Katie and I have known about a certain chicken chain’s religious and political stances for a while, and we’ve made our decision as to whether or not to eat there. Yet we haven’t made a point of broadcasting our stance all over the internet. It’s come up in conversation with friends, and it’s lead to some interesting discussions, but our choice is our choice,and we respect that other peoples’ choices are their choices, and the world continues to turn. Most people know, or can infer, my politics, but I can hold my opinions without turning it into an excuse to have a flame war with people who disagree with me and, frankly, probably won’t be swayed by any arguments I could make. I’m more interested in the dynamics at play in deciding to tie your business to your politics.
There are a couple of issues here for me. The first is the high-level question of whether it’s even appropriate for companies to have political opinions. The chicken chain’s position has always felt like marketing to me. Sure, they lose a segment of customers who do not agree with their politics, but they gain the deep-seated loyalty of others who share their stance. It is no different than any other company deciding who the target market is and putting all of their resources into dominating that market. The powers-that-be in the chicken chain may genuinely feel strongly about the controversial issue that’s brought them so much publicity of late, but I cannot believe that there wasn’t a high-level discussion about business impact at some point.
The difficulty in a company taking a political stance is that once you go there, it’s hard to go back. There are some products that can only be marketed to one demographic, but food isn’t any of them. As a businessman, I want all of the customers I can possibly get. I want to grow the business. I want to make money, not just for myself, but for my stakeholders. I want to create jobs, and I want the best employees. I want those employees to be comfortable with me, the company, and their job. A political stance not only excludes a number of customers, it begins to exclude a segment of potential employees, some of whom might be the best and brightest in the field. You may not be refusing to hire them based on their politics, but they’re not going to apply to your company because of yours. You have limited your company’s potential.
The other issue is a matter of my privacy as the business owner, and the privacy of my employees. The world does not need to know my politics. While you can probably draw some conclusions based on the causes I personally support and am vocal about, all that really tells you is that that one thing is important to me. I can quietly contribute to any cause, politician, or party I choose without making all of the details public. If I did so through Asparagus Jumpsuit, there would be much more visibility and transparency. What I do personally does not reflect as much on my employees; what I do through my business implies that my employees agree with me, and that may not be the case. There is “guilt by association”, and if there is a backlash my employees may suffer for my decision. True, that could happen with any decision, but in the current politically divided environment it is less likely that my employees would have to deal with personal fallout from my business-motivated decisions than they would from my politically motivated ones.
That said, I don’t know if it’s appropriate for companies to take the other stance, either. In the wake of statements made by the head of the chicken chain, other companies have come out on the other side of the issue. Again, there’s a marketing feel to this, as if they’re bolstering the loyalty of their existing customer base, and not so much worried about losing people who probably aren’t their customers anyway.
What do you think? Is it appropriate for companies to take official stances on issues, or should they stick to doing their core business?
Here’s where I come from: it is not only inappropriate for companies to have political opinions, I believe that it is *impossible* for them to do so. How so? opinions are formed and held by people, and there has been a large segment of the population (including those who want to boycott said chicken chain for its supposed ‘opinion) who have maintained that corporations are *not* people.
Now, if you want to go ahead an boycott the company fine, do so. But understand this: you will not be hurting the execs who formed the opinion that you (that would be the generic ‘you’) find distasteful and mistakenly attribute to a non-human corporation. Rather, you will be hurting your local economy, by causing a local franchise to suffer, local people will lose jobs, and I will miss out on a chicken sandwich that I find rather tasty, and the best chicken biscuit breakfast out there.
To each his own, but don’t expect me to not be grumpy if I can’t have my chicken biscuit.
Nobody ever said that corporations were people. That is a strawman set up by left wing politicians to cater to their base of radicals and loonies. What was said, and was affirmed by the Supreme Court time and again since 1819 and the Dartmouth vs Woodward decision, was that corporations have most of the same rights under the constitution as people have, and that includes freedom of speech. Like it or not, it has been encoded in the laws of this country for almost as long as the constitution itself has existed.
Right, and in those cases the rights of corporations is referred to as “corporate personhood”.
This is a fascinating discussion. I personally think that corporations might as well support the same things as their demographics. Whether it’s appropriate or not is irrelevant. If it’s a bad business decision, the corporation will suffer. You point this all out already though.
