a business opts to engage in political speech / political positions, while I think that is unwise and outside the realm of their purpose, they are free to do so. As consumers, you and I are free to give that decision, that position a thumbs up or a thumbs down, by choosing to do business with them - or not.
Our business decisions, who and how and where we engage as consumers is also our free choice.
I strongly DISAGREE that corporations, or smaller businesses, are 'people' however.
But no entity, no municipality, should be allowed to in turn engage in discrimination against a business owners or operators from having their opinions and beliefs - even wrong ones, as the Chick-fil-A position is, SO LONG as they do not discriminate in practice. If Chick-fil-A is refusing to allow gay people into their place of business, that is discrimination. But if they simply hold a private belief which they express -- let them, encourage them, more power to them for being part of a discussion.
We NEED multiple sides, not just one side, to have a discussion on issues.
Let's change the variable in play here. What if the owner/CEO of Chick-fil-A made anti-Semitic statements that argued Jewish people should not have some form of equality, or that blacks or Asians should not have full equality? Would a city have the right to bar those businesses from opening and operating within their borders? Would that position so intensely expressed by a business be detrimental to a community? Chick-fil-A is not simply pro-traditional religious marriage, they have been a large donor to anti-gay organizations where there IS a larger issue of discrimination activity involved.
The issue is raised in the excellent video below that mayors and alderman have freedom of speech as well, both on behalf of their unit of government and for themselves. I have no problem with that speech either -- but it needs to stop short of preventing full and equal legal activity, including opening a business. A municipality has an obligation to ensure that ALL of their citizens have freedom from discrimination, which includes being targeted for unfair treatment. I would add into that category not permitting the baker to operate who recentl refused a gay couple their wedding cake for example -- THAT is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, something we are all born with rather than tend to acquire - like race, or gender. That couple was marrying in Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal, so how is this different from interfering with THEIR religious and civil lives through discrimination? How is this different from discrimination against someone for being Catholic or Jewish, black or Hispanic, or disabled? Would we tolerate a protestant baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a Roman Catholic because the baker's sect believed the pope was the anti-christ, and therefore Roman Catholic weddings were an evil sacrament? Of course not.
So far as I can determine, Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against serving anyone or hiring anyone. So long as that is true, let them rise or fall with the public. The following article makes it clear that Chick-fil-A is losing more than they are gaining, that their position is in fact harming their own business more than government is. That is how it should be, success or failure on THEIR own merits, including their political position choices -- not having government discriminate in these ways.
HOWEVER, if for example, a municipality requires a certain category of business to open or not be open on certain days -- liquor stores in some states on Sunday, or that restaurants need to be open 7 days a week (Chick-fil-A closes so employees can go to church) because of issues of land use, revenue, necessary service to consumers, then I think Chick-fil-A might need to rethink their business plans.
People have religions. Businesses do not, nor should we go too far in indulging that whole 'business are people too' concept. They don't live or die as physical beings, and they don't vote. They serve their communities, in a reciprocal relationship where those communities in turn provide them services and customers. It is a mistake to give any one side of that three sided relationship too great a disproportionate power; if there has to be an err on one side of that balancing act, it should be in favor of the residents of the area, not government OR businesses. Because they are the actual human beings involved.
from the Huff Po text:
If a business opts to engage in political speech / political positions, while I think that is unwise and outside the realm of their purpose, they are free to do so. As consumers, you and I are free to give that decision, that position a thumbs up or a thumbs down, by choosing to do business with them - or not.
Our business decisions, who and how and where we engage as consumers is also our free choice.
I strongly DISAGREE that corporations, or smaller businesses, are 'people' however.
We NEED multiple sides, not just one side, to have a discussion on issues.
Let's change the variable in play here. What if the owner/CEO of Chick-fil-A made anti-Semitic statements that argued Jewish people should not have some form of equality, or that blacks or Asians should not have full equality? Would a city have the right to bar those businesses from opening and operating within their borders? Would that position so intensely expressed by a business be detrimental to a community? Chick-fil-A is not simply pro-traditional religious marriage, they have been a large donor to anti-gay organizations where there IS a larger issue of discrimination activity involved.
