Heard In the Office Today, about Chick Fil-A

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, December 17. 2014

Heard In the Office Today, about Chick Fil-A

A fellow in my office likes to surprise us with Chick-fil-A breakfast biscuits every now and then. It's a pleasant way to start the day and he'll show up with 100 or so, first-come first-served. I usually pass on it, but make my way to his office for the socializing.

Today I had to discuss business with him at a designated time and arrived as the last biscuit was handed out.

A group of people entered just after me, and were told the last one had be served. One fellow responded "Well, good, because I was conflicted."

"Conflicted about what?" I asked.

"I hate that company and everything it stands for. So I wasn't sure I wanted a biscuit. I'm glad they are gone so I don't have any moral qualms."

I started laughing and said "They make a damn good chicken sandwich, and that's all I care about. I can't stand many Hollywood actors and their politics, but I'll still see their movies because I want to be entertained."

He replied, "Well, that's not an issue for me. I like most Hollywood actors."

I could hear my point whistling past his ears.

There aren't many purchases I make while considering the politics of those things. If I did, I probably wouldn't spend much money. I'd have a hard time buying clothes, food, and putting gas in my tank. I'm a fan of Pink Floyd, went to see Roger Waters perform in concert, with all his political nonsense, and simply told my boys "Enjoy the show and the music, pay no attention to the political diatribes and imagery. We didn't ask for that, he's just decided to force it on his fans, many of whom don't think for themselves, anyway. We are here for the art and the entertainment."

I loves me my Chick-fil-A. I don't agree with their stance on homosexuality. But I'm not convinced my not enjoying chicken will alter their stance. To be honest, I'm not sure what one has to do with the other.

Posted by Bulldog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays, Politics at 11:34 | Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Usually I'd agree with you, but if an artist uses his performances to force political diatribe on a paying audience, he goes too far.

Of course if it's a performance at a fund raiser or other political rally that's another thing entirely.

But if I pay $80 to hear Michael Stipe sing for 2 hours, and instead I'm presented with an hour of political messages interspersed with a few songs, I'm not a happy camper.
And at least with REM that was the case with their last series of concerts, they were so busy promoting the Obama campaign that they would even do so when there wasn't an American in the audience.

I canceled my membership of their fan club, and stopped buying their records.
There's other artists I like who're not doing things like that.

#1 J.T. Wenting on 2014-12-17 11:48 (Reply)

I understand, but as a friend of mine once said.
"Here I am in Germany as a member of the Army, and I see REM is playing nearby. It's just after the first Iraq War. I love REM, so I go see them play, and Stipe is railing against the US armed forces. I'm in the front...not in uniform. I just ignored him, I really just wanted to see them in concert."

I agree it's going a bit far, but I can deal with it. I can tune out nonsense. That's all it is, anyway.

#1.1 Bulldog on 2014-12-17 11:53 (Reply)

yes, the occasional statement I can live with.
But his performance in Dublin, special concert, fan club members only, lasted about 90 minutes, over half an hour of which was political diatribe.
THAT was too much for me.

#1.1.1 J.T. Wenting on 2014-12-17 12:10 (Reply)

"I can tune out nonsense. That's all it is, anyway."

No, it's not nonsense. They are using their influence and popularity to change people's ideas.

If I determine those ideas to be dangerous, there is absolutely no reason to keep rewarding them with my money.

#1.1.2 EarlWer on 2014-12-17 18:35 (Reply)

There are two issues I have with this.
First, anyone who is simple enough to be swayed by the moronic ramblings of a rock star, or a nimrod rich guy like Donny Deutsch, or any Hollywood actor with an IQ of 3 is likely to be swayed back just as easily. They are incapable of forming solid and consistent opinions.
Secondly, there are people who have ideas I disagree with, and use their position and influence to spread those ideas. I shouldn't reward them with my money for doing that. But I don't. I reward them for entertaining me. Or feeding me. Or doing something else. I heard a terrific quote today, "You don't have to like these assholes, you just have to pay them for the service they provided you."
That's what makes the free market so great. I really do just have to pay them. If they want to use their money to push an agenda, however much I disagree with it, that's their right.

