Like classy, you're implying that a company's stated or unstated politics is irrelevant to your decision as to whether to patronize the company's business. Well, I didn't believe classy and I don't believe you.
I'm sure there are hot-button issues you hold dear. Yet you're telling us that if a company was a vociferous advocate of a position entirely opposite to yours on that issue, it wouldn't affect your patronage?
Stop lying.
I don't think you're being fair to Classy or Unokitty. A statement of generality that a company's stated or unstated politics is irrelevant to each's decision as to whether to patronize the company's business does not necessarily preclude something so politically heinous as to force that decision. They are just making that statement in general with the unspoken but clear assertion that this particular instance does not (for them) rise to the standard of violating that principle. I daresay that if Chick-Fil-A announced that black folks were a blight on society and they were going to be donating to the Klan to remedy this problem, or for that matter that gays were a blight on society and they were going to be donating to organizations lobbying to make homosexuality illegal, neither Classy nor Unokitty would patronize Chick-Fil-A. However, just as my statement that I wouldn't leave my house naked would not prevent me from running out starkers if I suddenly found a grizzly bear in my closet, their statements were reasonable within normal variances. Just as I would drop my Progressive policy if the company began working for the abolition of capitalism, but not because they donate to organizations lobbying for higher taxes or universal government health care. One doesn't have to agree with every position a company (or individual) takes, and perhaps like me they even admire Chick-Fil-A for doing what they consider to be morally right (with the knowledge that they will take a financial hit for doing so) even as we disagree with the individual stance.
One has to pick one's battles, and adopting a policy of zero tolerance for disagreement guarantees an unhappy life.
I would suggest one thing. I don't know what is Chick-Fil-A's corporate profit, so I'm going to assume 10%. If you like Chick-Fil-A as a company and a family of products, but you disagree with their stance on gay marriage, why not donate money equal to their corporate profit to an organization supporting gay marriage? There must be some with funds set up for litigation or lobbying or adverts. That way you can support a company you generally like while negating their influence on this specific view. If on the other hand you consider organizations like the
Fellowship of Christian Athletes and
Focus on the Family to be "vile and discriminatory organizations", then you have no business patronizing Chick-Fil-A, ever.
As an aside, I think organizations like
Focus on the Family are harming their nominal cause by lobbying against gay marriage. Resources are always inherently limited, and by devoting such resources to constraining others' freedom, they are not doing all they could be doing to promote Christian values that are undeniably more important. Bringing one couple to Christ, or helping one couple cope with difficult financial or marital problems, does much more for Christianity in my opinion than banning every gay marriage in the world. And given that some gays wishing to marry are undoubtedly Christians, lobbying against gay marriage is arguably harming Christianity by driving away faithful adherents. (That's certainly arguable - Caesar's law is not necessarily G-d's law, and official government sanction is not necessarily G-d's sanction - but certainly I'd have a difficult time remaining within a religion that found such a core part of my being as sexual orientation to be a sin.)
I take issue with the idea that something being legal is "forcing" a viewpoint on anyone. Let's take smoking. I don't smoke. It doesn't make a difference to me personally whether smoking is illegal or not. But it happens to be legal; is that "forcing" smoking on me? Nope. If I don't want to engage in that activity, I'm not required to. There's lots of things that are legal which I don't do. You can open up a vegan restaurant if you've got the right permits. Personally, I find veganism offensive. But the fact that veganism is legal isn't "forcing" it on me. I can choose not to engage in it.
Interracial marriage is another activity that is legal. If I were a racist, that's not something I'd be in to, and since I'm already engaged to a white woman, I'm guessing I probably won't get an interracial marriage in my lifetime. Just because the option exists, doesn't mean that someone is "forcing" their beliefs on me. It's the exact same situation with gay marriage. If it was legal, am I going to be required to marry a man? No? Well then where does the "force" part come in to play?
Having the right to do something doesn't make something mandatory. No one is forcing you to think anything. They're opening up further rights to a group you don't happen to be a member of. It doesn't affect you.
Sorry, I missed your post earlier. That situation with the smoking was exactly my point - some on the left are incensed that "their" society allows smoking. (Well, except for pot.) Government has to have a position one way or the other on smoking, as having no policy is a win for the smoking side. Therefore one side is going to have the other side's views forced on it, as framed in their society, whether or not they personally smoke. They won't be personally affected unless they want to smoke and it is prohibited, but either way their society will not reflect their own values. This is why some fight so hard to get smoking banned, so that their society reflects their own values. It's the same with gay marriage - some want it prohibited, or more accurately, kept prohibited. So one side is going to win and one side is going to lose. One side will find their society does not reflect their own values. I also likened this to interracial marriage; while I believe that the majority can and must craft a society that reflects their values, that should not extend to the point of discrimination, of constraining others from enjoying the same basic liberties because of slightly different choices. Society should extend the same level of freedom to every individual as long as they aren't materially harming others.
Now personally, for me this is a no-brainer as I've said before. Gay people who wish to be married are affected directly and drastically by the prohibition of gay marriage. People who are not gays wishing to marry are affected only marginally; no one who is at all rational hates the concept of gay marriage so much that it will materially affect his or her life. I can literally choose whether or not I let gay marriage bother me, just as I can choose whether I'm offended by fat people or smokers or potheads. As I posted earlier, I see no compelling societal need to ban gay marriage. I can on the other hand see great moral reasons to allow gay marriage - personal liberty, equal protection under the law, equal opportunity to pursue happiness - nor do I see any significant societal down side in allowing it. But even though I think this issue is a no-brainer, I can understand the opposing point of view. Tradition and culture are fine things to appreciate, even if personally I don't think they rank nearly as high in importance as personal liberty or equal protection.
Facebook
Twitter