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

[Elok]

Just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that the first amendment should protect people from non-government retaliation. I know there's a distinction there. And, of course, there's no clear-cut line between expressing disapproval and using social pressure to punish people for having the wrong opinions. But I think the latter is wrong, albeit common.

Snoopy, I'm not actually all that familiar with the activities of the Aryan Brotherhood; if they're actual terrorists and not just a bunch of elderly rednecks talking big in somebody's basement, it was a poor example.

[Lorizael]

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

It's about not being a hypocrite. How can you be disgusted by people who happen to patronize a restaurant that uses some of its money to support a cause you disagree with while doing nothing at all about the fact that your favorite coffee supplier pays the salaries of rapists?

[Wezil]

There's a moral difference between supporting "bad" you know about and having your support go to those you aren't aware of.

You can't be a hypocrite if you lack the knowledge (and we aren't talking willful blindness here).

[Lorizael]

I'm not talking hypotheticals here. Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. You do (or are very likely to) pay rapists. And the way to avoid it is by withdrawing from the economy. Most people can't stomach that option, however, despite the fact that they supposedly think rape is a bad thing.

[Colonâ„¢]

Elok, I'm guessing that you're just trying to say that the basic question is what a boycott, which implies some sort of organized effort, is supposed to achieve.

[Wezil]

Lori -

Your logic as faulty.

Knowledge of the bad is what is required.

If Starbucks employs a rapist (they probably do somewhere) it doesn't make me a supporter of rape if I buy a Starbucks coffee.

If Starbucks puts out a hiring policy whereby they will provide preferential hiring to convicted rapists then it becomes a different issue.

[Elok]

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.

Well, the spiderweb tattoo seems irrelevant. The WP tattoos would be a relevant concern in that you don't want your babysitter telling your kids how their friend Daykwon needs to be shipped off to Angola. In general, if the opinion doesn't affect the quality of service, it's really none of my bloody business, the way I see it. "An obligation to conform to the desires of customers" is sensible if you're talking about providing good service, and of course you shouldn't dump screeds on your customers and expect them to hang around. But if you intend that to mean "become a nonentity with no right to hold any but the blandest opinions, even outside the context of doing business, or else forfeit profits from angry customers," that may be the case in practical terms, but I don't call it ideal. Given the highly polarized nature of some issues, even that may not always be possible; whichever opinion they hold will alienate business from the other side, or piss off both for being "cowardly" if they adopt a moderate position. Their only hope then would be to dodge every question and say nothing. That is not what I call a genuinely tolerant society.

Cathy mentioned his "pro-family" views when asked about them point-blank by an interviewer, IIRC. Otherwise, it's not like he had "Chik-fil-A, proudly excluding fags" written on the receipts or anything like that. The Twitter business was a bit more in-your-face (did he use CFA's official Twitter account or his own?), but then I think he was probably hoping, on some level, to drum up more enthusiasm from his regulars with that.

[kentonio]

So he was happy to try and drum up enthusiasm from some customers with his views but shouldn't have to deal with any negative consequence?

[Lorizael]

Lori -

Your logic as faulty.

Knowledge of the bad is what is required.

If Starbucks employs a rapist (they probably do somewhere) it doesn't make me a supporter of rape if I buy a Starbucks coffee.

If Starbucks puts out a hiring policy whereby they will provide preferential hiring to convicted rapists then it becomes a different issue.

Starbucks employees 150,000 people. You have better odds of finding a molecule of "active ingredient" in a homeopathic remedy (that is: 0%) than you do of not paying a rapist when you buy your coffee. Unless Starbucks actively attempts to discover whether any of their employees are rapists who haven't been caught, it is a mathematical certainty that they employee at least one. As far as I am concerned, a mathematical certainty is knowledge.

[Elok]

Elok, I'm guessing that you're just trying to say that the basic question is what a boycott, which implies some sort of organized effort, is supposed to achieve.

Something like that. Except I don't think it's really a question; a boycott is by definition an organized effort to influence a business/entity's policies by refusing to do business with it on a large scale. I think it's fair when the business is doing something distinctly harmful, like buying raw materials from oppressive regimes, violating labor law, or giving profits to terrorists; when they're only guilty of expressing troglodytic opinions, or funneling money to dullards who use it to express similar opinions via absurd tv commercials about gay storms...well, then it's just excessive.

I mean, most of the career professionals working at CFA started working there when Cathy's now-offensive views were perfectly mainstream. They have no power over the policies he sets. Are they supposed to throw away careers they spent years building to satisfy the moral demands of the masses? Or (again, if it hadn't flopped) lose their jobs anyway when profits start sinking? I don't see the morality there.

[Wezil]

Lori -

Yeah alright.

I live in a society where some people are bad. Unless I have the knowledge of exactly who has done what I can't deal with any of them. So the only way to not be a "hypocrite" by your standard I would have to be a hermit in the woods who shoots all strangers on sight?

I think your argument needs work.

[Lorizael]

No, there's another way not to be a hypocrite: being explicitly amoral.

[Elok]

So he was happy to try and drum up enthusiasm from some customers with his views but shouldn't have to deal with any negative consequence?

Well, in the same ideal world where people don't punish companies for irrelevant opinions, they also don't mingle politics and business in general. Specifically, they don't form the sort of weird support-the-Godly-business clan mentality that motivates CFA's core customer base. If they want a chicken sandwich, waffle fries and a milkshake, they go to CFA. If they want a different kind of chicken, they go somewhere else. Simple as that.

Of course, we don't live in that world. Alas.

[Elok]

No, there's another way not to be a hypocrite: being explicitly amoral.

I imagine you've read The Diamond Age, and the Duke's speech on this matter?

[Lorizael]

I started but didn't finish The Diamond Age. Not finishing had nothing to do with the book, however. Does the gist of his speech give anything away about the plot?