This does give me pause for thought though. I don’t eat at Chick-fil-a because I’ve never seen one up here in Canada, but I have eaten at KFC and I imagine they sell roughly the same product – Deep-Fried Salty Chicken. I won’t stereotype the sorts of people who regularly eat at places like this, I’ve been known to stop at a KFC once in a while, but generally I prefer something different.
I will draw some parallels though. Homosexuality is historically a privilege of the wealthy and only tangibly manifests when a society has enough freedom to pursue trivialities. I’m sure there has always been homosexual people in all ages and of all social classes, but only wealthy societies allow homosexuality to become a cultural force. The modern world is no exception to this. Homosexuals are widely recognized in the more entitled corners of American society, but less so in the poorer swaths.
One might also infer that people who are wealthy and open-minded enough to take logical and measured consideration on subjects such as homosexuality, might also be wealthy and open-minded enough to consider that fried chicken is not healthy for regular ingestion. While poorer people likely wouldn’t have the inclination or the opportunity to make such a distinction.
So I definitely think that there was a very real degree of demographic identification with the statements that the COO made, I do think they underestimated the degree gay people and their supporters use and influence others through social media these days and were taken off guard by the backlash.
Either way, I agree with you. It’s interesting, and I give you cudos for looking at the situation in this way. Thanks.
Pingback: What’s Not On Fox Today | Schoonerhelm's Blog
Personally, I think they have as much right to not accept gay marriage as the people who want gay marriage. If fundamentally they truly believe homosexual love is wrong, who am I to say what they believe is wrong? No matter how much the supporters want you to believe it is the same as being racist against blacks, it really is not the same.
Plus they have good sandwiches which are a step above actual fast food.
I am in no way questioning their right to an opinion, whether religious or political. I just wonder if it makes any business sense. Hank’s point regarding harm to local economies fits with my statement that using my business as a platform opens my employees up to bear the backlash. Had the owners made private donations rather than thr
ough the company I doubt we would even be having this conversation.
In my mind, the real question here isn’t whether or not the people who run a company have a right to have opinions, it’s whether or not they’re allowed to use their company’s economic power to promote and enforce these opinions. A CEO can be as homophobic as he or she pleases in private, but should said executive be free to create (officially or unofficially) employment policies that reflect that bias, or to tolerate or even encourage a hostile workplace because of those biases? More, should corporate money be allowed used to support lobbyists, candidates, and parties whose politics match the CEO rather than simply be good for business.
In a purely practical sense, institutionalizing prejudice through corporate action may or may not be a good idea, depending on who your customer base is and what you’re selling. It might make good business sense, or it might not, depending on the costs associated with prejudice.
However, people who run companies are people, and are often willing to make decisions based on something other than an abstract idea of good business.
I’m at least a little conflicted. I would like to think that corporations and executives have some responsibility to the greater good of society. I’d like to think that responsibility trumps profit, in some cases. It’s hard to see how this can be done without allowing that corporations, through their institutional habits, have some kind of political bias. For that matter, focus on the bottom line above all, regardless of partisan politics is itself a political stance.
On the other hand, I think corporate money has no place in the politics of a just democracy. Individuals may express political opinions and support political causes, but it’s too easy for one person’s opinion plus a ton of money to drown out the voices of many, many poorer people.
Overall, I think I come down in favor of separating individual opinion from institutional power as much as possible. So let the Chicken Barons believe as they will. But make it clear that they will not be allowed to use their business to push those beliefs on other.
Sorry if that was too rambly.
Except that just about everything in your post is completely wrong. The CEO of the company is NOT creating a hostile workplace for homosexuals. I believe gay marriage is wrong, too, but I don’t go around dragging gays from the back bumper of my car as a show of my general disapproval of their lifestyle. You can be against gay marriage without being a gay basher. In the same vein, Chick Fil A is not discriminating against them in their hiring or promotion practices, nor are they prohibiting gays from eating there, so where’s the discrimination you claim is happening? Also, Chick Fil A is a 100% family owned company, it is not a publicly traded corporation so any opinions they express publicly actually do represent the views of all the stakeholders. You might make the argument that they don’t represent the views of all the shareholders in a publicly traded company, but not in this case. Another mistake you made is in calling this country a democracy, it is not. It is a constitutional republic. There’s a big difference. And how are they forcing their beliefs on anyone else? You’re free to agree or disagree as you will. They are not doing anything that would harm you in any way for your dissent or to force you over to their side of the issue.
I’m sorry, Joe, I missed the point where I wrote Chick-Fil-A is discriminatory in their hiring practices. I DID write “You may not be refusing to hire them based on their politics, but they’re not going to apply to your company because of yours.”.
Maybe you think I’m wrong on just about every point because you’re reading things into what I write that aren’t actually there.
And you’re right, Chick-Fil-A has never been sued for discrimination against homosexuals. They’re only being sued for discrimination against women.
I stand by my actual point, which is that using your business to take a controversial stance — no matter the type of business, no matter the stance — limits the potential of the business.
I wasn’t replying to you, I was replying to Lon Sarver above. If I had been replying to you, I would have made a separate post and not clicked the reply button under someone else’s comment.
Joe, my reply was in general. I wasn’t trying to comment on Chick Fil A in specific. I was using it as a springboard for a broader comment.
Take a look at this analysis: http://www.christandpopculture.com/featured/the-chick-fi-asco-why-boycotts-are-awful/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-chick-fi-asco-why-boycotts-are-awful
The author pretty well displays why he thinks boycotts and counter-boycotts are futile and ultimately counter-productive.
As a vegetarian, I do not believe that gay people should eat chicken. Just kidding. I am a vegetarian for my own reasons; I am not about to tell anyone else what they should or should not eat. If they know I’m a vegetarian, and it does come out, and they want to know why, they can ask, and I will tell them. It’s simple.
I am actually following a religious path that is clearly not approving of same-sex love; however my brother is gay and has been with the same guy for 21 years and even got legally married in Britain (God has not destroyed London). This makes a difference to me; there are many people I love or at least feel friendship for who are gay. lesbian, and all that. Good people, and while I know their orientation, they do not get gross in public just as my wife and I do not. So who is being hurt? The haters. And it is about hate–the religion most often cited in condemning homosexuality also forbids hating, judging, and condemning, but it is obvious that hate overrides all that. It is possible to be quite uncomfortable with homosexuality and still be tolerant; my guess is that is what a lot of Americans feel.
I believe that companies who are sharply run will not take stands on this sort of thing. it polarizes people–you lose customers and good employees, you get a lot of jerks on both sides making noise–feh! Who needs it? Just stick to the chicken, knowing that in 40 years you will not be looking like a real jerk like all the segregationists did. (Imagine explaining to your half-Latino grandkids why you were holding up a “Whites Only” sign at 20.)
The operators of Chic-Fil-A have the right to express their views. Absolutely. But that doesn’t mean that doing so is wise, kind, or good business. Maybe they are too dumb to deserve a successful business. And though I do have my own prejudices, I would feel the same about anyone on the other side who used their business as a bully pulpit. That is not what it is for. Just treat everyone the same; keep the good employees and let the bad ones go, and treat your customers right. Anything else is bad business.
Really–is there anything more to it?
Thanks for getting my point, Paul. This isn’t about any particular company or issue, it’s about what constitutes good business practices.
Nobody hates gays. Hate the sin but love the sinner is what Christianity says, so it isn’t even an issue of hating gays. that’s just a strawman.
Joe, I sure wish that were true. Having had several beatings in our area–and one beating that turned into a murder–committed by people who identified as Christians against gays–or in the case of the murder, against a guy they incorrectly assumed was gay–it is often hard to see any “love” for the “sinner.”
Saying it’s just a strawman is denial. People are being harmed. A proper “strawman” argument would be like saying that churches would be forced to celebrate same-sex unions (not true) or that it would weaken existing marriage (Huh?). The noble bishop of Oakland told those two lies right in front of me (a visit at a mass I was attending). If he is right that SSUs are wrong, why is his argument based on lies (not misrepresentation, not inaccuracy–lies).
I know who the father of lies is. And when we lie, who are we serving?
I do think it a case of “hate the sin, not the sinner” is in most cases. But there are too many cases where people do things that only make sense if they hate. And most haters are going to wrap some BS around their hate: faith, patriotism, political correctness, anti-racism, feminism, whatever…all good things, but then haters seldom come out as haters–they always adopt some pose of being “good” people to justify doing what their hate drives them to do.
