In the Chick-fil-A controversy I find myself without a team.
Like the left, I believe strongly that discrimination against the LGBT community is unjust and politically indefensible. But unlike the left I find that boycotting a corporation like Chick-fil-A is both unrealistic and contributes to a growing polarization in American civil discourse.
I want to think about the actual action of boycotting Chick-fil-A. What does it accomplish? Who does it injure? Consider the economics of a #1 at Chick-fil-A. When I buy my #1, 50 percent goes to the local Chick-fil-A to pay for overhead, labor costs and the operator's earnings. The other 50 percent goes to Chick-fil-A's corporate office in order to pay for corporate employees, marketing, research and all of the other things that a business major could tell you a lot more about than I could. Of that 50 percent that goes to corporate, part of it goes into a fund for charitable donations, and part of that money goes to organizations who seek to prevent LGBT rights.
So, who does the boycott hurt? As I see it, it first and foremost hurts the local employees. Out of $6, pennies go to anti-LGBT organizations while $3 goes to the few dozen employees.
Good actions frequently involve something bad within them. Rarely (if ever) is an action wholly good without any unintended negative consequences. This boycott is no different. In refusing to eat at Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy is affected slightly, organizations like Family Research Council are affected slightly, but local workers like Aaron or Wes or Nancy are affected directly and profoundly. And in my experience, Aaron, Wes and Nancy are often (obviously, not always) people who both employ and firmly support the expansion of rights for LGBT people. For me, the "collateral damage" of the boycott is an important, yet overlooked, ethical aspect of this controversy.
But the realism of this argument exposes the fundamental issue at stake -- boycotts are essentially ideological. People on left and right are attempting to make a statement much more than they are genuinely trying to affect public policy concerning LGBT civil rights. Those on the left could spend their time and energy enacting social policy change through political organization. If they disagree with the sentiments of Dan Cathy or the agenda of those organizations Chick-fil-A supports, they could attempt to directly engage Cathy or the organizations in dialogue on the matter.
Instead, people on both side have bought into an ideological divide that makes little realistic or practical sense. Each side has picked teams and given those who share their jersey an uncritical free pass. Further, little thought is given to the real implications of a boycott and the people who it actually hurts. I imagine that for many others like myself the ideological impasse and vitriolic rhetoric is disheartening. We should be better than this.
So, my question: is further polarizing the (un)civil discourse of the left and right and hurting the employees of local Chick-fil-A businesses worth making an ideological point?
Follow Ben Griffith on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bengriffith
Melissa Browning: The Nugget Boycott: Week Two
Warren J. Blumenfeld: Chick-fil-A CEO Makes No Bones About 'Biblical Marriage'
Broderick Greer: 10,000 Buns: Reclaiming My Place at Chick-fil-A's Table
Steve Knight: Billy Graham Is Not an Anti-Gay Bigot
Fast food shouldn't be "polarising". No one wants red and blue color-coded takeaway. But especially in the wake of "Citizens United" people have been talking about getting corporate money out of politics. Well here is a grass roots movement telling one company to keep its money to itself. What's to criticise in that?
Yesterday, many people lined up behind some hate exploiting and degenerate politicians for their bigotry communion. Some of them had their gay, lesbian or questioning children with them and feed them a new dose of condemnation with their chicken sandwich.
Is it any wonder that so many GLBTQQ children commit suicide? Can this be in any way what good Christians want?
There is still so much homophobic hatred out there and some wallow in it because it makes them feel better about themselves in some strange way. Other people knew deep shame or they will in the future. They will be those who repent on T.V. later just as some of the old segregationist are doing now.
The reasonable among us can agree to disagree without supporting hatred and bigotry. All the religious posturing cannot hide the true intent of what is being promoted by this company and their supporters. It is our job, all of us, to call it out and say no to it in our society. It is not a matter for the law. It is a matter for people of conscience and heart to thrash out, take responsibility for and mature into.
Yesterday's parade, led by a few degenerate politicians attempting to use the energy of hatred, was a shameful outpouring of ignorance and pettiness. There is a great deal of homophobic hatred out there. Some choose to wallow in it because, in some strange way it makes them feel better about themselves.
Others, I feel sure, knew that they were in the wrong when the feel into line for their bigotry communion. I suspect that many feel or will feel deep shame just as other segregationist from the past who now often repent on T.V.
I do think that reasonable people, no matter what they believe, need to ask themselves if they want to be part of promoting and condoning this hatred.
There are gay and questioning children trapped in those hateful communities and families Now they must ingest hatred even with their chicken sandwiches. Is in any wonder that they all too often kill themselves.It comes close to the question of the burning children (would you do or say this thing in front of the children who were thrown alive into the death camp ovens?).
Is that what good Christians want?
If you want to invite everybody over for an encounter session, that's real nice, but how likely is that to engage people who don't want to think about the issue in the first place?
So for the record, I went to Chick-fil-A and waited in long lines just because this boycott pissed me off so much. Not because I am a big supporter of whoever at Chick-fil-A is being boycotted. And I wouldn't be surprised if that is why most of the other people showed up also.
One of the points of the freedom you have is that you can boycott such a place and encourage your friends to join you. But I sign off wishing you the opportunity, as soon as can be, to shoot yourself in the foot.
Personally, I'm glad to know where everybody stands.
This isn't about the fast food restaurant -- it's about people choosing sides in the fight they picked. Seriously -- they've been supporting anti-gay causes for years, but people didn't do more than grumble until Dan Cathy took it to the next level.
And don't tell me he's just a corporate officer -- CFA is not a publicly traded corporation, they're a closely held family corporation. That heightens the 1st Amendment protections attached to his views, but it also makes it crystal clear that he's responsible for them. He has a right to hold them that I would defend to my last breath, but others have a right to disagree.
For the record, God gave us all domionon over all things on the Earth, and the food to eat; from the Birds in the air, to creatures on land, and in the sea.
It is food for all of us. So killing chickens is not such a bad thing since God provided them for us. We are not cow's chewing on a cud, we have canine teeth, for ripping and chewing and nashing of meat. People...ugh..