Chick-Fil-A and Gay Marriage

[RWBooneJr]

A better example might be Cracker Barrel, which was demonstrated to have exercised racial discrimination, both toward customers and in its employment practices, as I recall.

I haven't eaten at a Cracker Barrel in two decades. Cracker Barrel's official corporate policy until 1991 was, essentially: "if you're gay, you're fired." (This policy, though disgusting, was very much legal, by the way). That changed in response to public pressure, though sexual orientation was not added to Cracker Barrel's official non-descrimination policy for another decade. About five years ago, the company was also found by the Justice Department to have been descriminating based on race and Cracker Barrel agreed to a fine. The DOJ found evidence of discrimination both in hiring and against customers, and, if I recall correctly, one of the more colorful findings was that Cracker Barrel was segregating its dining rooms by race -- basically seating people by color.

From recent evidence, Cracker Barrel -- a publicly traded company -- appears to have gotten its act together. Still, I'm not inspired to race back in for a meal. But part of that may be that I don't recall it being all that great in the first place.

[DC Deb]

Cracker Barrel was segregating its dining rooms by race -- basically seating people by color.

I have personally experienced that. My friends and I were placed in a back room at a dirty table. When I complained to their HQ, they replied that their internal review showed no errors.

I don't knowingly support places that discriminate.

[Rhone1998]

(This policy, though disgusting, was very much legal, by the way).

is, unfortunately.

[Barbara]

Geez, I go out of town for a week without access to the Intertubes, and a discussion like this one breaks out. The contradictions between the freedom of speech/religion clause and the equal protection clause is why we have lawyers in the first place.

What hasn't been thoroughly discussed here, however, is something that just amazes me whenever it occurs: the lack of understanding of just what it means to have "Freedom of Speech." Yes, you can pretty much say (or write) anything you want about just about anything--with a few exceptions like yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater--and the government can't put you in jail for it. That doesn't mean you will never be held to account for what you say, though. Every time a celebrity of whatever sort says something truly offensive to many people, or something just plain stupid, s/he never seems to fail to be surprised at the backlash. And, there is always a backlash. Why someone, whose livelihood relies on people to buy tickets to his shows or buy his products, doesn't understand that nobody is required to buy such products or watch such shows and still mouths off in public always leaves me gobsmacked.

Purely as an individual, I refuse to patronize a whole host of people or companies who publicly hold views I consider appalling, immoral, unpatriotic--pick a term. That's why you will find me in the aisles of the supermarket scrutinizing the small print on the back labels of paper products, for instance. That's why you won't find me spending any money at CFA. I have never set foot in a WalMart and never intend to. Does that make any difference to said companies? I doubt it; but, I can live with myself.

In his letter to CFA, the Mayor of Boston is exercising his own freedom of speech and will be held to account for it by the voters. If he acts in a way that violates CFA's equal protection rights, the lawyers will get involved. But, by making it more difficult for CFA to open in Boston, he is holding them accountable for their public opinions on matters that have nothing to do with selling fast-food chicken. The people of Boston will have their say as well.

Democracy is messy and that's why I love it so.

[jayandstacey]

In his letter to CFA, the Mayor of Boston is exercising his own freedom of speech and will be held to account for it by the voters. If he acts in a way that violates CFA's equal protection rights, the lawyers will get involved. But, by making it more difficult for CFA to open in Boston, he is holding them accountable for their public opinions on matters that have nothing to do with selling fast-food chicken. The people of Boston will have their say as well.

Yes. Through all this, CFA could actually end up with a restaurant in Boston that's more popular than it ever would have been without the publicity....Maybe.

I am sure that I buy things every day from businesses whose leaders are so ideologically different from me that I would stop buying if I knew. When I do know, I do stop buying. But you don't always know, because not all business leaders share their personal values on social issues with their stakeholders. However, it's getting easier and easier to track donations, so people don't have to actually voice their views...you just have to follow the money.

You don't always know, and to some degree, every large company could potentially have a leader with opinions that don't align with my own, or a donation to an organization I don't agree with. But I also believe that most corporations have a profit motive that, by and large, knows that nuetrality and sticking to what they do well is their best course.

