Is the media guilty of distorting Dan Cathy's remarks?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I agree that is your right. However, I was watching one of the news channels last night and a conservative commentator mentioned that he still buys Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream because he loves the product, even though he knows that they contribute to many liberal causes he disagrees with.

The idea is that business owners shouldn't be required, in a free society, to keep their yaps shut to keep from offending their customers. Businesses should be judged on the quality of their product, not what the CEO thinks about abortion, gay marriage, or the ACA.

pardon me but that's nonsense. The customer is perfectly capable of deciding what's relevant to them and what's not. You don't get to declare a standard that everyone should follow.

and again, try to remember , it's clearly NOT just about what the CEO thinks as an individual but what the company does with corporate money. If a company was donating millions to promote communism in America would it not matte to you at all?

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I agree that is your right. However, I was watching one of the news channels last night and a conservative commentator mentioned that he still buys Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream because he loves the product, even though he knows that they contribute to many liberal causes he disagrees with.

The idea is that business owners shouldn't be required, in a free society, to keep their yaps shut to keep from offending their customers. Businesses should be judged on the quality of their product, not what the CEO thinks about abortion, gay marriage, or the ACA.

In a free society they are decidedly NOT required to keep their mouths shut. They can say whatever they like and accept the consequences of thier speech and actions.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I agree that is your right. However, I was watching one of the news channels last night and a conservative commentator mentioned that he still buys Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream because he loves the product, even though he knows that they contribute to many liberal causes he disagrees with.

For him, having the product is more important than not aiding the liberal causes. That's his right, and nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't stop patronizing a business that donated money to the Republican presidential campaign, myself.

For me, it's more important that the anti-SSM movement be hindered and slowed than it is for me to have a certain brand of chicken sandwich. That's my right and there's also nothing wrong with that.

If money is going to be analogous to speech, then Cathy can use corporate money to fund causes he believes in, and I can withhold money to avoid supporting causes I don't believe in.

If you really think that people should just vote with their wallets purely based on the quality of the product offered and not on actions the company takes, then we need to institute heavy regulations. Companies can no longer donate money to social and political campaigns, they must follow health and safety regs (no overseas sweatshops), and a host of other things nobody will likely be able to agree on.

Regardless of the details, every corporation will have to operate the exact same way so that consumer decisions will be limited to the products on offer and not the choices corporations make. That should be perfectly acceptable and workable to everyone, shouldn't it?

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by jtgain

I agree that is your right. However, I was watching one of the news channels last night and a conservative commentator mentioned that he still buys Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream because he loves the product, even though he knows that they contribute to many liberal causes he disagrees with.

The idea is that business owners shouldn't be required, in a free society, to keep their yaps shut to keep from offending their customers. Businesses should be judged on the quality of their product, not what the CEO thinks about abortion, gay marriage, or the ACA.

And that's perfectly fine too No one said he should shut-up, at least I didn't. (Although I'm perfectly within my right not to purchase his products as well) HOWEVER, if, as was pointed out, he's using his money to donate to organizations whose agenda is bigotry and hate, THAT'S when it becomes more than just their product.

And it sounds like Cathy is donating to organizations whose goals are to oppress the civil rights of homosexuals, among others. THAT is when it crosses the line. That's not just speech -- that's actively practicing discrimination. If they were donating funds to the KKK, for example, that would go beyond speech, I would think. Yes, that would be their right, still. BUT, I would then say, they should definitely be judge based on the actions of their CEO.

[Polycarp]

There is an additional, relevant point here. In the wake of Citizens United, the expanded corporate personhood doctrine cuts both ways. It is not just that Dan Cathy has the First (and 14th) Amendment right to hold and express bigoted views, free from government limitations, but so does Chik-Fil-A as a company.

But, and IMO this will come back to bite them, that also means that just as I and my neighbors can object to Dan Cathy buying the house next door and spouting his bigoted views to our kids, so too can we object to his corporate alter ego buying (or leasing) property to sell their Chik-Fil-H8.