Skip to comments.Who does the Chick-fil-A boss speak for? (Here's a new line of attack)
Posted on 08/15/2012 10:05:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Not only is it refreshing and encouraging to hear from young writers, it's also a pleasure to be able to agree with Lizy Swain's defense of Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy's right to free speech (Monitor Forum, Aug. 7). She knows her Constitution: We don't have to agree with Cathy's opinions to affirm his right to hold and express them.
Swain's also right that Cathy's opinion need not affect those who eat at, or boycott, Chick-fil-A. Where's she's wrong, though, is in assuming that customers are Chick-fil-A's sole concern.
Chick-fil-A also employs more than 850 corporate workers. Statistically speaking, some 68-to-85 of these workers could be gay. Others will have friends or family members who are. Maybe Cathy's opinions roll off Chick-fil-A customers' backs; that's not necessarily true for Chick-fil-A employees.
Do Cathy's opinions translate into corporate policy? I don't know; but if they do, I feel for the worker with, say, 20 years of service, a vested pension plan, a mortgage, a kid in college that she or he can cover under the Affordable Care Act, and a same-sex partner she or he probably can't cover under the company's insurance benefit. I also feel for the unemployed worker who concludes she or he might as well not bother applying at Chick-fil-A headquarters.
What also troubles me is Swain's conflation of people, brands and corporations. Let's start by setting a couple of records referred to by Swain, er, straight: Oreo is a cookie brand, not a corporation. Oreos are made by Nabisco, a subsidiary of Kraft Foods.
I've never heard a cookie express opinions on gay marriage. I have seen an ad, no doubt paid for by Kraft Foods, for a fantasy Oreo, unavailable in stores, containing six differently-hued fillings. The ad was released in conjunction with annual Gay Pride observances and tagged with the word "pride." The ad made no mention of marriage. How can Swain or anyone else conclude that Oreos favor marriage equality?
I suspect that the ad's real message goes more like this: "Kraft Foods has identified a niche market comprised of people with minority sexual identities, and we're perfectly willing to peddle our cookies to them." Why this should either surprise or distress anybody I can't imagine.
But let's return to Swain's confusing Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A with the corporation he runs. Cathy has a right to speak his mind; but when did he acquire the right to speak for 850-plus folks working for Chick-fil-A? Maybe they all agree with him, but what if they don't? On the other hand, Swain's confusion of company with chief operating officer is perhaps understandable; the U.S. Supreme Court apparently can't tell the difference between a human being and a company either, far less distinguish "free speech" from "money."
This is a dangerous confusion, though. What would happen to the Chick-fil-A employee who publicly disagreed with the big boss? Again, I don't know; but if my loved ones would go hungry without this guy's signature on my paycheck, would I be brave enough to disagree with him - out loud and in the hearing of others?
If not, what about my free speech rights? Can a corporation demand and own not only our contracted-for time and labor, but also our opinions - maybe even our choice of partner?
Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed notes that many of the rights Americans cherish disappear when we cross an employer's threshold. Employers can subject potential employees - people whom they haven't hired yet - to drug testing. What an invasion of privacy; a police officer can't demand this without at least probable cause, yet job-hunters obediently (or desperately) pee in cups just to get a shot at an interview. Employers in many workplaces can and will routinely search the bags, pockets and in a few cases even the bodies of employees for potentially stolen items, with or without a suspicion of crime. "Unreasonable search," anyone? It's also scarily common for employers to restrict employees' speech freedoms. Can you discuss your pay or benefits with co-workers without risking dismissal?
When Dan Cathy expresses an opinion, for whom does he speak?
Simple common sense tells us that Cathy is one man, not a corporation. He, and all of us, forget or ignore that fact at our peril.
Welcome to every friggin' day in the life of a conservative that disagrees with the politically correct issue de jour.
What would happen to any employee that disagreed publicly with the "big boss"? DUH! When you go to work for a company, you're part of that company, and you represent it at all levels (if you want to be professional about it). If you can't do that, you're better off somewhere else, for you and the company.
