• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chick-fil-A changes position

Tigger said:
I believe in a concept which I refer to as Universal Morality. Its basis is the common, core components of the successful per-20th century societies, which I believe form an almost instinctive level of Morality which we have not forgotten but chosen to ignore in the last century.
Click to expand...

gotcha!....
 
IMO Chik-Fil-A believes they made a PR mistake, that people thought that their support of traditional marriage meant that they discriminated in hiring and serving people. It was never true, but they clearly realized that they had to clarify that position, and went a step further to ensure that the charitable foundations they give to in the future will not be politically involved in opposition to same sex marriage.

Instead of digging their heels in and doubling down, they did the reasonable thing by acknowledging that some people didn't understand where they were coming from as a business.

One thing they did NOT do was state that they support same sex marriage, an important point.
 
ChuckBerry said:
One thing they did NOT do was state that they support same sex marriage, an important point.
Click to expand...

Not opposing it is the same as supporting it for many of us, Chuck.
 
joko104 said:
Your assumed analysis of why the change is completely wrong. It was likely NOT a "profit" decision at all - plus this all has been extremely profitable to the company. But to some non-religious people I suppose they could conclude all of life is only about money, so I can understand your assumption.
Click to expand...

Not all of life. Just for-profit companies. They're a business, not a ministry.
 
Tigger said:
Not opposing it is the same as supporting it for many of us, Chuck.
Click to expand...

A corporation need not make political contributions, corporations don't need to be for/against any social issue. Corporations ought to be involved only with providing their product or service and advocating for legislation involving their business. What the owners of the corporation chose to do with the profits as private citizens is their business, and I am sure that the CEO of Chik-Fil-A is just as actively opposed to SSM in his private life as he ever was.
 
disneydude said:
Chick-Fil-A realized that bigotry was going to substantially hurt their long term profits.
Click to expand...
They were't bigoted in the first place. This all started because Chick-Fil-A catered a marital health event held by a normal religious group.

Please stop the hysteria.
 
VanceMack said:
In this case...they saved about 3.2 million in donations.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. Personally I find it stupid to donate to groups that are pro-SSM or anti-SSM when there are people dying due to no food or medical care.
 
Jerry said:
This all started because Chick-Fil-A catered a marital health event held by a normal religious group.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but it certainly led to the disclosure of their bigoted views. Although I do have to hand it to them that they are enlightened enough to change their views (even if it is based on the almight dollar).
 
What if...? said:
The free market at work.

Act like a dick and people will withhold their custom.

Thats how its supposed to work.
Click to expand...
Where did you see it reported that Chick-Fail-A was suffering a decline in sales?
 
Jerry said:
Where did you see it reported that Chick-Fail-A was suffering a decline in sales?
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe this change in position was brought about "out of the goodness of their hearts"? Serious. This is plain and simply a business decision.
 
disneydude said:
Do you actually believe this change in position was brought about "out of the goodness of their hearts"? Serious. This is plain and simply a business decision.
Click to expand...


First of all I see no proof other than a Chicago Alderman that this is even true, secondly, I'm in business and it would be extremely difficult to gauge any economic information so soon after this event last month. I'd need at least a year, maybe 6 months before I could claim a loss in sales due to any specific variable.

I don't know why they would change their minds anyway? For what reason; even if it was financial, surely the hit wouldn't be that bad? What's wrong with supporting traditional marriage over homo marriage? I mean I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric from folks like you using words like bigot and homophobe as if they have any real substance to them in this context.. It's laughable frankly and only works on people who have weak constitutions. A complicit media machine along with a science light industry is not enough to turn me from the all important realization that men and women are supposed to be together sexually. From that natural (in the common understanding) relationship spawns a bond we call marriage. We recognize it and as a society we embrace and revere the bonding as beneficial to us as a whole. I don't see that in MSM and FSF bondings. I see a breakdown in the evolution engine that drives our species and all species on Earth. You want to embrace that design, then all the power to you, but to say that anyone that does not rever it must be a bigot, is frankly laughable.

You and the homophiles like you are free to continue on your campaign for rights, but I and many others are also free to oppose them. Opposing them seems more appropriate than supporting a socity that would openly embrace such clearly unusual pairings.


Tim-
 
disneydude said:
Do you actually believe this change in position was brought about "out of the goodness of their hearts"? Serious. This is plain and simply a business decision.
Click to expand...
So the answer to Jerry's question is "nowhere" then. You're making an assumption based on your prejudice against Chik-Fil-A.
 
ChuckBerry said:
So the answer to Jerry's question is "nowhere" then. You're making an assumption based on your prejudice against Chik-Fil-A.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty obvious that if a company changes its stance on an issue, it's doing so for some business related reason. Does this mean Chik-Fil-A is currently seeing lost profits? Not necessarily. It might mean that. It might mean they're worried it'll start to happen. It might be some more subtle public relations concern. Who the hell knows? But yeah, companies make decisions largely based on concerns of profit and the welfare of the company more broadly, so it stands to reason that profits have something to do with this decision (assuming it's true).
 
Aderleth said:
It seems pretty obvious that if a company changes its stance on an issue, it's doing so for some business related reason. Does this mean Chik-Fil-A is currently seeing lost profits? Not necessarily. It might mean that. It might mean they're worried it'll start to happen. It might be some more subtle public relations concern. Who the hell knows? But yeah, companies make decisions largely based on concerns of profit and the welfare of the company more broadly, so it stands to reason that profits have something to do with this decision (assuming it's true).
Click to expand...

Hardly. My guess is that the damage if any has already been done, and no one who wouldn't eat there before is going to eat there now because of a change of heart. This is why I can't believe they actually did change anything? The donations are from the owner and I suspect that they'll continue privately so why change your position at all?

Now, if you compare this to the Government Motors situation you can see quite clearly and with a full illustration of why they want to distance themselves from ANY form of political influence. :)

This however is not the same.

Tim-
 
Chik-Fil-A didn't change its stance on anything. Don't know why people keep saying that.
 
Hicup said:
Hardly. My guess is that the damage if any has already been done,
Click to expand...

You just said in your last post that the effects, if any, wouldn't be noticeable for like six months; and you were probably right. So no, the damage has not already been done. It's a work in progress.

Hicup said:
and no one who wouldn't eat there before is going to eat there now because of a change of heart.
Click to expand...

To the extent that people would boycott the place for their political position, they'd certainly stop boycotting if they got the change in position that caused the boycott.

Hicup said:
This is why I can't believe they actually did change anything? The donations are from the owner and I suspect that they'll continue privately so why change your position at all?
Click to expand...

No idea. But since they're a business, probably due to some aspect of profits, branding/marketing, or the like.
 
Aderleth said:
You just said in your last post that the effects, if any, wouldn't be noticeable for like six months; and you were probably right. So no, the damage has not already been done. It's a work in progress.



To the extent that people would boycott the place for their political position, they'd certainly stop boycotting if they got the change in position that caused the boycott.



No idea. But since they're a business, probably due to some aspect of profits, branding/marketing, or the like.
Click to expand...

Private company and the owner is still an evil homophobe so even if they changed their position on the surface it likely does not reflect any real change in private.

Either way, boycot away.. I do it. I don't buy from many companies due to their political leanings.

Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Private company and the owner is still an evil homophobe so even if they changed their position on the surface it likely does not reflect any real change in private.

Either way, boycot away.. I do it. I don't buy from many companies due to their political leanings.

Tim-
Click to expand...

I've never boycotted anything. I generally don't give a **** what a company's political lean is. On the other hand, I'd never eat at chik-fil-a for the same reason I don't eat any fast food: it's disgusting and really unhealthy.
 
Jerry said:
Where did you see it reported that Chick-Fail-A was suffering a decline in sales?
Click to expand...

I didn't. Can you think of another reason they would change their position?
 
disneydude said:
Do you honestly believe that they changed their position "out of the goodness of their hearts"? Come on! This is a business decision, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Obviously that is not accurate. It is well known (now) that the CEO is a very devote conventional Christian. That was the reason for his position and I suspect the reason for his change in practice, not belief. The practice was causing conflict and consternation to people, so he stopped.
 
joko104 said:
Obviously that is not accurate. It is well known (now) that the CEO is a very devote conventional Christian. That was the reason for his position and I suspect the reason for his change in practice, not belief. The practice was causing conflict and consternation to people, so he stopped.
Click to expand...

Right. Since he's religious he must have changed his company's openly religious stance (in accordance with his views) for a purely moral reason. I'm sure business interests have nothing to do with it. :roll:
 
Interesting posts-
Seems some who enjoy being a party of one keep using terms like 'a majority of us'.
it doesn't mean much to boycott or support a business that isn't in your state or if one is you never have or will set foot in one no matter the issue.

IF Chik felt it was a simple PR problem rather than stop supporting anti-SSM organizations they would have just made announcements that they do not deny employment to gay folks. Their withdrawal of support for anti-SSM organizations seems overkill for just clearing up the hiring policy.

I think it also overstates the action to claim the CEO has changed his mind on risking Gawd's wrath. I'll bet a shiny nickle he still thinks it is so.

DOES show that the Board thinks it is bad for business to funnel money to anti-SSM groups. Businesses are in the business of making money and the Board must feel continuing to fund anti-SSM activities doesn't help the bottomline.

Wonder how the Oreo boycott is going?
 
disneydude said:
Do you actually believe this change in position was brought about "out of the goodness of their hearts"? Serious. This is plain and simply a business decision.
Click to expand...
So...you don't have any real information...you're just assuming....ok.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom