I want to comment on that Chick-Fil-A thing before we all
forget that it ever happened.
The President of Chick-Fil-A, Dan Cathy, said
some stupid shit about marriage. This
pissed off the gays and encouraged some bigots.
In support of Cathy's statements, a bunch of ignorant bigots ate at
Chick-Fil-A last week. In protest of
Cathy's statements, a bunch of non-bigots refused to eat at Chick-Fil-A.
What I want to say about that whole situation is best
articulated by this handy dandy chart:
Since Dan Cathy gives money to anti-gay groups, and Dan
Cathy is the president of Chick-Fil-A, part of the profits of Chick-Fil-A go to
anti-gay groups. Since we seem to have
posited a link between consuming Chick-Fil-A and supporting anti-gay groups, my
question is how that whole system works.
Let's go through each of the four scenarios in the chart.
1) You give money
directly to an anti-gay group. Clearly,
this is an act of supporting anti-gay groups.
2) You give money to
Chick-Fil-A. Part of that money is given
to an anti-gay group. Given the ruckus
that was raised, persons seem to think this act comparable to supporting
anti-gay groups.
3) Suppose you give
money to someone else, and they give that money to Chick-Fil-, which in turn
gives money to anti-gay groups. In this
scenario you know they intend to purchase something from Chick-Fil-A. Would this scenario count as supporting
anti-gay groups?
4) You give money to
someone in ignorance of how they shall spend it. They give that money to someone else, who in
turn buys something at Chick-Fil-A, which gives part of that money to an
anti-gay group. Have you supported
anti-gay groups in this scenario?
This all feeds into a larger conversation about voting with
money, about what constitutes economic support.
If you buy a shitty chicken sammich does that mean you hate fags? If you buy gas at a BP station does that mean
you hate shrimp?
While I do not know the answers to these questions, I do
know what questions persons ought to ask before they hazard an answer. The knee jerk reactionary nonsense that
surrounded Dan Cathy's quote completely bypassed these ethical considerations
and jumped right to "SHITTY CHICKEN SAMMICHES HATE FAGS ZOMG!!!"
My stance is that both sides were asshats in this situation.
The intolerant Christians were asshats because they jumped at the chance to support anti-gay groups via spending $5 on a shitty sammich, because they're lazy fucks.
The persons who boycotted Chick-Fil-A were asshates for a different reason. Yes, they took a stand...kinda. But if you refuse to eat at Chick-Fil-A
because "love the gays", but then each a bar of chocolate produced
via child slave labor, or use a phone assembled at a Foxconn plant, or wear
tube socks purchased at Wal-mart, or employ petroleum products, or ever
purchase anything from any corporation that donates to the GOP, then you're
just a fucking hypocrite.
And that's fine.
Just be aware of it.

If you're tempted to go with:
ReplyDelete- But the structure of our society sometimes forces me to do immoral things, so those things must not be immoral, since they are necessary to live my life!
or
- I can choose when to employ the "don't support bigots" rule, instead of universalizing my maxims.
then you've missed the whole fucking point of morality.
We should not eat at Chick Fil A because it is gross and unhealthy. Not eating or not not eating their shitty food will not change anything.
ReplyDeleteWe ought to criticize dan cathy for his well document support of groups that do real harm. Cathy supports Exodus International and Focus on the Family.
www1126
ReplyDeletembt shoes
tod's outlet
pandora jewelry
clarks outlet
kate spade outlet
christian louboutin shoes
michael kors outlet
ralph lauren polo
superdry uk
canada goose jackets
a5l51n2o74 w4w63x7o82 h5q77o6z05 z8c13j2f57 n0i35u7a96 r2h93y8x49
ReplyDelete