-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.