The issue is raised in the excellent video below that mayors and alderman have freedom of speech as well, both on behalf of their unit of government and for themselves. I have no problem with that speech either -- but it needs to stop short of preventing full and equal legal activity, including opening a business. A municipality has an obligation to ensure that ALL of their citizens have freedom from discrimination, which includes being targeted for unfair treatment. I would add into that category not permitting the baker to operate who recentl refused a gay couple their wedding cake for example -- THAT is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, something we are all born with rather than tend to acquire - like race, or gender. That couple was marrying in Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal, so how is this different from interfering with THEIR religious and civil lives through discrimination? How is this different from discrimination against someone for being Catholic or Jewish, black or Hispanic, or disabled? Would we tolerate a protestant baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a Roman Catholic because the baker's sect believed the pope was the anti-christ, and therefore Roman Catholic weddings were an evil sacrament? Of course not.
So far as I can determine, Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against serving anyone or hiring anyone. So long as that is true, let them rise or fall with the public. The following article makes it clear that Chick-fil-A is losing more than they are gaining, that their position is in fact harming their own business more than government is. That is how it should be, success or failure on THEIR own merits, including their political position choices -- not having government discriminate in these ways.
HOWEVER, if for example, a municipality requires a certain category of business to open or not be open on certain days -- liquor stores in some states on Sunday, or that restaurants need to be open 7 days a week (Chick-fil-A closes so employees can go to church) because of issues of land use, revenue, necessary service to consumers, then I think Chick-fil-A might need to rethink their business plans.
People have religions. Businesses do not, nor should we go too far in indulging that whole 'business are people too' concept. They don't live or die as physical beings, and they don't vote. They serve their communities, in a reciprocal relationship where those communities in turn provide them services and customers. It is a mistake to give any one side of that three sided relationship too great a disproportionate power; if there has to be an err on one side of that balancing act, it should be in favor of the residents of the area, not government OR businesses. Because they are the actual human beings involved.
from the Huff Po text:
Chick-fil-A's anti-gay marriage stance has gotten some high-profile support by way of Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and other conservative lawmakers. But among their longtime customers, it's a much different story.
Polling organization YouGov found that the Atlanta-based chain's brand approval ratings have plummeted in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's controversial remarks earlier this month. YouGov also reports that the company's overall consumer brand health among fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since mid-August 2010 in the wake of the media firestorm.
Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.
View the YouGov chart below, then scroll down to keep reading:
Among the other brands ranked in the Top National QSR sector are Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, Burger King and McDonald's, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) noted.
Among those not surprised by the plunge was Aaron McQuade, Director of News and Field Media at GLAAD, who called the results "reflective of an America that values and respects its LGBT neighbors and rejects rhetoric like Dan Cathy's that seeks to demean and dehumanize the LGBT community."
"The business world has seen what happens when an organization supports the LGBT community -- which is that the LGBT community and its allies will support it," McQuade noted in a statement. "Now we have empirical proof of what happens when a company rejects the LGBT community. The LGBT community and its allies will reject it."
Although Chick-fil-A's financial contributions to anti-gay organizations like Exodus International and the Family Research Council have been well documented over the years, Cathy's somewhat glib confirmation of the reports ("Well, guilty as charged") in a July 16 Baptist Press interview has since sent both the media and a number of LGBT advocacy groups into overdrive.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in that interview. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Since then, at least seven petitions have been launched on Change.org, a social activism site, demanding that universities across the country remove existing Chick-fil-A restaurants or prevent new ones from opening.
Mayors in Boston and San Francisco have also weighed in, telling the restaurant chain that they're not welcome in their cities, and the Jim Henson company, which had provided toys for Chick-fil-A kids' meals, announced that it would end its relationship with the company.
Polling organization YouGov found that the Atlanta-based chain's brand approval ratings have plummeted in the wake of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy's controversial remarks earlier this month. YouGov also reports that the company's overall consumer brand health among fast food eaters has dropped to its lowest levels since mid-August 2010 in the wake of the media firestorm.
Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.
View the YouGov chart below, then scroll down to keep reading:
Among the other brands ranked in the Top National QSR sector are Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC, Burger King and McDonald's, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) noted.
Among those not surprised by the plunge was Aaron McQuade, Director of News and Field Media at GLAAD, who called the results "reflective of an America that values and respects its LGBT neighbors and rejects rhetoric like Dan Cathy's that seeks to demean and dehumanize the LGBT community."
"The business world has seen what happens when an organization supports the LGBT community -- which is that the LGBT community and its allies will support it," McQuade noted in a statement. "Now we have empirical proof of what happens when a company rejects the LGBT community. The LGBT community and its allies will reject it."
