“In house counsel has suggested that instead of the private owners of this company giving money to anti-gay causes and then paying ourselves that we instead pay ourselves and then give money to anti-gay causes. All approved, say aye.”
Personally, I don’t generally participate in business boycotts based no the political beliefs of the owner (not living in Chik-fil-A territory means this one is moot for me). I don’t have the energy to keep track.
But unless they do turn around and start supporting the other side I don’t really see that it matters much if a privately held company gives the money directly or it first gives the money to the owners who then give the money directly.
That’s ok, no protester thought they’d change anyones mind. Changing a business practice was the objective and challenging what is acceptable to promote in public.
A restaurant owner that never misses a Klan meeting would never dream of putting a ‘no coloreds allowed’ sign in the front of his establishment, no one gives a shit what he believes in private.
I started not going to Chick-Fil-A slightly before the boycott, because I would occasionally drive in toward one, craving a sandwich, only to remember that it was Sunday. I avoid getting my expectations burnt like that by not going to Chick-Fil-A.
Hah! It seems like the only times I ever had a craving for Chik-Fil-A was on Sundays. I very rarely visit them because I try to cut down on fast food. But it’s interesting to see a company changing a controversial position on something that apparently was rather dear to the owner, whether it’s for financial reasons or not.
They’ve had a location on the outskirts of San Francisco for several years, haven’t they? A friend of mine used to tell me about one of the UGA alumni chapters driving 30 minutes to get chicken for their meetings.
While I understand some people thinking this isn’t enough, I still think we need to reward these people with our business (assuming this is all true). If we don’t, and their profits don’t go up, I expect that they’ll just go back, as what’s the point? It’s not like they actually believe what they were supporting was wrong or anything.’
Then again, I don’t have a Chick-Fil-A near me, so maybe I just don’t know what I’m talking about.
The worst part of that article is when they described the 200 mile long bike rally as a “long run” which it is – if it were bicycles. I guess only liberals are fit enough to actually pedal 200 miles.
To hell with them. Since “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day,” every time I see a Chick-Fil-A I think of Sampiro’s post about how the bigots happily lining up “spent hours just to demonstrate their hatred.” Any business capable of inspiring something of that nature is never getting my money, no matter what kind of lip service they pay to not sponsoring hate with their profits.
Not sure why this is an issue. Chik-Fil-A can donate to whomever they want and you don’t have to eat there if you find their decision to donate to certain groups so repugnant. This whole thing is just silly.
Is there any real evidence that their earnings suffered? Around here they had a huge business spike for ‘Appreciation Day’ that seems to have a very long tail. Every single time I see a CfA, even now, it still looks quite busy (excepting Sundays, natch).
But there are a thousand good and important causes out there. Nobody can be a “beacon of light” for everything, so it’s not really fair, is it, to lambaste any particular outfit for failure to act positively on any particular score–provided that, of course, they’re not part of the problem.