Do You Boycott?

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by agzg

It hasn't come to light just now, in fact, it's been several years that I've known about this. I'll try to find some links for you but I'm currently celebrating the olympics therefore am having trouble googling.

Don't worry about the links, I'll take your word for it but I'm curious as what lead to this huge outcry against them just now if this has been known for several years.

[AXOmom]

^^^^Curiosity question - what groups and lobbyists do they support?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

^^^^Curiosity question - what groups and lobbyists do they support?

Focus on the Family and its political affiliates.

[DrPhil]

I was talking to a group of people last night. Someone said "There is no point in boycotting. I mean, we only know about this because companies like Chik-Fil-A expressed their viewpoints. There are companies that we do not know about...."

I think that is a silly way of looking at it. Of course, we only know things once they are discovered. Things can be discovered by the person or company coming forward OR the person or company being called out. Regardless of how it happens, people have the right to respond however they choose in a nonharmful and legal manner.

It is silly to say "well, we only know because someone said something...what about those other companies...none of this matters." Uh...sure...I wonder whether you feel that way if it is a topic that particularly offends you or grates your nerves.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

They've (as a corporation) been donating to anti-GLBT groups and lobbyists for years.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I actually looked up what his charity, Winshape, gives to, and it includes the ministry in Uganda that supports killing gay people. A large part of Winshape's missions is traditional marriage, aka anti-gay marriage. I'm not okay with my money going to that even if a chicken sandwich is a go between.

I do think it's worth being clear that Chik-Fil-A gives to the WinShape Foundation, and it is WinShape that gives to Focus on the Family and other groups, not Chik-Fil-A directly. I readily understand, though, if that is a distinction without a difference to some, but accuracy matters.

I'll admit I'm suspicious about the Uganda connection, unless you mean Exodus International. If that's the case, it's also worth noting that that was basically one conference that reps of Exodus International (a group I have no love for) attended, and that EI has since expressed its regret for participating in that conference and has spoken out against what has happened in Uganda. I'm not trying to defend EI, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they "give" to an organization that "supports killing gay people" in Uganda.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I'll admit I'm suspicious about the Uganda connection, unless you mean Exodus International. If that's the case, it's also worth noting that that was basically one conference that reps of Exodus International (a group I have no love for) attended, and that EI has since expressed its regret for participating in that conference and has spoken out against what has happened in Uganda. I'm not trying to defend EI, but I don't think it's accurate to say that they "give" to an organization that "supports killing gay people" in Uganda.

I'm somewhat suspicious as well about the Uganda connection since I haven't really been able to find anything connecting Chik-Fil-A to genocide in Uganda. Either way, it still appears to me that all of the FB activism and boycotting of this company is based on the CEO's open statements on his religious views, not monetary donations to anti-gay groups.

[DrPhil]

There is probably no direct connection between Chick-Fil-A and genocide in Uganda.

[AOII Angel]

Winshape is a charity directly tied to Chick-Fil-A. It was founded by the Cathys who get their money directly from Chick-Fil-A sales. They have no larger source of revenue. As for the Uganda issue, that is a pittance of the argument but was a big uproar last year that many groups distanced themselves from ONLY after activists pointed out the human rights abuses going on there. It's a lot easier to say you're sorry than ask permission.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Winshape is a charity directly tied to Chick-Fil-A. It was founded by the Cathys who get their money directly from Chick-Fil-A sales. They have no larger source of revenue.

Right, and as I said I can see how the distinction between Chik-Fil-A and WinShape can be a distinction without a difference. To me, it is still a distinction worth making, though -- Chik-Fil-A gives to WinShape, Winshape gives to conservative causes -- if only because it's accurate. Chik-Fil-A is not giving to those causes; WinShape is.

As for the Uganda issue, that is a pittance of the argument but was a big uproar last year that many groups distanced themselves from ONLY after activists pointed out the human rights abuses going on there.

Exodus Int'l issued its official statement in March 2010, a year after the conference, and five months after the Ugandan legislation was introduced. Whether it was prompted to do so under pressure or not doesn't somehow prove that otherwise they were okay with the Ugandan government was considering. From what I have read, Exodus Int'l sent a letter to the president of Uganda the previous November, the month after the legislation was introduced, opposing the bill.

But my point was that it is not accurate to say WinShape "gives to . . . the ministry in Uganda that supports killing people." It is not accurate because that ministry -- Exodus International -- doesn't support killing gay people.

I have no problem if people do not want to give Chik-Fil-A their business. At all. And I understand completely why many people do not. But all too often on facebook, blogs and the like, I see charges made that are distortions of the facts or urban legends that are being taken as facts, and that does bother me. It bothers me regardless of who the target is and who the boycotters are, and whether I agree in principle with either side or not. I just want to see the debate be grounded in the facts. I'm not saying anyone is distorting facts intentionally, but these things take on a life of their own, and the internet makes that easier.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I have no problem if people do not want to give Chik-Fil-A their business. At all. And I understand completely why many people do not. But all too often on facebook, blogs and the like, I see charges made that are distortions of the facts or urban legends that are being taken as facts, and that does bother me. It bothers me regardless of who the target is and who the boycotters are, and whether I agree in principle with either side or not. I just want to see the debate be grounded in the facts.

Hey, I just met you....and this is crazy....


But I just wanted to tell you that you're kind of awesome.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

Hey, I just met you....and this is crazy....

[LaneSig]

If the CEO of Chick-Fil-A doesn't care for the LGBT community, shouldn't he be happy that they are choosing not to eat there?

I keep hearing people say that the CEO is being punished for freedom of speech. IMO, it's not freedom of speech if you are giving money to groups that are actively working to fight equal rights for some people.

Freedom of speech: "I don't really care for Sigma Chis."
Not freedom of speech: "I told my alma mater that I would give them 10K as long as they never allow Sigma Chi on the campus."

[SWTXBelle]

My only problem is with elected officials who want to forbid legal businesses from opening based solely on the stated beliefs of their CEO. Let the market decide which restaurants succeed. Boycott your little hearts out - but don't unilaterally decide that a business which doesn't pass your subjective litmus test can't be allowed to open. That sets a dangerous precedent.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My only problem is with elected officials who want to forbid legal businesses from opening based solely on the stated beliefs of their CEO. Let the market decide which restaurants succeed. Boycott your little hearts out - but don't unilaterally decide that a business which doesn't pass your subjective litmus test can't be allowed to open. That sets a dangerous precedent.

No precedent will be set, because nobody is actually doing this - Menino and (to a somewhat lesser extent) Emmanuel chose bluster because they know that there's approximately a 0% chance (and possibly lower) that they could refuse any sort of permit or similar on basis of these views alone. Which is why they didn't threaten that specifically - just vague notions of "That's not how we do business here, and you should stay away!"

Mumbles may not be the brightest public speaker, but he has plenty of lawyers on staff who know far, far better than what you're proposing.

[SWTXBelle]

Then I'll just hate the bluster.