The really great part is if you don't want to give them money in exchange for services, you don't have to. I just don't see the point. If I need or want something, regardless of who is providing it and what they think, if they can give me what I want, then I'll pay them.

I certainly understand why you might not want to give them money - but your reasoning is the same as the fellow in the story I told. I don't think that reasoning holds water.
If it does for you, more power to you.

#1.1.2.1 Bulldog on 2014-12-17 20:56 (Reply)

My view of a person takes in all that I know about them.
I don't look at one pleasant facet of their character and ignore the rest.
My opinion of Roald Dahl went down a notch when I read about his views on Israel, but I still enjoy reading his books.
Perhaps you can compartmentalize entertainment away from morality, but I cannot.
The entertainer is still a person who is exchanging their skills for your money. As you stated, we still have a choice in that exchange.
Re: Moronic ramblings. The best analogy I can find is 'fuel for the fire'. Their comments on Israel (Elvis Costello) influence the impressionable young and help out those who think that Israel should be destroyed. They only add an ounce of heat to the fire but that soon adds up. The title 'Useful Idiots' describes them best. I would not pay to see Elvis Costello as that would be giving him my tacit approval.

I am not interested in rewarding evil or ignorance.

#1.1.2.1.1 EarlWer on 2014-12-18 09:56 (Reply)

I get it, and I'm a huge Elvis Costello fan.
I'm also a fan of Cat Stevens.

I still listen to, and buy tickets to see, Elvis.
Cat, on the other hand, won't get a penny of my money.

I see distinct differences in what they are saying. Cat did not advocate the death of a person, but he did vocalize his support of Sharia Law. He has since walked back from that stance, ever so slightly. He is a coy operator. But it's clear where his loyalties lie.

Elvis, is opposed to some of Israel's behaviors toward Palestinians. Having been to Israel, and spoken to Arab and Israeli alike, I think his cancellation of concerts is myopic. He may be wrong (he is to me) in his views. But the free market allows an artist to play whenever and wherever he likes, and for any reason.

Elvis never said Israel didn't deserve to exist or should be eliminated, though. So there is an order of magnitude difference between him and Cat Stevens.

I disagree with your view of them altering the opinions of the young and impressionable. I was young and impressionable when I started listening to Pink Floyd, The Clash, Sex Pistols, and a host of other Leftist-leaning bands. I always thought their messages were more humorous, I couldn't take their political stances seriously. People used to get angry that I was a proponent of freedom and free markets, but still go see Gang of Four. "why do you like them? They oppose everything you believe in!"

So what? Their stupidity is theirs to deal with. I just liked the music. I didn't see anyone being 'taught' to dislike or hate - anyone who felt that way did before, anyway.

Funny thing, I have many Libertarian friends who share my taste in music. Why should I let a moronic artist ruin my fun?

#1.1.2.1.1.1 Bulldog on 2014-12-18 10:12 (Reply)

So your "conflicted" co-worker is simply a hypocrite. He'll consider eating a Chik-fil-A biscuit if someone else pays for it, but not if he has to pay for it himself. And judging by your comment that your point whistled past his ears, he's pretty dumb too.

#2 DocCarter on 2014-12-17 13:07 (Reply)

I agree. He wasn't conflicted at all. He had every intention of wolfing down the free chicken biscuit until he discovered he was too late. Then he brought out the sour grapes excuse. What a freakin' hypocrite - and you can tell the putz I said so.

#2.1 Mike M on 2014-12-17 17:13 (Reply)

Guess this co-worker doesn't think about most of what he buys...only when it is the 'flavor of the month' protest on salon.com. If he did, he would stop buying most stuff, as every single product he owns, eats, enjoys was touched by a conservative's hands at some point. What a joke! Eat the darn sandwich.

I love Chik-Fil-A's food, but we don't have a restaurant anywhere near us. When I do get the chance to eat there, I am often amazed at the politeness of their staff and the joy with which they seem to work. I imagine the only way you get that kind of workforce is by treating them well and instituting some core principles of business in them.