I don’t think most people who oppose same-sex unions are haters. They just don’t agree that SSUs would be appropriate. But there are some haters. Do you think Fred Phelps is a Christian? I don’t. He does. But I can’t think of a single thing he says or does that is keeping with the teachings of Christ. He is very Old Testament–but that is not Christian. Is it fair to me to judge? Sometimes. Do you think Stalin was a bad man?
As for me, that a business comes out with a stand and is honest about it, bothers me very little. It’s honest. And I truly believe Chik-Fil-A is not hating. They certainly are not lying. They are just taking a stand. Good business? Maybe not, but it is honest and not hating, so all they get from me is a shrug.
I think your last paragraph is what Joe was driving at. But, well said.
I’m going a wee bit off topic, but I wonder if we would even be having this conversation if the whole Muppet debacle hadn’t happened. I wonder, because I’ve known about their beliefs for a few years now and I’m just baffled that it should suddenly be in the limelight again now. Why now?
I actually hadn’t heard of the Muppet connection until I read up on the Chick-Fil-A announcement.
As far as I know, this is the first time they’ve stepped up to make a point of their beliefs, and state outright that they’re making business policy based on these beliefs.
Personally, I think it’s because it’s a presidential election year, and there’s a whole lot of folks lining up to stand with or against whatever it is they’re for or opposing.
Mind you, I’d never heard of Chick-Fil-A before this, so I might have missed a memo or two about them.
OK. Once again. The problem has NEVER been that one form of marriage or another was illegal, the problem has ALWAYS been that marriage was legal. Period.
The only way it makes sense where the government, ANY government, becomes involved is if they’re all civil (economic) unions. “Marriage” is a religious institution and should have nothing to do with legislation at all.
But, now we’re getting into the ties between commerce and religion. Given the history of our nation I find it hard to say business owners shouldn’t be able to do with their business what they please, but there is the rub – Corporations as people, individuals. We’re forced by Chick Fil A’s policy (in addition to supporting atrocious grammar) to draw from “This IS our company’s stance,” that, “this OUGHT to be our employees’ stance.”
Now, if I’m an owner operator of a hot dog cart and I want to be homophobic, that’s fine, but I know as an independent owner operator that this will hurt my business. I’m not going to do it. The executives and principles behind this chicken chain are using their relative anonymity and the size of the corporation as a shield. It doesn’t matter to them if a store closes here and there. This just gives them valuable demographic data. Hell, these boycotts probably do more FOR them in the long run than they do against them in the short term.
Given that, I find it hard to draw a causative line from the boycotters to any individual closing. Me? I don’t eat there for two reasons. 1) I only ever ate there once, and a chicken sandwich is a chicken sandwich. 2) My wife has diet issues and CAN’T eat most places, let alone there. However, the point was made else where that boycotting is a legitimate political tool – you are “voting” with your dollar. The private sector is where you CAN do this, so if you feel passionately, why would you not.
Helmsman makes some pretty insightful points about the nature of class and income in this bruhaha, and I would love to see some more written about that by our so called news media. There is a whole bunch of cultural baggage here that I think is being largely ignored because it’s boring and/or difficult to look at.
A chicken sandwich is most certainly NOT a chicken sandwich. Chick Fil A is the one everyone tries to copy and usually fails at. Go to McDonalds and try the Southern Style Chicken sandwich there. It is a pale imitation of the Chick Fil A sandwich.
I’ve eaten both, and any thing I can do better at home on my Foreman grill or in a pan on my stove with a little oil? Is just a sandwich. Sorry. Arguments about aesthetics and the vagaries of personal taste are out side the confines of this argument.
(for the record, if I recall correctly, at the time I swore it was one of the best chicken sandwiches I ever ate; but I’ve eaten a lot of them since; most of them I made myself.)
One last observation from me. I was able to attend a meeting where the features speaker was the advertising guy whose company developed the iconic cow brand for Chik Fil A. He noted that they are very successful in spite of doing things that don’t make much business sense. Things like selling chicken sandwiches in what was thought a burger-domniated market and closing on Sundays for example. While it mystifies business geniuses, it apparently has found its niche.