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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

Yes. Heck, if they can get thrown away to satisfy the moral demands of their CEOs, wouldn't the moral demands of society account for more?

[Wezil]

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.

Go north young man.

[Colon™]

Can we at least agree there are a lot of ill-considered boycott calls out there? A few years back there was this call to boycott Sony (among others) for Japan's whaling activities. It's not that they were actively involved or that they were supporting it, no they merely weren't speaking out against it. That really is blatantly intolerant and hypocritical.

[Elok]

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?

Not really. He notes that much of our current hatred of hypocrisy is, in a weird, convoluted way, us being proud of our own lack of morals. That is, keeping a firm moral code is difficult and some failure is to be expected in the form of inconsistency. But by raising hypocrisy to the level of "highest vice" and working so hard to stamp out sanctimonious hypocrites, our age--or, at least, the nineties, when DA was written--has subtly encouraged moral apathy. Because we say it's better to have few or no standards, and thus meet them easily, than to have high standards and sometimes fail to achieve them. I thought it was a fun speech.

[Elok]

Go north young man.

Nah, I'm staying away from that damned tribunal. But thanks for the offer.

[Wezil]

Just don't imply it's some sort of utopian fantasy. You just need to live in a less fundy country.

[Elok]

Yes. Heck, if they can get thrown away to satisfy the moral demands of their CEOs, wouldn't the moral demands of society account for more?

No, because the former is (ridiculous) company policy, while the latter is simply a subtle form of mob rule. I don't think it should even be legal for them to be fired for opinions not expressed on company time or using company equipment--e.g., if he privately tweets "I support the overthrow of DOMA" on his own account, that's none of Cathy's business. If he tweets "Geez my boss is a closet case, eet mor sausij Cathy," OTOH, he's got it coming.

[Lorizael]

Not really. He notes that much of our current hatred of hypocrisy is, in a weird, convoluted way, us being proud of our own lack of morals. That is, keeping a firm moral code is difficult and some failure is to be expected in the form of inconsistency. But by raising hypocrisy to the level of "highest vice" and working so hard to stamp out sanctimonious hypocrites, our age--or, at least, the nineties, when DA was written--has subtly encouraged moral apathy. Because we say it's better to have few or no standards, and thus meet them easily, than to have high standards and sometimes fail to achieve them. I thought it was a fun speech.

/me nods. Well, personally, I'd prefer moral apathy to moral certitude. I think a great deal of horrible things have been done in the name of what's moral. (You can make the argument that amorality is just as bad because it has not prevented said horrible things.) But aside from that, I also don't believe morality exists, much the same way you believe there is no morality to be found in atheism. (That is, it's not impossible for an atheist to be a "good" person, but it's impossible for "good" to matter without some higher power.) The difference between you and me is that I don't think we can know that higher power exists, or what it thinks good is (without first becoming omniscient).

[Elok]

Just don't imply it's some sort of utopian fantasy. You just need to live in a less fundy country.

It's not that it's a fundy country, but that it's a divided country. There are two things that make our Left less repulsive than our Right:

1. The opinions they go too far in promoting are generally less ugly, and
2. They are not competent or organized enough to get into the really vicious shenanigans the Right can pull off.

But they're quite capable of smashing heretics and dissidents to a lesser extent.

[Wezil]

You've combined business/politics/religion.

That's pretty fundy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

while the latter is simply a subtle form of mob rule.

Societal non-violent coercion is, and has been, perfectly acceptable. After all, the sit-ins of the civil rights era were an attempt at "mob rule" of a sorts. The idea that certain points of view just won't be tolerated by a group of people and that those people will choose to not give their money to someone who has those points of view is perfectly fine. The employees of that company get hurt, sure. But the employees of the restaurants who didn't serve blacks got hurt as well - are we suggesting those civil rights people should have thought of them first?

[Elok]

Societal non-violent coercion is, and has been, perfectly acceptable. After all, the sit-ins of the civil rights era were an attempt at "mob rule" of a sorts. The idea that certain points of view just won't be tolerated by a group of people and that those people will choose to not give their money to someone who has those points of view is perfectly fine. The employees of that company get hurt, sure. But the employees of the restaurants who didn't serve blacks got hurt as well - are we suggesting those civil rights people should have thought of them first?

Justifiable because legitimate harm was being done there. They were part of a system of deliberate subjugation. It takes a bit of imagination, and more than a bit of chutzpah, to say that Cathy's "well, guilty as charged" and modest monetary support for a the rear-guard propagandists of an effectively-lost cultural war are equivalent to the entrenched, systematic oppression of blacks in the South--back when they were supported by the force of law, at a time when peaceful protesters got hit with dogs and fire-hoses. There is no remotely significant danger that the organizations he supported could even protect the relatively minor injustices that constitute the status quo today, let alone make them worse. Officially at least, Cathy's business itself doesn't discriminate against gays in hiring or service, does it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

[giblets]

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?

[kentonio]

Officially at least, Cathy's business itself doesn't discriminate against gays in hiring or service, does it?

Nope, they just have to deal with the backlash.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1729968.html