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

[Elok]

I am responsible for one person and one person only, myself. I have complete control over what I do or do not do but I do not have control over what other people do. I can attempt to influence what other people do but that is all.

Is that serious enough for you?

Honestly, no. If you're taking part in a collective action, I think you really need to accept a share of responsibility for its outcome. Not for the whole thing, but if a whole bunch of people have decided to do something at once and it has a major impact (in this case it didn't, but if it had), it's disingenuous to say "well, I'm not responsible for that group of people who all did the same thing I did by common agreement, with the express intent of achieving the result we got." Compare "I'm not responsible for that huge mountain of garbage; I only dumped one bag" or "I'm not responsible for that woman's death; I only threw one of the rocks and it was a little one."

[kentonio]

We have not physically, directly forced him to change his views. The government did not become involved. But the effect is not significantly different from what would happen if we'd passed a law heavily fining him for Unlawful Opinion. Of course boycotts should not be outlawed, etc. But there's something hypocritical about "land-of-the-free, First Amendment, but we will hammer you bloody if you take your freedom too far."

Err, what? When a man makes his money from a business, and donates some of that money to causes you find repellent, how is it unreasonable to deny that person your business? By buying his products you are doing nothing less than helping support the causes he donates to. If he's doing that quietly and privately then you're never even going to know about it, but when he's making loud public statements about his beliefs, then it forces you as the customer to make a moral decision.

[Elok]

There are ambiguities and grey areas here, but if the whole community is shunning him in a move to make him recant, they're essentially offering him a choice between giving in and going broke. A concerted public action to force changes in his behavior is not meaningfully different, the way I see it, from having the government deny him freedom of association by law. They're different means to the same general end. If the way he uses his money isn't sufficiently antisocial to make it illegal (e.g., he's not giving it to terrorists) or "should-be-illegal-but-isn't-for-bs-political-reasons" (doing business with immoral overseas governments), I don't believe there's sufficient cause to force a change in his behavior. If you think it should be legal for him to donate to the Aryan Brotherhood, it seems hypocritical to mount an organized campaign to destroy his livelihood for the same action.

Now, as I said, grey areas. If it's not a concerted action but a bunch of people feeling queasy and making the decision independently, I think that's somewhat different. The thing I object to is extrajudicial mob justice, even under the civilized guise of a boycott.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Foodwise I like their chicken much better than KFC.

Oh lordy... if that's your comparison. But you live in ****ing TEXAS now, you can assuredly find better chicken that those two.

(as far as fast food, Popeye's wipes the floor with Chick-Fil-A, FWIW)

[snoopy369]

I have to take issue with the Popeye's vs Chick-Fil-A comparison. CFA is a much better operation, nationwide, than Popeye's. It's possible that individual Popeye's might be better, but overall CFA are very consistent and even mall CFA's are reasonably decent fast food. Popeye's are pretty random - some are good, some are absolutely awful (as are KFCs). CFA does a far better job with franchise-to-franchise consistency.

[Elok]

I mean, if the Aryan Brotherhood are going around burning stuff, that's a whole different matter too. But my image of the ideal, "tolerant" society would be one where a guy says "I believe we were right to enslave black people" and everyone replies, "well, your opinions are repulsive and stupid and we think less of you for holding them. But as long as you're just saying stupid hateful nonsense, who cares?"

Of course, I'm being hopelessly idealistic there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But there's something hypocritical about "land-of-the-free, First Amendment, but we will hammer you bloody if you take your freedom too far."

Sorry, Elok, but this is ridiculous nonsense. No one who is serious thinks "1st Amendment" means you can say whatever bull**** stuff you want without any consequences. In fact that denies the hearer of their "1st Amendment" rights. Free speech doesn't just mean free speech for one, it means free speech for all and people who say this pressure is hypocritical basically just want free speech to go one way only.

[snoopy369]

I think your neonazi shopkeeper example is poor, because he's advocating actual violence. That's wrong and should be stopped even in a true first amendment world. But I think that you're not entirely wrong, here.

I think that the problem I have with this, is that it's become very difficult to have a reasonable debate about issues that have two sides, because both sides demonize the other to the point that every statement is treated as horrible/evil/etc. Yes, you may believe that this is a big deal to human rights and whatnot, but it's not like his opinion is totally off the wall bat**** insane given recent context; and it's not like he's advocating violence. He disagrees with you based on very common religious views. I don't really have a problem with disagreeing with him, or even not supporting his restaurant, but the demonizing or organizing boycotts is a bit much, and prevents us from having rational conversation. Perhaps we'd even have resolved the issue years ago, if we had normal political discourse, instead of hateful arguments that make Apolyton look, well, normal. Abortion, gay marriage, etc. are all subjects we can reasonably disagree on, and resolve in a manner that does not require this level of hate (on both sides). (Of course, another problem in this particular case is largely that, now that popular opinion has shifted, the social conservatives won't politely admit defeat...)

Also, the problem with mob action, after all, is that it's nice when you're in the mob, but rather less so when the mob is after you...

[snoopy369]

Sorry, Elok, but this is ridiculous nonsense. No one who is serious thinks "1st Amendment" means you can say whatever bull**** stuff you want without any consequences. In fact that denies the hearer of their "1st Amendment" rights. Free speech doesn't just mean free speech for one, it means free speech for all and people who say this pressure is hypocritical basically just want free speech to go one way only.

You're right, of course, but the issue here is that we're moving into high school cheerleader territory here. It's not that people disagree with him, it's that his speaking itself is viewed as wrong. I don't doubt that dozens of CEOs agree with what he said - but because he said it, he's looked at as wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're right, of course, but the issue here is that we're moving into high school cheerleader territory here. It's not that people disagree with him, it's that his speaking itself is viewed as wrong. I don't doubt that dozens of CEOs agree with what he said - but because he said it, he's looked at as wrong.

Look at it this way, if it was an underling who had a Twitter account identified with Chick-Fil-A in some manner and he said the opposite (like "Yay, DOMA"), he'd likely be fired on the spot (IIRC, GA doesn't have homosexuality as a protected class, so it wouldn't be considered discriminatory firing, rather disagreeing with company policy) - so, it seems like some want to have a different standard for CEOs.

[snoopy369]

Look at it this way, if it was an underling who had a Twitter account identified with Chick-Fil-A in some manner and he said the opposite (like "Yay, DOMA"), he'd likely be fired on the spot (IIRC, GA doesn't have homosexuality as a protected class, so it wouldn't be considered discriminatory firing, rather disagreeing with company policy) - so, it seems like some want to have a different standard for CEOs.

I'd consider firing someone for that reason identically stupid. But at the same time, if it's actually a CFA corporate account, then what's wrong with the CEO firing him? The CEO does, after all, set company policy, so it's not a double standard.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd consider firing someone for that reason identically stupid. But at the same time, if it's actually a CFA corporate account, then what's wrong with the CEO firing him? The CEO does, after all, set company policy, so it's not a double standard.

The point I was making is that the concept of trampling on someone's 'free speech' doesn't necessarily apply here. There are consequences - if an underling, then he's violating company policy, if a CEO, then people who are offended won't buy his company's product.

And all of that is ok, because free speech merely means protection from government exercise of it, but you are still subject to pressures from other people (as you should be - we live in a society after all).

[kentonio]

I don't understand where you are coming from at all Elok. How can anyone have an expectation of a livelihood based on customer spending, and feel no obligation to conform to the desires of the customers? If a baby sitter has a spiderweb tattoo on their face, is a parent morally wrong to not want to leave a child in their care? How about a set of white power tattoos? I could kind of see your argument if the boycott involved actually preventing customers from physically entering the restaurants, but when it's simply people choosing not to spend, I don't see how that can be condemned.

[Lorizael]

Err, what? When a man makes his money from a business, and donates some of that money to causes you find repellent, how is it unreasonable to deny that person your business? By buying his products you are doing nothing less than helping support the causes he donates to. If he's doing that quietly and privately then you're never even going to know about it, but when he's making loud public statements about his beliefs, then it forces you as the customer to make a moral decision.

Not supporting things you find repellent sounds good in theory, but in practice is virtually impossible. If you look at the average number of employees in a company, and the average number of companies a person regularly does business with, and the approximate percentage of the population that has, say, committed rape and gotten away with it, it's a virtual guarantee that you regularly pay the salary of a rapist and there is essentially no way for you to know about it or stop doing it.

[Wezil]

So if you can't identify all the bad people you shouldn't avoid the ones you know about?