Corporate Donations- Do they Effect your Patronization

[JGlass]

So my school is ripping out all the crappy restaurants in our student center and replacing them with better ones. One of these better restaurants is Chik-Fil-A (I don't know if I punctuated/spelled it right, but I don't really care either).

In case you didn't know, Chik-Fil-A is owned by a group of Christians. Now they're not militant Christians or anything, and in a way it's kind of refreshing. All their restaurants are closed on Sundays, and apparently they print psalms from the Bible on the bottom of their soda cups. They also donate money to anti-gay rights groups.

Which is okay, that's their right as a company. When a company makes millions upon millions of dollars a year it makes sense to donate to a cause they feel strongly about, and most of the time I would applaud such a move. If Chik-Fil-A was donating to, say, Doctors Without Boarders, I don't think many people would take issue with the fast-food company. However, since they chose to donate to a particular side of the heated gay rights debate, they are demonized in the eyes of a huge group of people.

I go to a school in Boston, so as you could imagine we're a very liberal campus, and as you can also imagine, there has been a huge backlash. The LGBT groups on campus are protesting the decision to the school, and even the school's Occupy Wall Street club is making their voices heard on the matter.

But I can't help but point out the irony to these people: wouldn't they be pissed off if it were a restaurant that is known for supporting the gay rights movement, and the Christian student group raised a fuss about this? And what if we were a Christian school or even a politically conservative school? wouldn't there be the same kind of fuss if we brought in a restaurant that supported gay rights?

It reminds me of the Lowes debacle from a few months ago. Lowes was pressured by a right-wing group to pull funding from a show that depicted Muslims in America as normal people. The group said it thought that the show was harmful because it might make people forget that there is a real terrorist threat. Lowes gave into the pressure and pulled out of their sponsorship for the show. In short, it was a really crumby thing for them to do.

At least in my opinion. There are probably scores of conservatives that applaud Lowes for the move. But that brings us back to Chik-Fil-A. The students are pressuring our school to pull out from their deal with Chik-Fil-A, and all I can do is chuckle to myself. These are the same students that probably rebuked Lowes for succumbing to public pressure, and here they are putting pressure on the school to get their way.

In my opinion, we should not try to block the installment of a Chik-Fil-A to our student center. They have every right to make a go of it, and a college campus with thousands of students looking to pay as little as possible for a filling meal is a good place to try. If we attempt to block Chik-Fil-A out, we're no better than the knee-jerk reactionary groups that put the pressure on Lowes to pull funding from the American Muslim show.

It comes down to us as individuals to make sure Chik-Fil-A knows we don't approve of what they do with our money. I, for one, won't be spending money at this restaurant, and I'll make sure my friends that support the LGBT community don't either. Let them know that our community doesn't support those that support anti-gay rights groups.

So, after that anecdote, I leave you with some questions.
1) Do you think activist groups should put pressure on corporations/companies to spend their money certain ways?
2) Which do you think is more correct: to pressure organizations to spend their money certain ways or to fight them by refusing to use their service.
3) Have you had any experiences with a company that supports a cause you disagree with, and if so, how did you deal with it?

 

[LSN80]

. If we attempt to block Chik-Fil-A out, we're no better than the knee-jerk reactionary groups that put the pressure on Lowes to pull funding from the American Muslim show.

It comes down to us as individuals to make sure Chik-Fil-A knows we don't approve of what they do with our money.

I, for one, won't be spending money at this restaurant, and I'll make sure my friends that support the LGBT community don't either. Let them know that our community doesn't support those that support anti-gay rights groups.

Sure, I think this is the proper way to go about things. The best message you can send to someone isn't trying to shut them down through words, but through actions. It's not necessarily the service that they're providing that you're against, it's what they stand for. And I applaud someone who feels strongly enough about something that they're willing to rob themselves of "better food" in order to send a message.

I just wouldn't be surprised if that message you're trying to send falls on deaf ears, so to speak. They're going to get enough patronage by people who either agree with what Chic-Fil-A stands for, are uninformed about them, or simply would rather eat cheap food then support a cause. This is especially true amongst college students.

1) Do you think activist groups should put pressure on corporations/companies to spend their money certain ways?

In some ways, sure. I think it's perfectly acceptable to voice your displeasure whether it be through letters or refusing to patron a store because their views are skewed or biased. But the thing these activists need to understand is, they have no rights here. If they're not stockholders in the company in some way, their words mean little. And who is going to be a stockholder in a company they principally disagree with?

I see no problem with pressuring a company, to an extent. But if these people get hungry for chicken some night, and they give Chic-Fil-A their patronage, it's hypocritical, wouldn't you say?

2) Which do you think is more correct: to pressure organizations to spend their money certain ways or to fight them by refusing to use their service?

This reminds me of Operation Wal-Mart Watch, a group that have spent five million dollars yearly since 2005 in attempts to turn WalMart into a better employer. As a labor-backed group, they were successful in getting the openings of several Wal-Marts blocked, and have won a court case here and there aimed at getting Wal-Mart to increase benefit expenditures. But they didn't change much, as its main goals went unaccomplished. Benefits for employees didn't increase, payrates remained the same, and the workers are still without a union. And this, from a company who had five million a year to spend in trying to force Wal-Mart to change their practices.