Although Chick-fil-A's financial contributions to anti-gay organizations like Exodus International and the Family Research Council have been well documented over the years, Cathy's somewhat glib confirmation of the reports ("Well, guilty as charged") in a July 16 Baptist Press interview has since sent both the media and a number of LGBT advocacy groups into overdrive.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in that interview. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Since then, at least seven petitions have been launched on Change.org, a social activism site, demanding that universities across the country remove existing Chick-fil-A restaurants or prevent new ones from opening.
Mayors in Boston and San Francisco have also weighed in, telling the restaurant chain that they're not welcome in their cities, and the Jim Henson company, which had provided toys for Chick-fil-A kids' meals, announced that it would end its relationship with the company.
Chick-Fil-A's KKKristianist supporters are already screaming about "Anti-Christian intolerance" from those who have decried, mocked, ridiculed and otherwise hurt poor Chicken Littledick's fee-fees.
ReplyDeleteI won't have to boycott C-F-A, I've never eaten there. I will of course have to keep an eye out for them looking to open new stores in my area.
If they are discriminated against for being the hate-filled intolerant Christians, then they have a very limited point.
ReplyDeleteBut if they dislike intolerance, they should try practicing less of it. It isn't intolerance to point out they are wrong, and that they are basing their corproate policy on bad information and belief not fact.
There are some excellent parts of the Bible, but unless you support polygamy, concubinage, slavery - including selling your daughters into sexual slavery at age 3 years of age +1 day, and force your wives (plural) into staying under another roof while menstruating, and a big one - eradicate BACON and other pork from your diet, then you have to reject that the Bible is the INERRANT word of God, superior to modern, more legitimate law, including in matters of human sexuality, which we now understand much better than the Bible through modern science.
You can get yourself a set of pompoms instead democommie, to cheer on the successful boycott and backlash.
It's going to take a lot more than even big-eating Mike Huckabee and pseudo-saintly Saintorum eating at Chick-Fail-A today can swallow to restore the biz at their stores.
Dog- I have no problem with Cathy's statement. Unless of course, I purchased a franchise. What a retard. I feel, that in business, your personal feelings should be kept to yourself. However, I do not agree with the politicians getting involved at all. Building, and opening a Chic-Fil-A does create jobs for people. Plus, it's not the Politicians place to deny a restaurant from opening. Leave the protesting to the citizens. I do think the politicians know this though. They placated to their constituents, then did an about face. At least our Mayor did.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a problem with the Cathy's supporting traditional marriage; they're wrong, but they have the right to be wrong. We are a secular society, we do not make our legal definitions on theology.
ReplyDeleteHere however is where I see some merit to the rejection by a city, jobs or not, of a business.
Chik-fail-UR donates a lot of money - a LOT of money - to organizations that promote false and highly derogatory statements about gay people, including pseudo-science.
A comparable position would be to reject a business that funded a racist organization that promoted pseudo-scientific claims that black people were fundamentally and irreversibly inferior just by being black people. I think most city councils and mayors would agree that businesses which espoused such views would be inherently discriminatory against a minority demographic of their city, and as such would be a bad choice. IF a business like Chik-failure is interested in opening a business, then it is likely that there are other chains that are - or could be interested in considering - a competing business in that same area. The business environment - market of people who would likely buy - is going to be appropriate to more than just one business entity, maybe more than even one KIND of business possibility.
If the chik-failure folks aren't interested in being equal opportunity business citizens, then maybe they should be rejected - but for the anti-gay crap the fund, not for holding a biblical view of marriage.
Or would you want an openly racist restaurant on a corner near you?
But your comparable position really isn't the same. This Cathy guy is against same sex marriage. He's not anti-homosexual, or at least he hasn't admitted to it on a radio show.
DeleteIf a business opens on my corner that is against hetero marriage, that's a lot different than a business on my corner that is against Scott-Irish. But still, it wouldn't be any politicians business to quash building permits. It would be my business, and my right to protest, and possibly drive their endeavor out of business.
One other thing I would like to make clear. To my knowledge, Chic-Phil-Anselmo (That's kind of fun) is not anti gay, just anti-gay marriage. Now I realize it may be one in the same, but it may be different. My nephew is an openly gay kid, who has worked at the chic-fil-a here for 9 months. My point is, they hire gay people, and what if he is married. They don't turn away business, or establish hiring practices based on sexual orientation. The owner just has his beliefs. At this time I will remind you, that they are the same beliefs shared by our President. Up until 3 months ago at least.
I still say, let the citizens decide.