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

[Elok]

However their money isn't used to be sent to these anti-gay groups. That is the obviously elephant in the room you are missing.

What? Yes, their money is sent to these anti-gay groups. Specifically, a very, very small percentage of their money.

People would rather see the company suffer than to have their own money be used to support things they find far more repellent. Obviously, as pointed out constantly, you are missing the point of free speech and your appeals to the jobs involved are completely irrelevant - companies fail for lack of business all the time for a variety of reasons.

People get hit by cars all the time for a variety of reasons. We accept that as a necessary evil for the sake of car-driving's economic benefits. That does not justify my hitting people with my car on purpose. As for the point of free speech, the point of it AFAIC is to free people from threats of retaliation for speaking their mind. Economic retaliation is still retaliation, although not preventable without causing still worse problems. Those people are poopheads. I don't think their behavior should be made illegal, but they are poopheads, and just saying "freedom of speech" does not change that. If I start telling your embarrassing secrets to your friends, my constitutional right to free speech doesn't make me somehow less of a jerk.

You do realize that there are folks who refuse to buy things that are made in China, for this exact reason, right?

I thought it was mostly over the sweatshops. In both cases I'd say they're somewhat short-sighted, albeit they have the advantage that they're trying to prevent something terrible that shouldn't be legal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it's a matter of what you're trying to accomplish. Cathy's opinions, and his support for them, were doing little or no actual harm, and everyone agrees he was perfectly within his rights in everything he did.

Those millions of dollars the company was giving for anti-gay purposes, including to groups that were involved in lobbying against same-sex marriage, was definitely doing harm.

Furthermore, people don't want to give money to bigots. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to give money to a business. That's capitalism. Bad PR, just as much as good PR, can affect how many buy your product.

I'd rather have people that work at Chick-Fil-A lose their jobs than to have my money support a company that used to give money to hate groups (stopped less than a year ago) and/or has a bigoted CEO who parrots views I find offensive. And that is my right and I am grateful for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for the point of free speech, the point of it AFAIC is to free people from threats of retaliation for speaking their mind.

OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RETALIATION! The founders never intended social pressure to be eliminated if free speech was allowed (heck, the boycott against the Stamp Act was because the British started taxing them for a war the British undertook to protect the colonies).

[Elok]

Those millions of dollars the company was giving for anti-gay purposes, including to groups that were involved in lobbying against same-sex marriage, was definitely doing harm.

No, by last August they were demonstrably ineffectual. The country's opinion on gay marriage had shifted with astonishing rapidity, and there was basically nothing they could do to significantly slow what was coming.

Furthermore, people don't want to give money to bigots. That's a perfectly reasonable reason not to give money to a business. That's capitalism. Bad PR, just as much as good PR, can affect how many buy your product.

You're mixing prescription and description here.

I'd rather have people that work at Chick-Fil-A lose their jobs than to have my money support a company that used to give money to hate groups (stopped less than a year ago) and/or has a bigoted CEO who parrots views I find offensive. And that is my right and I am grateful for it.

? I wasn't aware that they'd stopped giving money to said groups at all. The last news I'd heard from that corner was "We have made no concessions." But this isn't even about gay marriage anymore. Barring a massive fundamentalist revival, there's simply no conceivable way gay marriage will not become the law of the land within our lifetime. If you're willing to hurt bystanders to punish a man for having ugly opinions, I'd say your priorities are a bit askew.

But yes, it is your right. I have never denied that. I insist only that a boycott is an irresponsible use of that right.

[Elok]

OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT RETALIATION! The founders never intended social pressure to be eliminated if free speech was allowed (heck, the boycott against the Stamp Act was because the British started taxing them for a war the British undertook to protect the colonies).

You missed the words "for speaking their mind."

[Elok]

Also, to hell with the Founders. I mean the uses of free speech in practice, not what their goofy enlightenment deist philosophy thought about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, by last August they were demonstrably ineffectual. The country's opinion on gay marriage had shifted with astonishing rapidity, and there was basically nothing they could do to significantly slow what was coming.

They are trying to and therefore not worthy of my support. Nothing entitles them to have me buy one of their overpriced chicken sandwiches after all.

? I wasn't aware that they'd stopped giving money to said groups at all. The last news I'd heard from that corner was "We have made no concessions." But this isn't even about gay marriage anymore. Barring a massive fundamentalist revival, there's simply no conceivable way gay marriage will not become the law of the land within our lifetime. If you're willing to hurt bystanders to punish a man for having ugly opinions, I'd say your priorities are a bit askew.

They have said both ways (depend on the audience I figure). Bystanders that take their livelihood from the man & company who has ugly opinions are simply perpetuating the problem. I'd argue one that simply waives it away is the one whose priorities are askew (or do they have any convictions at all?).

You missed the words "for speaking their mind."

Irrelevant. You keep saying that like it matters.

Also, to hell with the Founders. I mean the uses of free speech in practice, not what their goofy enlightenment deist philosophy thought about it.

The absolutist version of free speech that we have in the US is ENTIRELY due to the Founders. There is a reason that no other country on Earth has such an expansive view on it.

[N35t0r]

No, it's a matter of what you're trying to accomplish. Cathy's opinions, and his support for them, were doing little or no actual harm, and everyone agrees he was perfectly within his rights in everything he did. If you're talking about people who are doing something harmful/illegal, it becomes a matter of weighing damage vs. benefit on an individual basis, but it's at least arguable that the boycott is ethical. Some people losing their jobs vs. the end of institutionalized segregation in the South? The latter would seem to outweigh the former. Some people losing their jobs vs. some ninnies have less money to spend on dumb commercials and the like? Not so much.

That same amount of money spent on other issues might be much more beneficial than the jobs lost. In any case, if the demand for that kind of food is there, then the jobs lost would quickly be replaced by jobs in competing businesses.

[Sava]

Elok is BK-lite

[Elok]

Look, we're getting nowhere here, and we'll plainly never see eye-to-eye. I'm making the same arguments here that I made pages and pages ago, countering the exact same objections raised over and over again. I believe our freedoms of speech, association, etc. come with moral obligations to use them responsibly, and the boycotters failed, and are failing, to meet those obligations. If you disagree, well, it doesn't much matter in the grand scheme of things.

Also, it occurs to me that I've been put in the weird position of arguing from a consequentialist POV, when I'm really closer to virtue ethics. But since all speculation on others' character and motivations is automatically an ad hominem, that's been a no-go. Not that you likely care, I'm just thinking in type.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe our freedoms of speech, association, etc. come with moral obligations to use them responsibly

Exactly and those who refuse to purchase goods provided by someone who says reprehensible things is a responsible use of free speech and free association.

[Sava]

Exactly and those who refuse to purchase goods provided by someone who says reprehensible things is a responsible use of free speech and free association.

used my thanks already

[Krill]

Take mine instead.

[Sava]

thank you!

[Imran Siddiqui]