I suppose you could call the things they did actions, but the best statement one can send is to stop giving someone your patronage. They may not notice, and it likely will make no difference, but it's the best way for standing up for the principles you believe in. In my eyes, principles should be self-defined, and if you truly stand against something, denying them your service is the best way to go.

By all means, write them a letter. Politely explain to them that while you may enjoy their food, you cannot give them your patronage because of what they support. In that sense, your voice, even a small one, is heard, and back said words up with actions. The likelihood of you changing something as a result is minute, but the satisfaction of knowing you're doing what you believe to be right should be enough.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I never understood how some people can love Chik-Fil-A food so much. The chicken is pretty dry and nothing on their menu stands out as any better than other fast food companies. Just to be clear I felt this before I knew their leaderships political leanings.

Now that the important stuff is out of the way, I agree with LSN. If you have displeasure with a corporation act with your words and your wallet. As long as your actions are peaceful and pretty much legal do want you want to take a stand.

Here are a couple more ideas:

1) Study hard, get a job with their organization, work hard so you can get to the point where you can influence their political stance.

2) Wait for them to get set up and then go balls out in your protest. That way they have already sunk the most amount of money in to their new establishment and they won't see the protest coming.

 

[¡Roján!]

This is something I feel very strongly about. If I don't agree with a corporations ideals and morals I will boycott them. I don't mind paying more money, and I don't mind even losing out in quality, it's just something I live by. It's one of the best things my papa taught me and I'm so grateful he did.

So, to your questions:

Do you think activist groups should put pressure on corporations/companies to spend their money certain ways?

I think not only should activists put pressure on companies to do spend their moneys, I think the government should too. Offer incentives to companies that help out in the community and with the environment or whatnot. Still though, at the end of the day, if a company is private they can spend the money on whatever they damn well please, and that's part of being in the current world we live in.

Which do you think is more correct: to pressure organizations to spend their money certain ways or to fight them by refusing to use their service.

Well, I fight them by refusing to use their service but, no one else cares enough to do the same as me. So, pressuring organizations to spend their money in certain ways would probably be the best way to make a bigger impact, though, where I live, no real protests go on.

Have you had any experiences with a company that supports a cause you disagree with, and if so, how did you deal with it?

Quite a few times. One that pops to mind, is a recent purchase of a phone. I was all set to buy the iPhone before I thought twice of it. Apple, being the multi-billion dollar company they are, don't really give money to charity. I shopped around and bought a Windows Phone. It might not have the most apps around, but the phone is still awesome. But, that's not what it was about. I bought a Microsoft branded product because I like what they stand for. A lot of their money goes into researching for cures to Malaria and AIDs and other viruses with no cure. Not to mention, the great work Bill Gates does.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I think the LGBT community is right to protest this restaurant, and I don't think it's hypocritical. Just because there are two sides to a debate doesn't mean both sides are equal. There were two sides to the issue of segregation, and two sides to women having the right to vote, but ultimately if you supported segregation of blacks and whites, and if you were against giving women the right to vote, you were stupid and wrong.

That same logic follows to this. The entire lesbian gay issue has two sides, one for, and one against, but if you're against gays on any kind of level you're simply stupid and wrong. This restaurant is similarly stupid and wrong for giving money to any sort of group that is anti-gay. Similarly, the vast majority of Muslims are regular people, there is a small group of Muslims are extremists, so to be against Muslims because of this is stupid and wrong - you're on a side of an issue in which you're against evidence and reason.

Supporting gay rights and supporting anti-gay rights are not on the same level - one of these is correct and the other is wrong. One is backed by evidence and reason, one is backed by ignorance and bigotry, so there would be nothing hypocritical, there would be clear consistency in backing the correct choice.

This really isn't any different than a restaurant that wanted to push an anti-black agenda. I'm sure if that were the case there wouldn't be any backlash against black students who thought this was ridiculous - and there shouldn't be backlash against the LGBT community either. This restaurant clearly supports a discriminatory agenda, that's bullshit and the school should know better.

 

[SomeAreSet]

1) Do you think activist groups should put pressure on corporations/companies to spend their money certain ways?

I think activist groups have the right try to influence corporations or companies into using their money for something they believe in,but that doesn't mean that the corporations HAVE to do it. I think it's fine if the LGBT community are protesting the fact that Chick-Fil-A donates to anti-gay rights groups. It's all part of free speech. Activists can protest,they can boycott a store,they can do whatever they can within the law to try to influence said company/corporation to change their stance on a particular viewpoint.


2) Which do you think is more correct: to pressure organizations to spend their money certain ways or to fight them by refusing to use their service.

Isn't boycotting a company a form of pressuring organizations to spend their money a different way? So there's no difference.


3) Have you had any experiences with a company that supports a cause you disagree with, and if so, how did you deal with it?

Just once,when I was going to donate some old clothes to the Salvation Army. Someone told me that they were a Christian group and they support anti-gay rights as well. Now,I don't agree with denying homosexuals their right to marry,but at the same time,I know that my old clothing are going towards helping to keep some poor child warm at night,so I did it anyway. Besides,I also think that anti-gay rights groups are fighting a lost cause. Homosexuals will have the right to marry in the near future. The government's eyes will light up once they see the financial benefit to allowing homosexuals from all over the world to get married in their country. No amount of self-righteousness will be too powerful to overcome the power of money.