I use the "foist" test. Are they trying to foist their opinions or organizations upon me? If so, then I'll natually take a look - and may be turned away fom the company. Likewise, are their actions so unusal that someone else (like, say, the Mayor of Boston) decides to foist them into my field of view? Well, then again I'll take a look but with the understanding that the info is second-hand.

This is a decidedly passive approach that works for me; I have a life to lead and can't take every purchase and research the moral implications. But it's pretty easy to not return to CFA.

[deangold]

"if you're gay, you're fired." (This policy, though disgusting, was very much legal, by the way).

Still is legal in 38 states today.

[The Hersch]

Still is legal in 38 states today.

Happily, not legal in our fair city.

[Tujague]

Telling a land owner who he should or shouldn't rent the property to is absurd. Intimidating an innocent landowner for political gain is equally absurd. Offering tax benefits as an inducement to not enter into a lease? Sounds like bribery. Tyranny of the majority this is. I'm sure the opposite happens in the bible belt and that's equally despicable.

Take that, innocent landowners!

[sheldman]

Take that, innocent landowners!

("that" being a link to a piece on Slate titled "How to ban Chick-Fil-A from your city," suggesting that all you have to do is provide that fast food chain restaurants in the city must be open 7 days per week, and then Chick-Fil-A won't be able to open because they close on Sunday)

This too brings up an important lesson in life: don't believe much that you read on Slate, especially if written by this writer, who has the annoying habit of believing that a good undergraduate education, and the ability to reason from first principles of his own devising, make him an expert on everything. I know just enough about the law, in this area, to know that it is not necessarily that simple. Conceivable that he has studied up on the law known as RLUIPA, as well as on the question of whether a facially neutral law can be constitutionally challenged as a subterfuge for religious discrimination - but I sure doubt it.

[DonRocks]

[Would love to squeeze some more juice from this mango before it turns sour.

Not that there's anything wrong with the current discussion, mind you, but it was so good before that things seem relatively wan.]

[bettyjoan]

So, I live in Georgia - a place where 1) there are more Chick-fil-a restaurants per capita than probably anywhere else, and 2) there are a LOT of people who will, in fact, "eat mor chikin" BECAUSE of Mr. Cathy's recent statements. My husband and I decided about a year ago, after some (read: probably way too much) discussion, that we couldn't eat at CFA anymore and feel good about ourselves and where our money was going. No biggie - we didn't make a big deal about it, CFA didn't give a lick, and everyone went about their business.

Reading this article/statement today (and the comments, which are always a joy no matter what the topic), from a local CFA operator, made me think a little more. Did it change my mind? Probably not, but it definitely makes me even more upset that the views of one person can affect the business success or failure of so many others. Yes, the chose to open CFA franchises, and of course they knew the company's values, but still...food for thought, so to speak.

http://www.decaturmetro.com/2012/07/26/a-statement-from-the-decatur-chick-fil-a-owneroperators/

[The Hersch]

While I think that Waitman is correct on legal grounds, I want to raise a toast to The Hersch, not only for restating much more clearly and eloquently his thoughts, but for pushing those of us who are gay or gay-supportive to taking a more radical view toward the civil-rights nature of this issue. That is to say, when one ponders the implications of truly seeing this as not simply as friends and family being able to have a legal wedding, but as truly a matter of their deprivation of civil rights--human rights--to a class of citizens, and thus an issue of oppression, then it does take on deeper ethical implications that ask more of us than kind thoughts.

Belatedly, thanks, not so much for the toast as for the point you go on to make. You know, for a long time I thought the gay community or the people who claimed to lead the gay community were making a big mistake focusing on marriage equality, believing that marriage equality was less important than empowerment across a range of other issues, and that a focus on marriage might alienate a lot of people who could otherwise be recruited as political allies. It turns out that practically everyone who is offended by all the ways the larger society has marginalized and oppressed gay people is also in favor of marriage equality. And although there is still a huge hostility to gay marriage, it is no huger than hostility to gay people in general, and is waning with almost stupefying rapidity--less rapidly in the US than in Europe, to be sure, but the US is always a little behind Europe in things like this. It's a bit embarrassing, perhaps, to be behind Spain and Portugal in matters of social progress, but we're catching up.

So yes, the larger issue is not what position we take on fast-food chains moving into our neighborhoods according as they might favor or disfavor gay marriage. It's how we can move forward together to a consensus that all people have a right to the same freedoms and the same powers, to the point where people like the owners of Chick-fil-A would not express the views they have expressed because they would be ashamed -- not to express them, but to hold them.

One last remark: I'd like to make explicit that Waitman, in his lengthy and measured reply to my little speech, convinced me that I was wrong, for which I thank him. It's a good thing to talk and listen, and not to shout, and we both did too much of the latter before reverting to the former.

[Ericandblueboy]

So yes, the larger issue is not what position we take on fast-food chains moving into our neighborhoods according as they might favor or disfavor gay marriage. It's how we can move forward together to a consensus that all people have a right to the same freedoms and the same powers, to the point where people like the owners of Chick-fil-A would not express the views they have expressed because they would be ashamed -- not to express them, but to hold them.

Absolutely. There's no reason to trample on other people's constitutional rights. It may be more expedient that way but in the long run, it's much more important to eradicate discrimination through enlightenment as opposed to oppression.

[lperry]

The development that I find most interesting is the ACLU taking the side of CFA. This move puts right-wing, Christian supporters of CFA (many of whom are my relatives) in an unusual position of having to rethink their ideas about the ACLU's "attacks" on Christianity. A welcome paradox that may make people think instead of shout.

[jayandstacey]

Reading this article/statement today (and the comments, which are always a joy no matter what the topic), from a local CFA operator, made me think a little more. Did it change my mind? Probably not, but it definitely makes me even more upset that the views of one person can affect the business success or failure of so many others. Yes, the chose to open CFA franchises, and of course they knew the company's values, but still...food for thought, so to speak.

http://www.decaturme...owneroperators/

and the owner summarized..."yes, we pocket all the benefits that come from the mother ship's advertising campaigns and continue to do so. We'd like you to ignore the parts about them you don't like, if you don't like what they're saying about gay marriage. Essentially, we'd like to ensure the most profitable stance on this, the position that benefits us the most. Either way you think about what corporate is doing, X% of each dollar you spend at my store will flow to them."

The development that I find most interesting is the ACLU taking the side of CFA. This move puts right-wing, Christian supporters of CFA (many of whom are my relatives) in an unusual position of having to rethink their ideas about the ACLU's "attacks" on Christianity. A welcome paradox that may make people think instead of shout.

I was thinking yesterday that there was some kind of "full circle" irony/paradox here that I couldn't put my finger on - and there it is. Like they're getting a taste of their own medicine in Boston, huh?

[Tujague]

An interesting (if biased) account about gay Chick-fil-a employees. I'd be curious to know if what they describe about Cfa here is really all that different from the work culture at other fast-food franchises. This doesn't really seem like damning evidence that the overall corporate culture is exceptionally homophobic, and varies quite a bit from franchise to franchise.

[Waitman]

A couple interesting (I hope) additions to this discussion.

First, a demographics/dollars-and-cents look at the controversy, from the Journal.

And a local angle involving Art & Soul here on the Hill. One wonders how the activists would react if Republicans/conservatives organized a boycott of (or an opposite sex kiss-in in front of) Mr. Smith's restaurant which -- given its Hill location -- surely gets substantial business from Republican staffers, lobbyists and the type of power lunch crowd that might be heasitant to bring a guest someplace "controversial."

Anyone know what the lines are like for their food truck these days?

[thetrain]

A colorful viewpoint.

[TedE]

Anyone know what the lines are like for their food truck these days?

If Farragut Square yesterday is any indication, entirely unaffected or possibly increased. They had the longest queue by FAR at lunch time yesterday

[The Hersch]

A colorful viewpoint.

I must say, I don't find that logically compelling. Rhetorically, it's rather one-note, is it not?

[dcs]

I wonder why this seems to be a one-issue company. What is their view on the Affordable Care Act of 2010?