3 ms·

The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal

The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.

learc83 14y ago
>The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money. Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference. Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.
- mfringel 14y ago
  And now Chick-Fil-A continues to expand out of its home region, and the things they used to garner that support in Georgia may not help them in the Northeast, where religion is considered a more private affair.
- afterburner 14y ago
  So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. Besides, it's not like people are saying the Chick-Fil-A president can't say what he said. The story here is that a lot of people are deeply unimpressed with his statement, and are effectively enacting a de facto boycott (not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance). It's perfectly fine for this to be discussed, and besides you possibly not identifying with the complainants (as you point out in another comment here), I don't see why you object to it. (Note that I am mainly responding to the parent comment from another user: "I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention".)
  - learc83 14y ago
    >So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. No, Amazon is a publicly held company, not solely Bezos' property (I doubt his board would even let him do the same thing). Chick-Fil-A is for all intents and purposes is the "personal money" of the owners, so I see no difference in what someone does with his money or his property. I'm fine with the boycott. I don't support it, but I respect it. What I'm not fine is this. >not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance If a local government denies building permits to a business because it disagrees with the owner's speech, that is a blatant first amendment violation. Far more knowledgeable people than myself have said the same thing. I really doubt the lawyers for whatever municipality plans on banning them will allow that to happen. If the people of a local community don't want Chick-Fil-A there, they won't patronize it. Chik-Fil-A's market research will probably find that out and they won't build there.
    - afterburner 14y ago
      That's not the distinction I'm making. But I see where we're talking past each other: you're primarily concerned with what the company or CEO has a right to do. I'm talking about how big a deal that action is (personal donation of CEO vs company policy statement from CEO). And it has nothing to do with private vs publicly held. Sure, I agree, they both have a right to do what they did. But, opinions on the key issue aside, those two actions had a different scale and connotation to them. As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.

The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money.

learc83 14y ago

>The president of Chick-Fil-A claimed it was company policy to support "biblical principles". This is a little more than just what he does with his own personal money. Since it's a privately held company, I don't really see much difference. Also Chick-Fil-A has been well known for decades, as a company that supports biblical principles. I live in Georgia where they're from, and I don't think they'd be nearly as large as they are today without the brand loyalty that support has built them.

mfringel 14y ago
And now Chick-Fil-A continues to expand out of its home region, and the things they used to garner that support in Georgia may not help them in the Northeast, where religion is considered a more private affair.
afterburner 14y ago
So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. Besides, it's not like people are saying the Chick-Fil-A president can't say what he said. The story here is that a lot of people are deeply unimpressed with his statement, and are effectively enacting a de facto boycott (not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance). It's perfectly fine for this to be discussed, and besides you possibly not identifying with the complainants (as you point out in another comment here), I don't see why you object to it. (Note that I am mainly responding to the parent comment from another user: "I find it odd that what people do with their own money gets so much attention".)
- learc83 14y ago
  >So you see no difference in Bezos personally contributing money without linking it to his company, and the Chick-Fil-A president making it a matter of company policy? Just curious. No, Amazon is a publicly held company, not solely Bezos' property (I doubt his board would even let him do the same thing). Chick-Fil-A is for all intents and purposes is the "personal money" of the owners, so I see no difference in what someone does with his money or his property. I'm fine with the boycott. I don't support it, but I respect it. What I'm not fine is this. >not allowing expansion into communities that disagree with his stance If a local government denies building permits to a business because it disagrees with the owner's speech, that is a blatant first amendment violation. Far more knowledgeable people than myself have said the same thing. I really doubt the lawyers for whatever municipality plans on banning them will allow that to happen. If the people of a local community don't want Chick-Fil-A there, they won't patronize it. Chik-Fil-A's market research will probably find that out and they won't build there.
  - afterburner 14y ago
    That's not the distinction I'm making. But I see where we're talking past each other: you're primarily concerned with what the company or CEO has a right to do. I'm talking about how big a deal that action is (personal donation of CEO vs company policy statement from CEO). And it has nothing to do with private vs publicly held. Sure, I agree, they both have a right to do what they did. But, opinions on the key issue aside, those two actions had a different scale and connotation to them. As for rights, try to keep in mind the key issue here is a debate on a specific right as well. What people are debating is changing the law, changing your rights. If local governments feel a certain right or something they desire to be considered a right is being infringed on or threatened by a company, then it's no longer so black and white.