7 ms·

Unfortunately they do have some questionable morals on other fronts.

by bo0tzz 7y ago

ctack 7y ago
How so?
- indigochill 7y ago
  The company culture derives from the founder's Southern Baptist background so sometimes they take unpopular political stances like opposing same-sex marriage. Some consider this as a moral failing rather than the other side of diversity.
  - wahern 7y ago
    If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. From a utilitarian perspective the human benefit, not to mention the unique example it sets, is incomparable to the company's [largely historical] anti-marriage equality political lobbying, especially considering that the company does not discriminate in its operations or hiring practices. (And AFAIK no credible accusation has ever been made in contradiction of that crucial fact.) It's sadly typical for social issue advocates across the spectrum to cut off their nose to spite their face in this manner.
    - threatofrain 7y ago
      I mean you take the good with the bad, and it's on a chicken franchise to determine how interesting they think it is to have their progressive Sunday policy framed next to their stance that gay people shouldn't be able to marry.
      - EdwardWarren 7y ago
        Has CF ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married? Has any organization they have donated to ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married? Just because an individual or a company is perceived as disagreeing with your personal beliefs doesn't make it 'bad'. CF happily sells its delicious chicken to everyone irrespective of their sexual orientation.
    - KptMarchewa 7y ago
      I have no idea how mandatory Sunday closures are a progressive measure, guaranteed that employees have the same amount of free days.
      - smallnamespace 7y ago
        A lot of (most?) hourly work has employees permanently on call for shifts the next day or even same day. Knowing which day you’re off lets you plan.
      - bildung 7y ago
        If you have a significant other and/or kids, it significantly raises the chance that all have a free day at the same day.
      - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        A static day off in an otherwise rotating schedule increases the quality of life for a retail worker considerably. It also happens to be a day off that many of your friends and family are also likely to have off, rather than often having random days off during the work week. A retail worker might actually be able to maintain a normal social life with a recurring Sunday off.
    - knolax 7y ago
      I fail to see how Sunday closures are progressive at all. If the total amount of time off isn't greater then it doesn't benefit workers more to have Sunday off as opposed to Friday or any other day of the week. From a utilitarian perspective having a restaurant close on the one day that most of their customers have free time to visit is highly inefficient.
      - deadbunny 7y ago
        If you work shift work then having Tues & Weds off while technically the same as Sat & Sun off (2 days off in a row) it is a tangibly worse "weekend". You may have 2 days off but your friends and family are likely working during the days and in "nothing too exciting" mode in the evenings. The benefit of everyone having Sunday off means that (for the most part) the rest of the world also has Sunday off and you get to enjoy time off with your friends and family.
        knolax 7y ago
        I've worked shift work with only Fridays off before. It was not tangibly worst than having only Sunday off. In fact I would say it was better because dealing with certain government bureaucracies that close down on Sundays was significantly easier. You can't expect the entirety of society to shut down on Sundays so there's always going to be somebody who has to work during that day.
      - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
        Doing something that doesn't benefit the customers but does benefit your workers (because not all days off are equal) is pretty progressive. It's not necessarily their intent as an organization, but it is the effect.
    - jariel 7y ago
      "If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. " To imply something is 'tainted' by its religious inception is a kind of bigotry, moreover, it misses the point entirely: it's the very reason the company is ethical, or communitarian in many ways. Of course, even the very nation, or more broadly 'The West' is fundamentally Christian (or better described as mostly 'secular Christian'). Everyone has healthcare in Canada due to the 'Agrarian Left' which is essentially a brand of Christian Democracy. The same goes for the vast majority of Western institutions that were created more than a generation ago, including most Universities etc.. Consider that there might be more complexity concerning social issues in this world such that anyone with a voice mightn't be always playing favour specifically to you or your version of the 'morality'.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        I think the previous poster agrees with you, hence the quotes around the word tainted.
  - KptMarchewa 7y ago
    >other side of diversity No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - knolax 7y ago
    Imposing your religious beliefs on others and using it as justification to limit their rights isn't "the other side of diversity". As the saying goes: "Your right to your fist stops at my face".
    - stuff4ben 7y ago
      How did buying a chicken sandwich mean that they were imposing their religious beliefs on me?
      - knolax 7y ago
        Lobbying the state to limit the marriage rights of same sex couples is imposing their religious beliefs on same sex couples.
        stuff4ben 7y ago
        No, it's not "imposing their religious beliefs" on you. You're buying a chicken sandwich and you received no religious imposition on you.
  - FreezerburnV 7y ago
    And yet despite that, they still treat people with respect: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2564379 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2564379
  - golf3 7y ago
    The last thing I'd expect a moral stand to be is popular.
yostrovs 7y ago
You mean they're run by Christians? Is that now considered a moral failing?
- sarakayakomzin 7y ago
  Christianity is the worlds greatest moral failing...
- MereInterest 7y ago
  That's an interesting straw man. No, I do not believe it is a moral failing to be Christian. Yes, I do believe it is a moral failing to be against gay rights.
  - foolinaround 7y ago
    You should also acknowledge it is just your belief, and that a person who does not advocate for gay rights, can be moral too. Advocating for/against gay rights is a spectrum, and you need to see where they fall on it. Tolerance is a 2-way street.
    - Someone1234 7y ago
      You're conflating two completely different things. Not advocating FOR gay rights isn't a moral failing. But that's irrelevant for what Chick-Fil-A are accused of (and frankly a straw man). Advocating AGAINST someone else's rights or freedoms, even when those rights have no impact on your beliefs, is a moral failing. That's what Chick-Fil-A is doing. So, no, it isn't a "2-way street" when one side is just asking to be treated equally and the other is asking that OTHER PEOPLE are treated like a sub-class of people.
    - MereInterest 7y ago
      A person may be moral in one part of their life, and immoral in another. A person may be kind to the needy that they see while walking down the street, while being cruel to the needy out of their sight. A person may be kind to animals, yet cruel to their family, or vice versa. I do not believe it can be accurate to describe something as complicated as a person as moral or immoral, in the same way that there is no total ordering over the complex numbers. When I say that being against gay rights is an immoral position, it does not mean that a person is immoral, because that is an ill-defined phrase. It means that in the context of their speech and actions on the topic of gay rights, they are behaving immorally. I agree that there is a spectrum of beliefs, and that it is necessary to meet somebody where they are. Each step is an important one, and beliefs change slowly. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that Christianity is inherently and irrevocably against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that all Christians must be similarly against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that my faith must be a tool for bigotry, rather than an instrument of community.

