BEHAVE YOURSELVES: Breitbart Memorial LOLconservatives Thread

[FreddyKnuckles]

I like this article in the Atlantic.  It sums it up a little better:

In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A
By Jonathan Merritt

Jul 20 2012, 5:30 PM ET 1212

Do we really want a country where people won't do commerce with those who have beliefs different than their own?

Dan Cathy, president of one of America's largest express fast food chains, has been frying more than chicken filets this week. The Chick-fil-A executive infuriated gay and lesbian groups when he again defended his company's anti-gay marriage position in an interview this week with a Christian news outlet.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Not surprisingly, his comments were met with fury by those who support same-sex marriage. The company was labeled a "hate group" by many on Twitter and in the blogosphere, and drew promises of boycotts from notables including The Office star Ed Helms. Meanwhile, Americans who patronize the chain's 1,600 locations were left wondering what to do.

Should they swear off the legendary chicken sandwiches to support gay rights? Or could they eat one of the filets anyway, knowing their dollars would be but a drop in the bucket for a chain that has more than $4 billion in annual sales and donated a pittance to groups they may disagree with?

I'd argue the latter -- and this has nothing to do with my views on gay marriage. It's because Chick-fil-A is a laudable organization on balance, and because I refuse to contribute to the ineffective boycott culture that's springing up across America.

First of all, Chick-fil-A is not a hate group. In a statement released yesterday, company leaders made their commitment to equal service clear, "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

As a native Atlantan, I've dined at the chicken chain more than I'd like to admit over more than two decades and even interacted with its leadership team. I've never witnessed any customer refused service or even treated differently. On the contrary, Chick-fil-A is known for offering world-class customer service to each person that walks through one of the restaurant's doors.

Additionally, the organization gives millions of dollars each year to charitable causes -- and not just to "pro-family" groups. It funds a large foster care program, several schools of a higher learning, and a children's camp. It has provided thousands of scholarships for Chick-fil-A employees to attend college and grow past the service sector where they got their workplace start. (On Friday, the company provided free meals for Aurora, Colo., policemen.)

And the company's leaders claim to do all of this out of convictions rooted in the Christian faith. Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of the company should know that it does not hide its commitment to biblical values. Its corporate statement of purpose since 1982 has begun, "To glorify God..."

Given this, that anyone was surprised by Cathy's statements is, well, surprising. Like many conservative Christians, he does not support gay marriage.

I'm flummoxed that so many consumers are so quick these days to call for boycotts of any company that deviates from their personal or political views. For one thing, boycotts rarely cause actual pocketbook - rather than PR -- damage. Most consumers don't care enough to drive an extra mile to get the same product from someone else. And that's especially the case for companies as large as Chick-fil-A, which has prime locations on many college campuses where there is little head-to-head competition.

But my bigger question is this: In a nation that's as divided as ours is, do we really want our commercial lives and our political lives to be so wholly intermeshed? And is this really the kind of culture we want to create? Culture war boycotts cut both ways and are much more likely to meet with success when prosecuted by large groups of people, such as Christian activists, who are more numerous than gays and lesbians and their more activist supporters.

Gay and lesbian groups were famously rankled when pro-family activists reacted against Kraft for posting a photo of an Oreo cookie with rainbow-hued filling last month in honor of Gay Pride Month, and also when similar groups protested JCPenney for announcing lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres would be its next spokesperson.

So should the 45 percent of Americans who oppose gay marriage opt for Chips Ahoy! instead of Oreos? Should they begin shopping at Belk instead of JC Penny? If they did, it wouldn't make any more sense than the endless failed calls for liberal consumers to boycott Urban Outfitters, because its owner is a conservative and Rick Santorum donor, or to not order from Domino's Pizza, because it was founded by a Catholic conservative who helped fund anti-abortion causes.

On both sides of our latest culture war divide, we must learn to have level-headed disagreements without resorting to accusations of hate speech and boycotts. As Josh Ozersky argued on TIME Thursday, "businesses should be judged by their products and their practices, not by their politics."

I agree: I don't care how my dry cleaner votes. I just want to know if he/she can press my Oxfords without burning my sleeves. I find no compelling reason to treat sandwiches differently than shirts.

From a business standpoint, some might say Cathy's comments were imprudent if not downright dumb. But in a society that desperately needs healthy public dialogue, we must resist creating a culture where consumers sort through all their purchases (fast food and otherwise) for an underlying politics not even expressed in the nature of the product itself.

