Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While this is not a uniquely NJ topic, I thought it was very interesting given the recent debates in NJ over gay marriage and what is viewed as our states relatively progressive stance on the issue.
As you may or may not know, the owner of Chick-Fil-A has recently admitted that he and his company share a stance against gay marriage. The corporation heavily donates to anti-gay rights groups to the tune of millions of dollars per year via their charity WinShape. Including groups who specialize in "praying for the souls of gay people to see the light". The Cathy's (owners of the chain) also heavily donate to anti-gay charities and actively support the campaigns of anti-gay rights politicians.
Cathy ignited a firestorm recently by openly admitting that this is his personal and families stance and therefore is also their corporations stance. He said in a radio interview in Atlanta:
Quote:
"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage."
His comments have ignited a firestorm with mayors in Chicago and Boston now writing letters and openly considering action to ban the opening of Chick-Fil-A restaurants in their cities. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino wrote an open letter to Cathy that states:
Quote:
"I was angry to learn on the heels of your prejudiced statements about your search for a site to locate in Boston. There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail," the letter reads. "It would be an insult to (Boston's gay couples) and to our city's long history to have a Chick-fil-A across the street from that spot."
Other cities including Philadelphia have had politicians openly state that they will propose legislation to either block expansion in their cities or at the very least create a "sunshine law" requiring companies to inform the public of their social positions via the charities and organizations they support.
No one has suggested that the company and the Cathy's do not have a right to express these views and support whatever causes they deem appropriate as it is protected by the First Amendment. However, it raises the question as to whether or not the public has the right to know these kinds of positions of a private business. Further, is it acceptable for a local government to ban a business if they hold what that locality considers "bigoted views"?
No one who is familiar with Chick-Fil-A is necessarily surprised that they share these views. The company has always maintained a very thinly veiled position as a Christian rooted company. Having been a patron of several of their restaurants, I have seen a few instances where the veil was thinner then others. For example, the one on Nixon Drive in Mount Laurel has/had messages and music playing in their toddler play area that were of a decidedly Christian slant. They did not directly mention God or Jesus, but it was certainly implied. I personally felt a little uncomfortable with that as it was somewhat crossing the line in my mind from stating that you hold certain values to basically making them inherent in the business.
I have always found Chick-Fil-A restaurants to be very well run and have exceptional customer service in comparison to the fast food industry as a whole. My kids like their milk shakes and I like their chicken sandwiches. We probably patronize their locations at least once a month. I'm not sure this revelation would stop me from going there, but it is a little disturbing to think that a small portion of my business is going to support causes and beliefs that I do not share. If I spend my money at McDonald's, where does it go? They support the Olympics and children's hopsitals. If I spend my money at Chick-Fil-A I am now essentially subsidizing people who spend their days praying for gay people to be cured.
So, do you think that companies should be required to more openly reveal and state the companies social values and organizations they support?
Would you continue to patronize a business if their social values and organizations they support were in conflict with your own positions?
I honestly don't care. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. They make good chicken sandwhiches so I will continue to eat them, even though I don't agree at all with them on pretty much anything they have to say. Now if they were somehow trying to ban homosexuals from eating in their stores that would be something very different.
A closely-held company like Chik-Fil-A is free to support any causes that the owners wish to support.
Similarly, I am free to take my business elsewhere because of those same affiliations.
Just as I stopped patronizing Dominos Pizza many years ago, as a result of their affiliations, I stopped patronizing Chik-Fil-A a few years ago when I became aware of their affiliations.
Just as I think it is...unwise...and short-sighted for local businesses to post signs supporting a particular party or candidate, I think that it is a similarly unwise business practice for large corporations to get directly involved in issues such as the one in which Chik-Fil-A has made their positions known.
Last edited by Retriever; 07-27-2012 at 01:25 PM..
Not gay nor do I have anybody who is gay (That I know of) in my family but I will never ever spend another dime at Chick Filet. I am a health freak so they arent losing much from me but I will tell friends if they listen.
Not gay nor do I have anybody who is gay (That I know of) in my family but I will never ever spend another dime at Chick Filet. I am a health freak so they arent losing much from me but I will tell friends if they listen.