Unfortunately they do have some questionable morals on other fronts.

by bo0tzz 7y ago

Unfortunately they do have some questionable morals on other fronts.

ctack 7y ago

How so?

indigochill 7y ago
The company culture derives from the founder's Southern Baptist background so sometimes they take unpopular political stances like opposing same-sex marriage. Some consider this as a moral failing rather than the other side of diversity.
- wahern 7y ago
  If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. From a utilitarian perspective the human benefit, not to mention the unique example it sets, is incomparable to the company's [largely historical] anti-marriage equality political lobbying, especially considering that the company does not discriminate in its operations or hiring practices. (And AFAIK no credible accusation has ever been made in contradiction of that crucial fact.) It's sadly typical for social issue advocates across the spectrum to cut off their nose to spite their face in this manner.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    I mean you take the good with the bad, and it's on a chicken franchise to determine how interesting they think it is to have their progressive Sunday policy framed next to their stance that gay people shouldn't be able to marry.
    - EdwardWarren 7y ago
      Has CF ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married? Has any organization they have donated to ever directly prevented a gay couple from getting married? Just because an individual or a company is perceived as disagreeing with your personal beliefs doesn't make it 'bad'. CF happily sells its delicious chicken to everyone irrespective of their sexual orientation.
  - KptMarchewa 7y ago
    I have no idea how mandatory Sunday closures are a progressive measure, guaranteed that employees have the same amount of free days.
    - smallnamespace 7y ago
      A lot of (most?) hourly work has employees permanently on call for shifts the next day or even same day. Knowing which day you’re off lets you plan.
    - bildung 7y ago
      If you have a significant other and/or kids, it significantly raises the chance that all have a free day at the same day.
    - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
      A static day off in an otherwise rotating schedule increases the quality of life for a retail worker considerably. It also happens to be a day off that many of your friends and family are also likely to have off, rather than often having random days off during the work week. A retail worker might actually be able to maintain a normal social life with a recurring Sunday off.
  - knolax 7y ago
    I fail to see how Sunday closures are progressive at all. If the total amount of time off isn't greater then it doesn't benefit workers more to have Sunday off as opposed to Friday or any other day of the week. From a utilitarian perspective having a restaurant close on the one day that most of their customers have free time to visit is highly inefficient.
    - deadbunny 7y ago
      If you work shift work then having Tues & Weds off while technically the same as Sat & Sun off (2 days off in a row) it is a tangibly worse "weekend". You may have 2 days off but your friends and family are likely working during the days and in "nothing too exciting" mode in the evenings. The benefit of everyone having Sunday off means that (for the most part) the rest of the world also has Sunday off and you get to enjoy time off with your friends and family.
      - knolax 7y ago
        I've worked shift work with only Fridays off before. It was not tangibly worst than having only Sunday off. In fact I would say it was better because dealing with certain government bureaucracies that close down on Sundays was significantly easier. You can't expect the entirety of society to shut down on Sundays so there's always going to be somebody who has to work during that day.
    - barbecue_sauce 7y ago
      Doing something that doesn't benefit the customers but does benefit your workers (because not all days off are equal) is pretty progressive. It's not necessarily their intent as an organization, but it is the effect.
  - jariel 7y ago
