Ethics, Chick-fil-A, And Oreos

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

While “making a purchase is not an endorsement of the philosophy of the business,” there may be other ethical concerns at play. When that business donates $2 million dollars to groups that are hell-bent on denying civil rights to a particular group, an individual’s purchase contributes (albeit by a minuscule amount) to a cause s/he may find morally offensive.

The group, One Million Moms, responded to the rainbow Oreo, created in support of Gay Pride month, called for a boycott of Kraft. Kraft, like Chick-fil-A, entered into advocacy and that advocacy becomes a legitimate factor in the purchasing decision.

The moral dilemma occurs when a person is confronted with the decision to purchase a product from a company that uses its profits for an advocacy that the person finds morally unacceptable. Those who find same-sex marriage morally unacceptable face the dilemma when purchasing Kraft products. Those who see same-sex marriage as a civil liberties issue fact the same dilemma when purchasing from Chick-fil-A.

When a person purchases products from a company with an advocacy agenda, that person is helping to support, even in a minor way, that agenda. A minuscule contribution is still a contribution.

Throughout our history, civil liberties have been denied to various groups of individuals for various reasons. I have heard no reasonable justification for the denial of civil liberties based on sexual orientation. Until Chick-fil-A provides a reasonable justification for their denial of civil liberties, I find their actions morally reprehensible. As much as I like those chicken sandwiches, something else will have to alleviate my hunger and my conscience.

H/T: Michael LaBossiere, HuffPo.

70 thoughts on “Ethics, Chick-fil-A, And Oreos”

  1. Swarthmore mom 1, August 5, 2012 at 9:18 am

    I think their sales are way up at the 34 locations in DFW.
    Ask LBJ. Maybe you should ask the Warren Commission instead.

  2. I read this article fully on the topic of the resemblance of latest and previous technologies, it’s amazing article.

  3. Swarthmore mom 1, August 5, 2012 at 9:18 am

    I think their sales are way up at the 34 locations in DFW.

    Do know what they say in Texas?

    1) Wait your turn.
    2) What are you doing to that sheep? I’m just helping it over the fence.
    3) How do you separate the men from the boys in Texas? With a crowbar.

  4. JCTheBigTree said:

    “I’m going out of my mind over this subject.

    “I simply cannot fathom how anybody in our country can be so against letting two people who love each other have a legally recognized union or marriage.

    WTF is wrong with us?”

    JC –

    I share your ire, amigo.

    In the world of medicine they often discuss ‘vestigial’ features – like the hair on the back of your hand; even your little toe.

    I suspect the entire matter of damning same-sex marriage is a socially vestigial reflex, as attached to the human viscera as the appendix.

    Who knows? Maybe 10,000,000 years ago, homosexual relationships would have doomed all of mankind. So it was deemed a social negative, and thrived like any other virus.

    The bad news? It’ll take far too long to be recognized as inconsequential.

    The good news? As the elder god-meisters die off, they are rapidly being replaced by an entire generation that just doesn’t think any of this, is all that important.

    Of course, THEIR stupefied brains will be long-since ‘married’ to their electronic toys, which will likely generate a spectrum of problems we can’t even fathom.

    In 2030 they won’t give a damn about gay marriage. It’ll be a given.

    But robot marriage? Now that’ll be a fun topic.

    Just wait. The Turley Log: 2035.

  5. Why aren’t the One Million Moms group more concerned about the dyes that would be used to make such colorful cookies? All the dyes added to food these days is what makes me such a picky shopper. I buy a lot of organic foods (ketchup, yogurts, granola bars, juice boxes, etc) to avoid these dyes.
    As moms, you would think these women would be more concerned about the red, blue, and yellow dyes that actually affects their children instead of a marriage between two people.

  6. I’m going out of my mind over this subject.

    I simply cannot fathom how anybody in our country can be so against letting two people who love each other have a legally recognized union or marriage. Its 2012 and we’re still discriminating people based on something as simple as their own nature.

    WTF is wrong with us?

    Anyone with a mediocum of intelligence should understand that the government does not recognize RELIGIOUS marriages, it recognizes CIVIL marriages, and by the seperation of church and state doctrine we CANNOT legislate religious ‘morality’ which discriminates against a certain population of our people.

    Bottom line, this is a religious debate that ishas enchroached on the civil liberties of individuals in our nation, basically since our founding.

    The Catholic faith, for example wants the government to stay out of its business, while in the same breath it wants to get into the governments business.

    If a religion doesn’t want gays to be married or women to take birth control, it has to realize that they are only allowed to impose the beliefs of that religion on the FOLLOWERS of that religion..not on all citizens.

    They cannot have it both ways.

    It simply infuriates me that I’m allowed to be married to my wife, but one of my closest friends cannot be married to his boyfriend.

    Here in Minnesota we go to the polls to decide on an Amendment…gay marriage is already illegal and we are voting on whether or not to make it ‘more illegaler’ (as my friend likes to put it.)


  7. @mahtso: None of the questions you ask are what gays are asking for; they are asking for equal rights to heterosexuals; meaning a two-person marriage with all the legal ramifications of a two-person marriage, the right to divorce, to adopt, etc. Nothing about incest, or multiple marriage partners, or marrying non-humans or any other special rights: They want their two-person marriage to be recognized exactly like the two-person marriage of a man and a woman, permanently, and the only way to ensure that is for it to be legally defined as a “marriage” so any future changes to marriage law or privileges given to married couples will also apply to them.

    Same sex marriage is distinguished from incest, polygamy and polyandry exactly like opposite sex marriage is, marriage requires exactly two people, no more and no less, that are both mentally competent adults and are not biological parents, siblings, or cousins (or whatever the legal definition of incest actually is). Nothing need be changed except the opposite gender requirement; everything else remains the same.

  8. mahtso,
    I used the example as a reminder that a lot of really smart people are on both sides the issue of multiple spouses. My main point is that if it turns out to be legal to have multiple spouses, what about a single spouse of the same gender without hassle? I was really addressing those that use over the top examples as Rick Santorum and others of his ilk have done.

    We have seen every one of the logical fallacies Gene discussed in his last piece on propaganda used in this debate, almost all of them by the anti-gay marriage crowd.

  9. To be clear, I am not worried about multiple spouses or any of this. Before making such a big change however, I would like to understand what the ramifications of that change are likely to be.

    And, as an aside, using the Professor as an example will generally not carry a lot of weight becuase the views he expresses on many issues are far different than the guest bloggers.

  10. If you folks worrying about multiple spouses (of either gender), please do not forget that Professor Turley is counsel for a Mormon family who is asking for just that in the “sister wives” case. It is a First Amendment issue.

Comments are closed.