Who cares what the personal politics are behind the food???

#3 MissT on 2014-12-17 13:32 (Reply)

I imagine the only way you get that kind of workforce is by treating them well and instituting some core principles of business in them.

Senator Tim Scott, the first Black in the U.S. Senate from South Carolina since the Reconstruction, worked at a Chik-Fil-A when he was younger. He describes the values his manager at the time taught him, and credits his mentor with the success he has had since, both in business and politics.

#3.1 cas on 2014-12-18 11:20 (Reply)

They are all very polite, and the stores are all well-managed.

#3.2 Bulldog on 2014-12-18 11:23 (Reply)

The fellow Bulldog referred to should consider quitting eating altogether. The people that produce his food are overwhelmingly conservative.

#4 feeblemind on 2014-12-17 13:41 (Reply)

I confess to still holding a grudge against one Hollywood actress, Jane Fonda, for what she did to our POWs.

#5 GoneWithTheWind on 2014-12-17 19:41 (Reply)

I’ve been saying for years that if bought goods only from companies whose morality of which I approved, I own almost nothing. No one on the Left has ever cared, and then still demanded I subscribe to their boycotts.

There is no sense in Leftists that anyone’s opinion other than their own is correct, or that anyone other than themselves should be permitted to act on their own morality. The Left is totalitarian through-and-through.

#6 Erisguy on 2014-12-18 06:11 (Reply)

I haven't got an issue with boycotts. It's all about the goal.
People should be able to choose who they want to boycott and for whatever reason (my point to EarlWer, above in comments).

It just seems to me, when an idiot like this guy walks in, wants a sandwich, and then allows fate to make the decision for him, and is happy, that is idiotic.
More to the point, I'm not sure what the sandwich had to do with his view of the company. I'm assuming it was their stance on homosexuality. That said, the company showed their true colors when the gay community protested, and the franchises served them free sandwiches while they protested.

In other words, the company DID NOT discriminate against homosexuals in their business practice - only their desire to oppose gay marriage as a political goal was a 'discriminatory' opinion.

But we're all allowed to have opinions (even corporations can have opinions - though Chick-fil-A is family owned, much like In-n-Out, another of my favorite fast foods).

Boycotting them for having an opinion is weird. That's just my view. If they were actively discriminating against homosexuals (like stores in the South did years ago) I'd probably be on board with a boycott. Behaviors are something I'm more attuned to.

Once I was buying a hot dog on the streets of NYC, and the vendor saw a black man in line behind me, and refused to serve him. I simply cancelled my order and turned to the black fellow and told him we could go across the street and buy the same thing, which we did. I pointed out to the vendor that his bad behavior cost him business.

But I have no idea if the vendor I bought from shared the same views. As long as he was willing to serve anyone, why should I care?

#6.1 Bulldog on 2014-12-18 10:03 (Reply)

I'm not sure that Chik-Fil-A (the company) can be said to have a policy on homosexuality at all. It has pretty strict policies on non-discrimination in hiring and business practices (specifically including homosexuality) and seems to adhere to them. I know of franchise locations that are owned by gay men or women.

The president of the company is not a supporter of gay marriage, on religious grounds. (All the Cathys are pretty serious Christians.) That's enough, I guess, for some people to dip their broad brushes into the paint.

#7 RNB on 2014-12-18 11:55 (Reply)

I have walked out on live shows because the leftist rhetoric was over the top. I knew the performer was a bit left of center but I was a fan of his songcraft. (Bruce Cockburn) However the running commentary throughout the show just became too much to ignore. Plus, it seemed as if Cockburn and his band were just mailing it in. That tore it.

The only two companies I actively refuse to support are Starbucks and Girl Scouts due to their financial support of Planned Parenthood's abortion mills. I love thin mints and it's a bit of shame, but that's the way it is.

Living here in CA we have In and Out Burger, whose owners, if I'm not mistaken, are practicing Christians. Good quality, excellent service and the staff is well-trained and professional. Works for me.

#8 kellym on 2014-12-18 12:30 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, December 17. 2014

Heard In the Office Today, about Chick Fil-A