If white meat's not your thing, try the Golden Arches. But if you want a perfectly fried chicken sandwich, Chick-fil-A, will be happy to serve you -- gay or straight. In this case, those who boycott are the ones missing out.

[hannah]

But my bigger question is this: In a nation that's as divided as ours is, do we really want our commercial lives and our political lives to be so wholly intermeshed?

lol

[Antero]

Crosspost with dumb things I read today thread.

[dieblucasdie]

Conservatives are always "Blah blah blah we don't need government interference, just vote with your dollar and teh markets will sort it out." But when people actually do that, they're like, "Oh shit, how dare you, you're oppreeeeeeessing us."

And the beef with the Chicago Chick-Fil-A thing isn't about trying to get Cathy to recant or apologize or whatever, it's specifically about trying to get Chick-Fil-A to commit to non-discriminatory hiring practices. That's not about a personal, behind-the-scenes belief, that's about the way the company actually operates.

I know you want to be contrarian or whatever here, FK, but PROTIP: it's best to err on the side of not defending unapologetic bigots

[FreddyKnuckles]

Nah my intolerance for douchebaggy boycotts comes from when the UM student govt called for a boycott

against the pickle barrel in Missoula because some dude who worked at pickle barrel denied service to middle eastern student.  Turned out dudes got in a fight at the bar over an unrelated issue weeks earlier  Dude working at pickle barrel was a crusty grungy hippie dude that you hipsters would love to pretend you identify with.

Who stood up for the crusty hippies at pickle barrel just trying to make fucking buck making fucking subs?  the campus republicans. 

[jebreject]

Crosspost with drunk  thread

[jess]

FK, the chick-fil-a guy made his beliefs abundantly clear, so it sure as hell isn't a case where people are overreaching in their interpretations. Besides, isn't the whole voting with your dollars/the marketplace correcting things a concept that's very consistent with conservative (at least economic conservative) views? Isn't either refusing to patronize his business or overwhelming whatever influence his donations from profits to anti-gay causes might have by donating more to opposing groups exactly how views are supposed to "win"? It's almost like no matter liberals choose to engage in activism, be it protest with no specific aims or put our money where our mouths are, conservatives are going to whine about the methods we use. Oh wait.

[fishjim]

I like this article in the Atlantic.  It sums it up a little better:

In Defense of Eating at Chick-fil-A
By Jonathan Merritt

Jul 20 2012, 5:30 PM ET 1212

Do we really want a country where people won't do commerce with those who have beliefs different than their own?

YES

[C of heartbreak]

This guy at work only uses Bing because Google is a government collaborator, so apparently yes.

[Good Intentions]

Guys, you're welcome to have as big a brouhaha on this topic as you like, but the thought that market activity can act as a regulatory power is genuinely incoherent (as in, it involves contradictory beliefs). The doublespeak that blucas mentions is the consequence of that incoherence. So, it's a nonsense debate about a nonsense position, and every word said about it is a breath wasted.

Doesn't stop it being the central issue in lot of public debate, but there you go.

[Little Sixes Little Nines]

there's finally a bill in parliament in nz to legalise gay marriage, and here's what our deputy prime minister has to say about it.

''I have to say, [it's] not top of my agenda. I haven't even considered it, I don't know what's in the bill. I'm focused on the economic issues,'' English said.

''In the big picture, it's not that important. We're focusing on jobs ... Clearly it's important to some people but we haven't been focused on that issue, we've been focused on the broader economy.''

Asked whether or not he supported gay marriage, without any reference to the bill, English said: ''I thought they could, quite honestly. I've got to have a look at it [the bill], I thought the problem had been solved, we're focused on the economy.''

[Anne the Man]

Lolwut. A) Pretending he knows anything about how to do anything for the economy and B) Lolwut. Ugh that's going to take ages and be really boring and frustrating and like hurry the hell up already

[dieblucasdie]

Nah my intolerance for douchebaggy boycotts comes from when the UM student govt called for a boycott

against the pickle barrel in Missoula because some dude who worked at pickle barrel denied service to middle eastern student.  Turned out dudes got in a fight at the bar over an unrelated issue weeks earlier  Dude working at pickle barrel was a crusty grungy hippie dude that you hipsters would love to pretend you identify with.

Who stood up for the crusty hippies at pickle barrel just trying to make fucking buck making fucking subs?  the campus republicans. 

I just looked into your little non sequitur here

Speaking with the assistance of a translator, Aljama told ASUM that Pickle Barrel manager Ryan Dutton denied him service because Dutton believed him to be the person with whom he got into an alcohol-induced clash weeks earlier in downtown Missoula.