    "If it wasn't "tainted" by its religious inception, mandatory Sunday closures would make Chick-fil-A the most progressive large service industry company in the United States from a labor welfare perspective. " To imply something is 'tainted' by its religious inception is a kind of bigotry, moreover, it misses the point entirely: it's the very reason the company is ethical, or communitarian in many ways. Of course, even the very nation, or more broadly 'The West' is fundamentally Christian (or better described as mostly 'secular Christian'). Everyone has healthcare in Canada due to the 'Agrarian Left' which is essentially a brand of Christian Democracy. The same goes for the vast majority of Western institutions that were created more than a generation ago, including most Universities etc.. Consider that there might be more complexity concerning social issues in this world such that anyone with a voice mightn't be always playing favour specifically to you or your version of the 'morality'.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I think the previous poster agrees with you, hence the quotes around the word tainted.
- KptMarchewa 7y ago
  >other side of diversity No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- knolax 7y ago
  Imposing your religious beliefs on others and using it as justification to limit their rights isn't "the other side of diversity". As the saying goes: "Your right to your fist stops at my face".
  - stuff4ben 7y ago
    How did buying a chicken sandwich mean that they were imposing their religious beliefs on me?
    - knolax 7y ago
      Lobbying the state to limit the marriage rights of same sex couples is imposing their religious beliefs on same sex couples.
      - stuff4ben 7y ago
        No, it's not "imposing their religious beliefs" on you. You're buying a chicken sandwich and you received no religious imposition on you.
- FreezerburnV 7y ago
  And yet despite that, they still treat people with respect: https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2564379 https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_2564379
- golf3 7y ago
  The last thing I'd expect a moral stand to be is popular.

yostrovs 7y ago

You mean they're run by Christians? Is that now considered a moral failing?

sarakayakomzin 7y ago
Christianity is the worlds greatest moral failing...
MereInterest 7y ago
That's an interesting straw man. No, I do not believe it is a moral failing to be Christian. Yes, I do believe it is a moral failing to be against gay rights.
- foolinaround 7y ago
  You should also acknowledge it is just your belief, and that a person who does not advocate for gay rights, can be moral too. Advocating for/against gay rights is a spectrum, and you need to see where they fall on it. Tolerance is a 2-way street.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    You're conflating two completely different things. Not advocating FOR gay rights isn't a moral failing. But that's irrelevant for what Chick-Fil-A are accused of (and frankly a straw man). Advocating AGAINST someone else's rights or freedoms, even when those rights have no impact on your beliefs, is a moral failing. That's what Chick-Fil-A is doing. So, no, it isn't a "2-way street" when one side is just asking to be treated equally and the other is asking that OTHER PEOPLE are treated like a sub-class of people.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    A person may be moral in one part of their life, and immoral in another. A person may be kind to the needy that they see while walking down the street, while being cruel to the needy out of their sight. A person may be kind to animals, yet cruel to their family, or vice versa. I do not believe it can be accurate to describe something as complicated as a person as moral or immoral, in the same way that there is no total ordering over the complex numbers. When I say that being against gay rights is an immoral position, it does not mean that a person is immoral, because that is an ill-defined phrase. It means that in the context of their speech and actions on the topic of gay rights, they are behaving immorally. I agree that there is a spectrum of beliefs, and that it is necessary to meet somebody where they are. Each step is an important one, and beliefs change slowly. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that Christianity is inherently and irrevocably against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that all Christians must be similarly against gay rights. Where I grow angry is when it is implied that my faith must be a tool for bigotry, rather than an instrument of community.