Mostly I was hungry, and they have yummy chicken. I might have another reason though…
Let’s review some fast food politics.
- Chick-fil-A gives money to non-profits that patronize their business which also support the Defense of Marriage Act. This act signed into law by Bill Clinton all but disallows same-sex marriage by making it not recognized by the federal government and allowing states to not honor other states same-sex marriage. A company leader recently stated that not having same-sex marriage was his personal religious belief.
- Starbucks supports organizations that support changing marriage to include same-sex marriages. In addition the company officially supports this political agenda (not just an opinion of a business leader). Starbucks would be on the opposite political spectrum of Chick-Fil-A.
So we have two fast food companies on different sides of a single political issue. One is defending current law and the status-quo, one wants to change it.
When Starbucks made their public move to actively support changing policies on gay-marriage people announced they’d boycott Starbucks. Fair enough – people do that all the time. It’s a valid way to try and get companies with products you like to “see things your way”. Sometimes it actually works.
When a Chick-Fil-A leader made a public statement about his personal opinions on running his private business some people decided to boycott them, fair enough. Other than the company not having an official stance on the issue there are a lot of similarities to Starbucks – but there is a new twist to the Chick-Fil-A story.
Multiple government officials have stated they would discourage or disallow a private company to operate due to its political views. San Francisco stated, “The closest Chick-Fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer”. The Boston mayor stated Chick-Fil-A wouldn’t get business licenses until they change their politics. Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno stated: “I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.” Apparently these towns have plenty of jobs already and political issues are a litmus test for doing business.
My personal opinion is that no matter how ugly an elected official finds a company’s political views they shouldn’t penalize companies because of them. All businesses following the law should have equal rights to practice commerce. What’s ironic about this case is that the three Democrat mayors making comments about Chick-Fil-A not doing business in their town likely voted for Clinton (who signed the Defense of Marriage act) and Obama (who supported it as a candidate, but no longer does). One of the mayors, Rahm Emmanuel (Chicago), even served with a president that supported the policy. Apparently for some people who you get your fast-food lunch from is more important than who runs your nation.
Are you surprised how this energized the “right” to eat more chicken? If so, I’d suggest we get a few bone-headed conservative mayors to not allow Starbucks in their towns. The reaction would be amazing and I’d bet would even attract presidential comment. Whether you are right, left, or middle I hope you agree letting elected officials prevent or discourage companies from doing commerce solely based on their political party or political views is a bad idea. I think Supreme Court cases involving what’s known as the doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions” would likely disallow such ideological actions.
So, In support of not letting Fascist-like mayors dictate what politics companies and their leaders must have in order to do business maybe I’ll top off my Chick-Fil-A salad later with a Starbucks latte!