Hate should not be ignored.
"that I know of" being the operative phrase. If you have a big enough family, EVERYONE has a gay relative. I don't know anyone that doesn't have a "spinster" aunt, "life-long bachelor" uncle or "interior decorator" cousin.
"that I know of" being the operative phrase. If you have a big enough family, EVERYONE has a gay relative. I don't know anyone that doesn't have a "spinster" aunt, "life-long bachelor" uncle or "interior decorator" cousin.
Agreed 100%. Honestly though I really dont care. People are people. Good and bad in all.
[quote=Retriever;25365964]A closely-held company like Chik-Fil-A is free to support any causes that the owners wish to support.
Similarly, I am free to take my business elswhere because of those same affiliations.[quote]
These are my thoughts exactly. What I don't like is when government interferes in the matter by doing things like banning the restaurants in a city or requiring them to disclose their positions on these issues. But I see where they're coming from.
Until this controversy, I'd never heard Of Chick-Fil-A. As a matter of fact, I assumed it to be a southern chain until I read about the controversy on the Religion forum and looked it up. Lo and behold, there is one ten minutes away from me.
Eh, I don't like what they say but they have the right to say it.
I won't likely go there, but it's hardly a boycott when you didn't know it existed in the first place.
I don't often think of a business owner's personal views when I spend my money, though. Maybe I should.
I honestly don't care. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. They make good chicken sandwhiches so I will continue to eat them, even though I don't agree at all with them on pretty much anything they have to say. Now if they were somehow trying to ban homosexuals from eating in their stores that would be something very different.
Very true that everyone has a right to their opinion. I would never personally question (beyond the implications on their business) that they have a right to say and support whatever/whomever they wish.
I don't personally think this will make me not eat at Chick-Fil-A anymore then knowing that my bank or the company that made my car supports a political candidate and/or legislation I don't. However, I do think there is something to be said for some amount of greater transparency and accountability in these situations. In an era where spending money has become analogous with free speech, it would be nice to know what my money is essentially supporting so I can make an informed decision on where to spend it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retriever
A closely-held company like Chik-Fil-A is free to support any causes that the owners wish to support.
Similarly, I am free to take my business elsewhere because of those same affiliations.
Just as I stopped patronizing Dominos Pizza many years ago, as a result of their affiliations, I stopped patronizing Chik-Fil-A a few years ago when I became aware of their affiliations.
Just as I think it is...unwise...and short-sighted for local businesses to post signs supporting a particular party or candidate, I think that it is a similarly unwise business practice for large corporations to get directly involved in issues such as the one in which Chik-Fil-A has made their positions known.
I am very surprised Chick-Fil-A was this vocal about their support, especially in an age where the current is turning far more "for" then "against" the cause they have chosen to be vocal about. As EB said, I would not be surprised if there was some fallout from the franchisees over this, though something tells me their agreements are pretty tight on those kinds of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bababua
Not gay nor do I have anybody who is gay (That I know of) in my family but I will never ever spend another dime at Chick Filet. I am a health freak so they arent losing much from me but I will tell friends if they listen.
Hate should not be ignored.
Outside of the topic of Chick-Fil-A, the greater implication is transparency over what positions or groups a company supports. Do you research the actions and positions of every company you do business with? Would you not patronize any business if they didn't share your personal beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cab4656
These are my thoughts exactly. What I don't like is when government interferes in the matter by doing things like banning the restaurants in a city or requiring them to disclose their positions on these issues. But I see where they're coming from.
I don't think the bans are anything more then rhetoric. It would be hard to build a case simply based on the companies "social mission" to actually ban them. As manderly said, if they were working to actively ban homosexuals from their businesses, it would be a very different story.
The disclosure part though is something I am not sure is a bad thing. As I said above, the spending of money to support causes, positions and candidates is now basically considered analogous to exercising free speech. Do companies have a duty to reveal what they support and fund with their money so that people can make an informed decision whether or not they wish to essentially support that cause with their money via patronizing the business? Is spending money with a business essentially the same as tacitly supporting the causes and positions of the business? By buying a chicken sandwich, have I now unwittingly made a statement I did not wish to make?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
