well, that's why I added the caveat, depending on how antagonistic.
Chick-Fil-A's position was that of any well-meaning but, ultimately out-dated Christian orthodoxy. It wasn't too radical. From what I remember they were solemn statements, hoping to sway some public opinion on what they believed were dire winds blowing. Anyway, it's all done and over with now. They lost.
C'est la vie.
But, in general I don't think businesses should feel like they are going to lose business because of political opinions. I think business should survive based on market principles, not on left or right wing partisan politics, that have nothing to do with chicken or pizza.
However, Papa John is an abhorrent and disgusting public figure, in my opinion, but, I find hyper-conservatism abhorrent and disgusting.
I still order Papa John's because pizza is pizza and politics is politics. One should feel confident enough to defeat those ideas that Papa John espouses in the intellectual arena, and recognize that selling pizza is in the domain of the stomach.
Basically, in my opinion a business shouldn't be discouraged from using their platform to effect the change they want to see in society by threat of mass boycott. And I don't think the boycott's would gain enough momentum to ultimately close a business down. I think the product, if it has been successful in the past, will continue to be successful, no matter the politics it become associated with.
However, if business are engaging themselves in detestable business practices, like discrimination, then I support boycott's 100%, in order to get the business to change. However, I don't think a business should EVER be boycotted just because it surfaces that their CEO voted for Trump or, something quite monotonous like that. That's why the degree of the antagonistic statement or position is important.
