Joe Knippenberg talks about the Chick-Fil-A boycott on another blog page at First Things, Playing Chicken with the First Amendment.
Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s ringing endorsement of the traditional family has caused quite a stir. More than a few of my Gen X and Millennial former students have vowed (on Facebook) never to darken the doors of their erstwhile favorite chicken restaurant again. I can’t help but wonder if they’re so scrupulous about the political views of the owners of all the businesses they patronize. (For the record, I doubt it. Also for the record, so far as market behavior is concerned, the consumer is sovereign and can make his or her decision on the basis of any information–or misinformation–he or she chooses. Of course, I’d prefer information to misinformation, but markets are imperfect.)
Shopping with political intent is a life complication we can afford since we have so many options thanks to what remains of capitalism in the USA. I will exercise a pro-cott in regards to Chick-Fil-A. Since my children are grown up, I have rare cause to go to fast food chains. However, I do have grandchildren and am happy that they prefer Chick-Fil-A, since I can support the place and feel self-righteous while doing so. If Dan Cathy said, “”Guilty as charged, we are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” then a boycott is a protest against Christian values.
Here’s more, and more.
July 26th, 2012 | 10:27 am
Of course, one of the intentions of those who laid the intellectual foundations for the modern market economy was to restrict the scope of religious, political, and moral contentiousness. This is just one of many cases that demonstrates the “triumph of the human spirit” over the designs of the “engineers of human souls.”
July 26th, 2012 | 11:17 am
I pro-cott Chick-fil-a as well as my favorite Christian California fast food joint, In-N-Out Burger.
Pro-cotting or boycotting specific stores is easier than specific products, I’ve found. My family used to boycott products made in communist countries, but that became impossible about 10 years ago. A big change was when Wal-Mart dropped its “We buy USA” stance and finally embraced Clinton’s economic alliance with the Chinese.
July 26th, 2012 | 12:16 pm
P.S.- Based on the legal reasoning spelled out in this post, I think Chick-Fil-A is probably going to be able to sue the pants off of the City of Chicago: http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/25/no-building-permits-for-opponent-of-same-sex-marriage/
July 26th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
The mayor of Boston backed down. , saying ““I sent (the landlord) a letter, but that’s all. There’s no pressure by me to allow this place to be rented,” he said.” No pressure.
July 27th, 2012 | 2:40 pm
And who in the Democratic Party prominently denounces the mayor? Calls for a resignation, or a public apology, or threatens to move all Dem support to a future primary challenger? Who?
Oh, it’s just a goof-up, says Mayor Menino? So it’s okay?
A mayor of a major city “goofs” in a way that shows an elementary ignorance of and instinctual hostility to the First Amendment, and everything is cool with the Dems?
Give me some names, and I’ll give the Democrats some respect.
July 27th, 2012 | 4:05 pm
Pro-cotting or boycotting specific stores is easier than specific products, I’ve found.
I agree. I’ve found the task of trying to figure out what to buy – or not buy – exhausting and confusing.
Pro-cotting is easier for me than boycotting. It feels better. I don’t enjoy trying to punish businesses, but I do enjoy attempting to reward them.
July 28th, 2012 | 8:24 am
I’m in the midst of a boycott against General Electric and General Motors and I’ll buy foreign before I buy from these traitorous American-commies.
I haven’t brought them to their knees yet but GM’s close!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact