Let me begin by saying that I am a proponent of marriage equality. I firmly believe that any union built on mutual love and respect should not be a matter of legislation. I proudly stand beside my LGBT family and friends. For the purpose of this article, however, I am putting my allegiances on the shelf and asking that those on both sides of the fence to pause for a second and look at how blind activism is making the rich richer.
In response to the backlash against Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy publicly announcing his stance against marriage equality Mike Huckabee's drive for a Chick-fil-A day on August 1 drew massive crowds to the restaurant chain's more than 1,600 locations buying chicken sandwiches in support of Cathy's stance. Representatives for Chick-fil-A have stated record sales for the day. The waves of support also brings out some of the LGBT community with impromptu love-ins.
Fast forward to August 7 and Starbucks appreciation day (smartly renamed National Marriage Equality Day). All marriage equality supporters are encouraged to go to Starbucks and show their support by purchasing beverages from the chain.
According to the Chick-fil-A website, the company posted $4.1 billion in sales in 2011. Making it one of the most lucrative privately owned companies in the country. Starbucks, on the other hand, posted sales of more than $11 billion in 2011. So who exactly needs our support?
Arguments are funny. The longer you have them the farther they get from the original subject. I have had arguments with my wife about the litter box that have ended with me screaiming about the designated hitter rule in baseball. At some point, if you have a debate long enough, it becomes about winning the argument itself instead of creating change. The marriage equality debate is quickly spinning away from a national discourse on the concepts of love and into a political game of chicken for liberals and conservatives and now billion-dollar companies are lining their pockets with your angst.
None of the money given to Starbucks today will go toward the teen LGBT homeless whose numbers are growing at an alarming rate. Nothing will be given to HIV research, or safe-sex education. If appreciation is giving potentially millions of dollars away, put it where it will do some good instead of dropping huge sums of money into a painfully empty sentiment.
Any political debate in America is a fight to win the middle. Convincing the undecided to your way of thinking. At this point the conversation looks like a scene from Family Guy than anything resembling anything logical.
Justice and equality have never needed corporate backing to be deemed relevant. Sadly, both sides of the argument are selling their souls to the highest bidder. More sadly, both sides are dumping money and effort into a sideshow where neither side ultimately will benefit.
Some will say that this is the continuation of the civil rights boycotts of the past where the disenfranchised proved there economic power by refusing to use an oppressor's product or service. They divested in order to prove they were worth investing in. They banded together and created infrastructures The moves made in conjunction with Chick-fil-A and Starbucks do the opposite by lining the pockets of those who claim to be supportive. It's like a politician paying a special interest group or a college football player paying a booster its counter-intuitive and ultimately counter-productive.
So I implore liberals, conservatives, the LGBT community, conservative Christians, Republicans and Democrats alike, go to your corners, take a deep breath re-evaluate the conversation and come back out swinging.
Follow Shane Paul Neil on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@shanepaulneil
Why don't they donate the money used in these lobbying efforts against the LGBT community to fund scholarships or increase funding to the non-profits that actually help people and kids?
What is Dan Cathy afraid of? Will Bill and Bob getting married impact Dan Cathy's traditional marriage? No.
Will he desire to get married to a man if it's legally recognized? Is that what scares him? His own hidden desires? It is really the only thing that makes sense otherwise why does he care? It won't impact him or his church. Why use good money to keep others from having the same benefits and entitlements and responsibilities he enjoys in his marriage? Is his marriage so weak that another marriage causes his marriage to crumble? Unlikely.
Starbucks doesn't lobby AGAINST other groups having the same rights the government affords other people.
At least write an article with true subtext of the issue if you are going to tell us what to do (go to the corner).
I won't eat Chick Fil A until he stops funding lobbying efforts against the LGBT community. These efforts are different than his personal beliefs.
It would be like saying because I told a lie (assuming i tried to follow and believed in the 10 commandments) i decided to kill people too because I couldn't follow all the commandments equally without being hypocritical. I'm not sure how that would make any sense. It doesn't to me and I doubt it does to you either. But that seems to be your logic in saying if I boycott one thing I have to boycott everything.
"Most organized consumer boycotts today are FOCUSED on long-term change of buying habits, and so fit into part of a larger political program, with many techniques that require a longer structural commitment...." from Applications and Uses of Boycotts.
By definition a boycott is focused so to not be focuse wouldn't be effective. But I can see from your point of view how the US has become the police force of the entire world.
Your caveat at the beginning though makes it sound like you don't think that same sex marriage should have the protection of the law. Marriage is legislated for. If you think it should not be then you are proposing that the state should not record any marriage - that it should not recognise marriage through tax law, through immigration law etc. This is entirely possible if the state simply allows you to declare whoever you wish as a partner but it can be complicated if you separate and have no legal protection etc. Even in countries where de-facto relationships are recognised and where same sex marriage is allowed, there is still law that dictates how relationships alter legal status and how the dissolving of relationships should be handled legally.
And thank you for acknowledging my genius. It means a lot to me.
If nothing else, the element of people making statements with their consumer-spending choice gives the central issues more front-page appeal to a media that prefers hype over substance.
I would go so far as to say in 2008 there were some voters confusing consumerism with activism. Obama was a well-marketed brand that voters "consumed" to get that feeling of making a difference without having to get their hands dirty. To some, it now seems Obama is about as progressive as BP is green.
That would have passed for tolerant four years ago. Now it evokes images of separate water fountains, and rightfully so. Civil unions are a gimmick whose time has come, and gone.
Who was at the forefront of renaming the "Starbucks" day, does anyone know?
So it makes sense to line up and show that you not only support Dan Cathy's view of traditional marriage (minus some of the religious rhetoric) but also his right to express those views.
Let me also say that the idea of politicians advocating for closing businesses in their districts and municipalities because of ideological differences it's a major problem.
Of course, it would be nice if the profits were donated to a worthy cause, but I think it is a totally acceptable form of protest.