Hunt mentions the corporate employees. It's glaringly obvious Hunt did not do her homework. All potential franchisee owners go through a very rigorous vetting process. I can only assume the same is true for corporate officers - I would do it. And wouldn't someone considering a corporate job there vet them also. Wouldn't you do that with any company before taking a job there, or even interviewing? How dumb is Hunt?
All others, well, most people know CFA is closed on Sundays for religious reasons. Anyone applying for a job there who didn't know would quickly find out.
This is just another smear job. And a pretty lame one at that.
Did the Oreo company consider the rights of the workers that were forced to make cookies that may represent something that is an abomination to their religious beliefs.
Were the workers that don’t support the GLBT lifestyle able to refuse or to speak up against the production of those cookies?? It has to work both ways.
The 10% figure comes from a disingenuous representation of Kinsey’s research back in the 40’s and 50’s. The LGBT community has run with that number for decades, but Kinsey never actually said that. I don’t who started it, but there’s no scientific basis in the stat. Most reliable research I’ve seen has shown the percentages to be 1-3% or thereabouts.
Reality is somewhere between the extremes but I can't see how we'd know where.
Around 10% of all unmarried couples in the Census community survey identified themselves as homosexual but unmarried couples is only a smaller portion of all couples while neither figure accounts for those not in cohabiting relationships and none can account for those "in the closet."
However, even at 1%, 3 million homosexuals would be equal or greater than the populations of twenty states or roughly that of Iowa while 3% puts the population figure around 9 million, or greater than any but our largest 10 states thus somewhere around the population of New Jersey.
The 10% figure, if accurate, would be wild beyond imagination by taking the population of homosexuals beyond that of the entire state of Texas.
The Chik-Fil-A boss speaks for himself and, assuming he's majority / controlling owner, he speaks for his business as well. The employees don't figure in to it any more than they do when Target bans Salvation Army or Kraft/Oreo sponsors Gay Pride or Miller Light Sponsors the Fulsom Street Fair or Apple and Google tell me how to vote on Prop 8 (donated $100K each to defeat it).
Don’t allow these creatures to use the word “marriage equality”. There is no better marriage equality than one male can marry one female. It is the only non-sexist “EQUAL” way to include all humans without alienating 1/2 of the population.
All males are treated EQUALLY. All females are treated EQUALLY-—and note—the whole human race is treated EQUALLY with NO EXCLUSIONS.
All homosexual societies were extremely SEXIST-—because they don’t like—and don’t have to put up with —half of the human race.
But the most EVIL thing about the dysfunctional behavior-—is through force of law (unjust law BTW) in preventing the NATURAL RIGHTS of a child to have a biological mother and father. It will warp his entire reality in an unsocial way.
The author should have stopped right there.
But let's return to Swain's confusing Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A with the corporation he runs. Cathy has a right to speak his mind; but when did he acquire the right to speak for 850-plus folks working for Chick-fil-A? Maybe they all agree with him, but what if they don't? On the other hand, Swain's confusion of company with chief operating officer is perhaps understandable; the U.S. Supreme Court apparently can't tell the difference between a human being and a company either, far less distinguish "free speech" from "money."The author can argue that money is not "free speech." But unless someone explains to me how the press can operate without buying ink and paper (or a broadcast station, or some other communication technology) and without paying employees, there is no distinction between the freedom . . . of the press and the right of the people to create organizations which spend money from any legitimate sources on communicating their opinions and ideas by means of printing presses or any other technical means.
There being no case to be made that the framers of the Constitution (who explicitly allowed for the establishment of the Patent Office) would have been surprised to learn that communication technology would improve in the future, such improvements as radio, TV, the Internet, and so on logically are included in the press.
That would be Jesus, yes? Then the answer is everyone.
I get a cookie!
Not to smart nor honest for a state rep candidate. By Government stats homosexuals represent between 1-2 percent of the population not 10%.
Then factor in homosexuals intolerance of those different then themselves and not many would even want to work at Chick-Fil-A
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.