Aljama said he was not that person, but that Dutton did not listen and denied him service.

Yeah you guys were just like the Freedom Riders

[jess]

Guys, you're welcome to have as big a brouhaha on this topic as you like, but the thought that market activity can act as a regulatory power is genuinely incoherent (as in, it involves contradictory beliefs). The doublespeak that blucas mentions is the consequence of that incoherence. So, it's a nonsense debate about a nonsense position, and every word said about it is a breath wasted.

Doesn't stop it being the central issue in lot of public debate, but there you go.

Right, but part of the fun of debating with your political opponents is holding them to their own silly ideas that they conveniently forget once the ideas become inconvenient.

[dieblucasdie]

Yeah, upthread I wasn't actually saying I'd boycott Chick-Fil-A, I was saying I was bummed out that a Chick-Fil-A is not going to be built near me anymore. And really that's Chick-Fil-A's fault. Just commit to non-discriminatory hiring practices, dummies.

I agree with GI that boycotts (or, at least, ad hoc, unorganized boycotts driven by an emotional response to a single event) aren't much of a mechanism, generally. After the Oreo thing and the JC Penney thing, and now this, though, I think it's pretty clear that American companies are starting to perceive that being seen as gay friendly is good for business. Whether that's actually true or not is probably less important than the perception, especially given that we live in an age where every company's got an over-blown social media department.

[Thermofusion]

Nah my intolerance for douchebaggy boycotts comes from when the UM student govt called for a boycott

Dude literally every week there are butthurt cries from the right to boycott shit. Sears and Allstate and two dozen other companies because they stopped advertising on the Limbaugh program, Time Warner because GoT had a decaptitated Bush head, Google because they support LGBT rights, Kraft because of a picture of a rainbow-colored Oreo, etc. etc. Incredibly hurt butts just mewling and bleating at the top of their butt-lungs, WEEKLY.

[jm]

Keep in mind too that even if a boycott is likely to hurt a company's bottom line (it isn't), the company isn't going to be like "oh the answer is clearly to change our practices", it's going to be to lay off a bunch of their lowest-paid workers.

So, you know, boycotting WalMart basically just means some people are going to have an even harder time finding a job.

[jebreject]

Yeah I'm not really a fan of boycotts (though I think that in certain cases and when well organized and on a very large scale they can be effective) but I think that's a total BS argument

Then again my answer to these questions largely centers around burning all Chick-Fil-As and WalMarts to the ground

[jm]

I should say that I agree with blucas that, given companies' large social media presence, the *appearance* of not being shitty is becoming more important. But in that case, a bunch of online harassment is actually probably more effective than a boycott.

[DCDave]

Shareholder actions are generally more effective than boycotts, historically, I thought.

Edit: As a form of direct activism.

[dieblucasdie]

I should also say that CHANGING THE WORLD isn't always the whole point--I think "I sleep better at night knowing that my money did not go to this hateful dillhole" is a perfectly fair and natural response to something like this.

edit:

I mean, whatever bruh in the blog post that FK posted claims, I've been around the right-wing blogosphere enough to say, with absolute confidence, that he would totally storm out of his dry cleaners without a second thought if he saw a copy of the Koran on the counter or an "Arrest Cheney" sign on the wall or whatever. Right-wing bloggers talk about that sort of shit with pride ALL THE TIME.

[Thermofusion]

I should also say that CHANGING THE WORLD isn't always the whole point--I think "I sleep better at night knowing that my money did not go to this hateful dillhole" is a perfectly fair and natural response to something like this.

Yup!

[jebreject]

Absolutely

Also, burn shit

[Thermofusion]

Chick-Fil-A would probably smell pretty good getting torched! Just gotta sneak in and steal the recipes for their coleslaw and Polynesian sauce before lighting it up.

[jm]

Keep in mind too that even if a boycott is likely to hurt a company's bottom line (it isn't), the company isn't going to be like "oh the answer is clearly to change our practices", it's going to be to lay off a bunch of their lowest-paid workers.

So, you know, boycotting WalMart basically just means some people are going to have an even harder time finding a job.

To go a step further here: I work for a multibillion-dollar company that doesn't pull in nearly as much money as WalMart (but maybe more than Chick-fil-A? I really have no idea there), and if we miss out on $1M in sales in a month we can chalk it up to literally The Weather.  So, you know, getting 50k people to each withhold the $50 they might spend in a year at a place like that, well, that's not even denting sales, especially in a market like Chick-fil-A has.