By now, you are no doubt familiar with the Chick-Fil-A Controversy. The beliefs of CEO Dan Cathy with regard to gay marriage have now made a fast food stand, and the choice to patronize it or not, a political issue. A Chicago alderman has gone on the record as saying that he will use his authority to prevent CFA from opening in his ward; and the mayor of Boston sent a letter saying that CFA is not welcome in his city. (*NOTE: The Boston mayor recently clarified his position on the subject, but my original point abides.) On the other side, August 1st has been set aside as a Support Chick-Fil-A Day, and proponents of "Biblical Values" (country musician Charlie Daniels among them - see third tweet down the page) are encouraging Christians to patronize the place as a show of support.
This controversy is interesting from a liberty-minded point of view, and of course from a Christian point of view, because it brings with it several factors to consider: the free market system; the rights of the individual (and the corporation acting as an individual) to spend their money as they please; whether or not there is a duty for customers to patronize consider the businesses' values when patronizing businesses; and a host of other concerns.
In the interest of full disclosure, let me state that I do not patronize Chick-Fil-A, for a very simple reason: there isn't a Chick-Fil-A within 50 miles of me, and there isn't likely to be one in my city any time soon; see here. If there were a Chick-Fil-A in my city, I would patronize them or not patronize them based on how strongly I was hankering for CFA chicken, and whether or not I was willing to accept the price, and not as a political statement.
The first consideration that comes to my mind about the CFA controversy is the mixing of political views and commerce. I've always found it to be a little dis-ingenuous, if not downright silly, for a public figure such as a musician, actor, or CEO to use his position to advocate for or against a political or social cause. We're all familiar with the controversy caused by Dixie Chicks when they publicly made disparaging statements about George W. Bush and the Iraq War. Similarly, the Dave Matthews Band is quite vocal about Global Warming; Tom Selleck is a proud advocate of gun rights; and magicians Penn & Teller are vocal about their atheism.
The question I ask myself is: Why? What relationship exists between Grammy-winning Country music and the Iraq War? What relationship exists between an excellent Vegas magic show and religion? What relationship exists between delicious chicken and gay rights? The answer is, of course, none. So my first instinct would be to parrot Laura Ingram and say, as the title of her book says, Shut Up and Sing! The problem with this is that it makes me a hypocrite. The Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, Tom Selleck, Penn & Teller, and Dan Cathy all have the same First Amendment rights as I do; and if I were to call up on these people to focus on country music or magic or chicken or whatever, and keep their mouths shut about politics, then I have no right to open my mouth about politics. In other words public figures, whether I like it or not, are free to do and say as they please. It's up to me to decide whether or not I'm going to give them my money.
Which brings me to my next consideration: should the political/social views of a person (or company) factor into my decision whether or not to give them money. This is a tricky question, and it's a question that every person will have to answer for himself or herself. As for me, in the main the answer is "no." Unless the company were advocating or supporting something dangerous or violent, a person (or company's) stance on social issues isn't going to come into play in my decision to give them money.
I'll admit that this has been a hard pill for me to swallow. As a Christian, I have a problem with Penn & Teller's ardent atheism. But, their show in Vegas is magnificent, and I gladly shelled out some serious bucks to see it, and will gladly do so again if I ever make it back to Las Vegas. Similarly, I'm not a fan of the Dave Matthews Band's style of music, so I won't go to their concerts or buy their mp3's. Dave's ridiculous stance on global warming doesn't come into play. As for Chick-Fil-A, their chicken is delicious, and it's available at a reasonable price, so I'll buy it if and when I'm in the mood for CFA chicken.
The final, and in my opinion, most important, issue about the CFA controversy is the matter of the free market. The Chicago alderman who would use his office to keep CFA out of his ward is, in my opinion, clearly wrong. His views about gay marriage are not my concern; he is free to hold and express his views. However, he vowed to use his office to deny the choice of whether or not to patronize CFA from his constituents. If the people of Chicago wanted to deny CFA their business, they could do so and the Chicago franchise would close. If they wanted to patronize CFA anyway, they could do so and the store would remain open. That's the beauty of the free market.
Which brings me to my next consideration: should the political/social views of a person (or company) factor into my decision whether or not to give them money. This is a tricky question, and it's a question that every person will have to answer for himself or herself. As for me, in the main the answer is "no." Unless the company were advocating or supporting something dangerous or violent, a person (or company's) stance on social issues isn't going to come into play in my decision to give them money.
I'll admit that this has been a hard pill for me to swallow. As a Christian, I have a problem with Penn & Teller's ardent atheism. But, their show in Vegas is magnificent, and I gladly shelled out some serious bucks to see it, and will gladly do so again if I ever make it back to Las Vegas. Similarly, I'm not a fan of the Dave Matthews Band's style of music, so I won't go to their concerts or buy their mp3's. Dave's ridiculous stance on global warming doesn't come into play. As for Chick-Fil-A, their chicken is delicious, and it's available at a reasonable price, so I'll buy it if and when I'm in the mood for CFA chicken.
The final, and in my opinion, most important, issue about the CFA controversy is the matter of the free market. The Chicago alderman who would use his office to keep CFA out of his ward is, in my opinion, clearly wrong. His views about gay marriage are not my concern; he is free to hold and express his views. However, he vowed to use his office to deny the choice of whether or not to patronize CFA from his constituents. If the people of Chicago wanted to deny CFA their business, they could do so and the Chicago franchise would close. If they wanted to patronize CFA anyway, they could do so and the store would remain open. That's the beauty of the free market.
Hooter's, like CFA, serves delicious chicken. Hooter's chooses to employ scantily-dressed women to do so. When Hooter's came to my city a decade or so ago, many Christians were quite vocal about their desire not to have a Hooter's in our city. However, the free market prevailed and Hooter's was allowed to open, and remain open to this day. Those Christians who were (or are) unhappy with Hooter's are free not to spend money there. That's the beauty of the free market. If it's good enough for CFA, it's good enough for Hooter's; and there is no need to bring government into play in either situation.
Oddly enough, this is not the first time Chick-Fil-A's social stances have made it a target of controversy. As recently as 2010 the company's stance on gay rights had generated threats of boycotts. Yet the company continues to expand because people continue to eat there. For every CFA hater there is an ardent Christian who makes it a point to spend money there. But if the strident Christians were CFA's only customers, would it continue to be an expanding business even in today's emerging pro-gay culture? Or are the customers who don't care about the company's social stances, and buy CFA chicken because they value it, the ones growing their business? Maybe it always has been, and always will be, just about the chicken.
No comments:
Post a Comment