« Confessions of a Bible Thumper: A Review | Main | Joel Osteen: Hope, an Interview »

July 28, 2012

Comments

Michael

I was surprised when I saw this slogan as well, since it seemed to me that the much smarter response would have been to say, "It's about fried chicken." Nevermind what the crazy people who run it spend the proceeds on. We know there are crazy, and sometimes mean/bigoted people who spend profits of all kinds of companies for causes we don't like. But Chick-fil-a is about fried chicken, nevermind what the particular rich people in charge of it spend their money on.

Anyway, that's how I would have handled it, if I were Chick-fil-a's social media consultant, who then covertly started a meme to get my point across...

Streak

Good post. This response reminds me of Sarah Palin who on many occasions confused criticism of her with an attack on her first amendment rights. Yet no cop ever showed up to arrest her for her stupidity.

This entire boycott is a little troubling. I wonder how many of us actually frequent right wing businesses on a regular basis but have no idea? Complicity, as it turns out, is hard to avoid. And as one commenter online noted, not sure we want to devolve into a society where we have to ascertain the political credibilities of everyone we hire, or every business we use.

cheek

Streak,
I share your concern (or what I perceive to be your concern) that the nuances of deciding to boycott are being washed over in this case. However, it's not clear to me why the fact that it is difficult to avoid complicity outright serves as a reason not to do so in this case. One contributing factor to that difficulty is the anonymity of corporate actors. It's not always obvious or even discoverable what sort of political behavior corporations and their executives are up to behind the veil. However, in this case, that particular obstacle has been removed. It seems reasonable to treat that removal as a fortuitous vicissitude in the effort to be a consciously just sociopolitical actor while still accepting the fact that one cannot hope to achieve complete purity from injustice in a complex and pluralist society.

Also, one might agree with your last point about the type of society we want, but go ahead with a boycott in this case because the particular issue is of such importance, say because it bears directly on the core values of human rights and dignity. I think one could coherently do so without accepting a general principle of avoiding economic entanglement with anyone with whom one disagrees.

Streak

I agree. Fred Clark made a similar point that this was not just the case of a company having an opinion, but taking profits from that business and funneling it into organizations that work very hard to discriminate against gays. Not hard to leap from that to knowing that your chicken sandwich purchase is working to discriminate against gays.

gluten free foods

Be careful handling this as it will be hot. Wait until it cools off a little, but don't wait too long or it will be too cold.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)