Chick-Fil-A CEO posting more anti-gay comments.

[kentonio]

DP

[MRT144]

Grilled chicken sandwiches are infinitely inferior to fried chicken sandwiches so your point is utterly irrelevant.

I think it depends.

I like grilled chicken sandwiches with chipotle mayo, pepper jack, pickeled jalapenos, piece of lettuce, sliced tomato, grilled/slightly charred onion and red bell pepper.
I like fried chicken sandwiches with buttermilk dressing, pickles, and a piece lettuce.

Sometimes in the mood for one and not the other.

[MRT144]

Elok, whats the difference between mob rule and democracy to you? Democracy has the social contract behind it while mob rule isn't officially sanctioned by everyone in the social contract. Seems like a dumb hair to split on the morality and justness of the actions of a collective group of people. Also, the use of mob rule seems like a semantic diversion to equate all mobs with the worst form of mobs you can imagine - lynch mobs.

[MRT144]

Then why don't HOMOS advocate removing marriage from government purrview entirely? Why are they asking to be part of the club, instead of breaking up the club?

Because that is much harder.

[MrFun]

Not really. It's more contrarian than self righteous.

Nah. You're just being spiteful, self-righteous, and arrogant.

[Elok]

So subtle forms of mob rule can be ok on occasion? The difference is hashing out which mob rule is ok. So why is the term stated in such disdain?

I called it mob rule (admittedly not the best term, I was typing in a hurry) because a better wasn't coming to mind--I don't object to all uses of boycotts, only their use to punish unpopular opinions and behavior which all involve believe should be legal. Nobody thought Cathy shouldn't be allowed to fund those groups, or that those groups shouldn't be allowed to do what they did. Then why was it okay to resort to economic pressure to try and suppress that behavior?

[Elok]

Why is "economic warfare" against a business for funding anti-gay groups somehow unokay when it's okay to engage in "economic warfare" against a business for offering a ****ty product, or having ****ty customer service, or charging too much?

What? Nobody mounts an organized campaign to stop buying a company's bad products en masse, or for either of those other reasons. That happens naturally on a completely individual level, and is relevant to the company's stated purpose.

[MrFun]

So I take it some of you would have opposed black women boycotting city buses in the South in the 1950s?

[Elok]

Elok, whats the difference between mob rule and democracy to you? Democracy has the social contract behind it while mob rule isn't officially sanctioned by everyone in the social contract. Seems like a dumb hair to split on the morality and justness of the actions of a collective group of people. Also, the use of mob rule seems like a semantic diversion to equate all mobs with the worst form of mobs you can imagine - lynch mobs.

Okay, that was a poor choice of terminology and I'd like to chuck it. I couldn't put my finger on a good term for "large masses of people in a frenzy to punish someone for the crime of having a deviant opinion." My point was that I wouldn't approve of the government forcibly taking money from Cathy for either thinking/saying unpopular things or for giving cash to groups who do the same. Therefore I see no consistency in approving of an ad hoc group of citizens who try to do much the same thing by other means.

Also, the social contract is a silly myth I've never put much store in.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nobody thought Cathy shouldn't be allowed to fund those groups, or that those groups shouldn't be allowed to do what they did. Then why was it okay to resort to economic pressure to try and suppress that behavior?

Because pressure due to official government sanction and pressure due to the "marketplace of ideas" are vastly different things. Cathy has the right to say whatever he wants, but the masses also have the right to say that's not kosher and freely associate to stop people from buying what he's peddling.

Just because the ends may be the same in some cases, doesn't mean the means are.

[giblets]

What? Nobody mounts an organized campaign to stop buying a company's bad products en masse, or for either of those other reasons. That happens naturally on a completely individual level, and is relevant to the company's stated purpose.

Yes, and people can decide on an individual level to not buy from a business because they're not comfortable with how the money will be spent. They don't have to expect moral perfection from any business; their perception of the business as being relatively ethical or unethical is just one factor among many affecting their spending decisions. Is this bad thing, or is the act of telling other people you're doing it and suggesting they do the same a bad thing? As for the company's stated purpose, I don't see how consumers can be expected to only think about whatever the company explicitly mentions as a goal of the company.

[Elok]

Gribbler, we're talking about businesses here. They exist to provide goods and services. If the goods or services are crap, or they charge too much for them, or they neglect their customers, it's entirely normal for them to suffer for it. It has unpleasant repercussions sometimes, but that's the price we accept for higher-quality goods and services. Boycotts can also have effects to justify the harm they do, if they're done in response to major abuses. Otherwise, not so much.

But please, don't say stuff like

the act of telling other people you're doing it and suggesting they do the same

Seriously? Telling and suggesting? A boycott is an organized effort with the stated goal of hurting an offending party. You might as well say an invasion is "just me going for a stroll in foreign territory, with friends, while all of us carry automatic weapons."

Because pressure due to official government sanction and pressure due to the "marketplace of ideas" are vastly different things. Cathy has the right to say whatever he wants, but the masses also have the right to say that's not kosher and freely associate to stop people from buying what he's peddling.

Just because the ends may be the same in some cases, doesn't mean the means are.

Yes, but if you're deliberately trying to achieve precisely the same purpose, the distinction appears purely academic to me. Either way, you're trying to force an end to somebody else's rightly lawful activity. Now, I don't think boycotts should be rendered illegal--that would be absurd, unenforceable and lead to serious problems even if you could make it stick. But I believe frivolous boycotts like the CFA one are morally repugnant attempts to shut down other people's freedom of thought, speech and association. They'd be much worse if they weren't so ineffectual.

[giblets]

Gribbler, we're talking about businesses here. They exist to provide goods and services. If the goods or services are crap, or they charge too much for them, or they neglect their customers, it's entirely normal for them to suffer for it. It has unpleasant repercussions sometimes, but that's the price we accept for higher-quality goods and services. Boycotts can also have effects to justify the harm they do, if they're done in response to major abuses. Otherwise, not so much.

But please, don't say stuff like



Seriously? Telling and suggesting? A boycott is an organized effort with the stated goal of hurting an offending party. You might as well say an invasion is "just me going for a stroll in foreign territory, with friends, while all of us carry automatic weapons."

Giving a part of the profits from selling a good or service to an organization alters the good or service and changes the nature of what they're buying in some people's eyes.

What organization is organizing the boycott? It looks more like an internet fad than anything else.

[DaShi]

Oh my glob, guys. Thank you!

[Wezil]

I still think a reverse boycott is best.

Gay couples should flood CFA stores and make sure to engage in PDAs while there. Make CFA the "Gay Friendly" store.