Does CFA deny gays equal rights? They don't hire them and stuff?
Cause, they definitely hire them.
It's an interesting case study for consumer-facing companies. Normally they try to avoid taking positions on politics. If this helps CFA long-term, who knows if other companies might join the bandwagon... Or if enough do, will companies be EXPECTED to state their positions?
Anyway, Mike Huckabee's passion for (and organization of) all of this is somewhat curious. He really has nothing better to do?
No, the policing is being done by the Chicago politburo.
Of course they deny gays equal rights. They spend money on it. The fact that they don't discriminate in the hiring process does not mean the money spent on denying sexuals equal marriage rights somehow doesn't count.
This isn't zero sum.
They are spending 5 million to ensure that sexuals don't have equal rights.
Also, just so I am clear about my position, I don't mind the boston mayor or the chicago politburo (or that NY congresswoman) campaining against a store opening up, but to say they will deny it is dubious since I can't imagine that the zoning or permit approval process goes through the office of the mayor (et al). I would think that this is a seperate en y and shouldn't be influenced by that office.
Fair enough, but I don't equate denying a business a permit with denying a group of people equal rights. One of those is far more egregious, IMO.
True. It's not zero sum. Stop judging the franchises by their corp.
They are not the same en y.
I don't think this is going to turn the PR/advertising world upside down. Younger generations make up a larger percentage of this countries buying power each day and they sure as don't have a problem with sexuality.
But I'm not a PR/advertising professional so wtf do I know?
I think it's fantastic. Chick-Fil-A should offer a permanent daily special to everyone who hates gays. Heck, even expand it to minorities, Jews, Muslims and atheists. Keeping all the bigots congregated in the same places means lower odds I'll encounter one of them at places I actually want to eat at.
Probably pretty close to reality, tbh.
Isn't that the point of a franchise? The franchisee gets to ride on the reputation of the franchiser. Are you suggesting this should only apply to certain aspects of the brand's overall image?
I am spending waaay much more than I want to in taxes. Should I take credit for the Osama hit? I'm sure I supported it financially.
Does 5 million dollars lock up teh gays?
The answer to both questions is:
No.
Eh, I think they are. The only way to get to the corp is through those stores which are in direct business relationship to them. Absolution of any responsibility to the franchisees is wrong as they benefit directly from corporation action.
I've never seen a Chic Fil A Franchise open on a Sunday even though they are just franchises. There's an acceptance there of the Christian ideals of the corp and when those Christian ideals involve political lobbying to deny rights I think its important.
The franchisee gets to ride the reputation of the franchiser's product.
I'm not sure anyone wants to spend a bazillion bucks on a franchise cause they like what a CEO said in a closed interview.
You cannot compare taxation to a voluntary donation.
Nearly all franchise agreements include standard business hours. There's a ton of businesses closed on Sundays. Should we picket them as well?
I just did.
I paid in money. An action occured.
Cathy paid in money. Did an action occur?
Being closed on Sundays = hating teh gays? wtf
Standard business hour stipulation in franchise contracts <> adoption of christian ideas.
I disagree that they are riding on product alone.
If a store leased the rights to sell the exact same Chicken sandwiches as Chick-Fil-A, but they had to call it "Joe's Chicken Sandwich Store" or something else - it wouldn't have the same impact.
A franchisee is leasing the brand in it's entirety: it's product, it's store design, it's marketing, it's branding, etc.
Whether you agree or not, there is no denying in the modern business world that the CEO/President's beliefs are part of a company's branding. The only away to avoid this is by the CEO/President not saying ANYTHING. Once he/she opens their mouth (for better or worse), they are a reflection of the brand.
Well, you can picket whomever you like. I couldn't care less about businesses being closed on Sunday but I made that point to show you how the individual franchise owners are buying in directly to ideals related to Christianity. There's no doubt that Chic Fil A's are closed on Sunday for religious reasons and not business reasons. They've bought into it and therefor I don't know how anyone can argue that we should be nice to individual stores because they're only franchises. That argument simply carries no weight with me.
For the record, I think Manny is taking it too far too.
Chick-Fil-A corporate has the right to say/believe/donate anyway they want. And to say that donating to an traditional marriage/anti-gay cause is equivalent to denying rights for gays is a bit of a stretch.
Chick-Fil-A, by proxy of the groups they donate to, may eventually influence policymakers, but let us not ever lose site of the fact that legislators and legislators alone will be the ones who ultimately deny the rights of citizens (subject to the oversight of the Supreme Court).
One is required by law and one is not. There is an obvious distinction here and it makes a whole of a lot of difference.
I agree Scott.
My view is that bullies just have to find reasons to justify being bullies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote