July 20, 2012 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm #506512
Maybe gays DO like Chick-Fil-A? (or at least drag queens do)July 20, 2012 8:26 pm at 8:26 pm #506513
Maybe gays DO like Chick-Fil-A? (or at least drag queens do)
cracking me up. send that to their prezJuly 20, 2012 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #506514
The Peoples Champion said:
If the people don’t like there policy, why not go somewhere else? They’re not forcing anybody to become straight. It’s not discriminatory, just because you say it is.
How would you describe the policy then? They have donated millions to anti-gay organizations that are listed on the Southern Poverty Law Center Website.July 20, 2012 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #506515
Maybe it attracts some customers? I can’t see it, but who knows.
They’re privately held, so my guess is that it’s just the views of the owners and senior management (who may well be one and the same). As long as all the owners are on board with it, there’s no one with standing to complain (at least in the legal sense … of course, everyone has a right to weigh in on the subject, which is why the Founders created the Internet).July 20, 2012 8:44 pm at 8:44 pm #506516
As a private company not beholden to any shareholders, the owner, executives, or whomever have every right to say what they want, even if it alienates a bunch of future customers.
If they lose 5% market share over the next two years, well, I guess that will be god’s will too, won’t it?
(I’ve also kinda wondered if their wives are giving thanks about still being married to the same husbands if it’s these yokels …)July 20, 2012 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #506517
I used to eat at Chick-Fil-A every once in a while because I had Entertainment Book coupons for them. I was never all that taken with their food. Their politics are meaningless to me. I’m also quite happy eating at Liz Lessner’s restaurants even though I know she’s a lefty pinko commie. (The food is much better than Chick-Fil-A, too, though it also generally isn’t $2 for a sandwich … or two sandwiches with an Entertainment Book coupon.)
Ironically, one of the people at my office who likes them is my managing partner. He’s liberal … and Jewish.July 20, 2012 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm #506518
They’re privately held, so my guess is that it’s just the views of the owners and senior management (who may well be one and the same). As long as all the owners are on board with it, there’s no one with standing to complain (at least in the legal sense … of course, everyone has a right to weigh in on the subject, which is why the Founders created the Internet).
Well, obviously that’s why Al Gore adjusted his tricorne and coded out the internet in punch cards made from tree bark back in the day. Lincoln would have helped, but he was too busy out killing vampires; only way he could get Mrs. Lincoln from blogging on the telegraph about Twilight fan fiction.
Seriously though, unless laws were provably broken there’s no legal recourse. If, however, people want to shop elsewhere and that forces this company to lose profits then there’s not much the owners can do.July 20, 2012 11:31 pm at 11:31 pm #506519
I feel like this is nothing more than executives on a power trip. Just like everyone else, they’re hiding behind something. Chick-Fil-A is using religion to push their irrelevant personal beliefs on society. They’re not alone. Scott’s employs a lot of people in the area, and they very plainly state they will refuse to hire anyone who smokes. Should they be allowed to hide behind the current health and wellness movement to push their beliefs onto others? I’m not a smoker, but I don’t think a company has any right to tell an employee how to live their life. As long as you’re not taking excessive breaks on company time and you’re not standing in front of the front door blowing smoke on others, why is it okay for them to police our activities?
You could argue that health care costs are greater for smokers, which has an impact on the bottom line and “they’re just doing it to keep shareholders happy”. Nonsense, it’s nothing more than a power trip. Following that same logic, the board at Chick-Fil-A should be able to oust these execs because they’re allowing their personal beliefs interfere with what’s best for the company/shareholders, but that’s not gonna happen.
Neither of these issues is enough to impact the bottom line, they’re just annoying enough to make people grumble. I don’t agree with either company’s stance, but I also don’t understand why as a society we’ve become selective about where we draw the line. Discrimination shouldn’t be okay at any company, for any reason. Whether or not those discriminatory beliefs are trendy at the moment shouldn’t impact which companies we target and which we choose to ignore.July 20, 2012 11:40 pm at 11:40 pm #506520
You know what I meant. Why does someone care if the company’s views agree with their views?
There’s a difference between not wanting to eat a restaurant who supports an opposing political party and not wanting to eat at one who supports using religious or political power to refuse a certain group of people equal rights. I would probably eat less at a restaurant owned by the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, and a lot of people see this on the same level.
ETA: On a side note, this business decision is moronic.
http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/lgbt-buying-power-equals-790-billion.htmlJuly 21, 2012 12:10 am at 12:10 am #506521
Discrimination shouldn’t be okay at any company, for any reason. Whether or not those discriminatory beliefs are trendy at the moment shouldn’t impact which companies we target and which we choose to ignore.
excellent point.July 21, 2012 3:32 am at 3:32 am #506522
Boston Mayor Vows To Block Chick-Fil-A From Opening Restaurant After Anti-Gay RemarksJuly 21, 2012 9:20 am at 9:20 am #506523
This seems like textbook media manipulation to push an ideology, and company name.
It’s hard to take their message of family and religion seriously given the crap they serve.
Anyhow, an interesting, analogous look at media manipulation that reminded me of this thread:
Above and below are five American Apparel ad campaigns that ran for less than $1,500 each. Designed to get attention and create controversy, they were covered in AdWeek, The Hollywood Reporter, Daily Mail, NBC, Gawker, and dozens of other outlets and blogs.
Despite this minuscule budget, they did millions of earned media impressions all over the world. People are still talking about them today. Click on each for more context (or, in one case, an uncensored Sasha Grey).
The real question this raises is: how do you craft an message, ad, or story that people talk about years from now?
We’ll aim to answer that in this post…
The best way to boycott Chick Fil A is probably not to talk about them.July 21, 2012 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm #506524
The Peoples Champion said:
Ah… The infamous “back stage” exit…
Would be glad to openly compare the merits of my agnosticism w/ those of your own beliefs.July 21, 2012 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #506525
Yes, this is a parody of how silly Chik-fil-A is:
July 21, 2012 5:32 pm at 5:32 pm #506526
The forum ‘Dining’ is closed to new topics and replies.