Chick-fil-A’s first UK location to close after pressure from LGBTQ rights group(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Chick-fil-A’s first UK location to close after pressure from LGBTQ rights group
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/chick-fil-as-first-uk-location-will-close-after-pressure-from-lgbtq-rights-group.html
25 comments
This was a result of an English lgbtq advocacy group pressuring an English shopping center in England. How is it related to the us domestic market aside from being a us based company?
This is the ugliest (and false) whataboutism I've seen in a while. Totally inappropriate for this site.
Yes, because wanting to be treated well, means your a bully????
Fascinating to see such clear ramifications of allowing religious beliefs to creep into the outcome of successful product expansion. I wonder if they will make any attempt to overcome this image in the future, or instead focus inwardly and try to continue engaging the existing customer base more frequently to pursue growth.
> Fascinating to see such clear ramifications of allowing religious beliefs to creep into the outcome of successful product expansion.
Dicks sporting goods recently took a stand against firearms that raised the ire of some of its customer base. Tons of companies go out of their way to support political messages all the time. I'd say taking moral/political positions is very much a normal tactic these days in the business world.
Time will tell how it pans out, but my guess is that it isn't some sort of disaster. Most people seem apathetic to such messaging and for every person who decides to buy a chicken sandwich from Popeye's instead of Chik-fil-a in order to "fight hate" there will probably be another one or two who go out of their way to eat Chik-fil-a in order to "stick it to the man" or whatever.
I'm just curious when this phenomenon started. Has it always existed? It seems like a straightforward tactic for building brand loyalty (staking out a position on some sort of lifestyle issue).
Dicks sporting goods recently took a stand against firearms that raised the ire of some of its customer base. Tons of companies go out of their way to support political messages all the time. I'd say taking moral/political positions is very much a normal tactic these days in the business world.
Time will tell how it pans out, but my guess is that it isn't some sort of disaster. Most people seem apathetic to such messaging and for every person who decides to buy a chicken sandwich from Popeye's instead of Chik-fil-a in order to "fight hate" there will probably be another one or two who go out of their way to eat Chik-fil-a in order to "stick it to the man" or whatever.
I'm just curious when this phenomenon started. Has it always existed? It seems like a straightforward tactic for building brand loyalty (staking out a position on some sort of lifestyle issue).
There is a huge moral difference between "I won't sell guns" and "I want the government to discriminate against consenting adults doing something because I personally disapprove"
Not as large a difference as you might hope. Replace "guns" with "phones with freely unlockable bootloaders", and "I" with "7/10 manufacturers" (made up statistics, but it's in the ballpark I think). If that 7/10 trends up to 10/10, then their right to control their own devices effectively disappears, even though the government didn't get in the way. I wager those who value the right to bear arms, don't want to wait until they are barely able to buy guns, at a dwindling handful of companies, before taking action.
You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married, make end of life decisions for each other as the next of kin, be on family insurance, etc?
Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.
Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.
> You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married...
I'm making a comparison to show you don't need the government to restrict rights - a handful of corporations that control a market can do so just as well. Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The specific activity I chose to illustrate this is utterly besides the point. (Though it is worrying that anyone on this site would think control of your own computer is unimportant.)
> Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.
It is precisely the passionate pro-2nd-amendment attitude (the same attitude that directed ire towards Dicks) that assures this. To repeat myself - they don't want to wait till their backs are against a wall, to start pushing back. "Don't worry, you still have N-1 computing devices not locked-down by the manufacturer. N-2. N-3. N-4..."
I'm making a comparison to show you don't need the government to restrict rights - a handful of corporations that control a market can do so just as well. Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The specific activity I chose to illustrate this is utterly besides the point. (Though it is worrying that anyone on this site would think control of your own computer is unimportant.)
> Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.
It is precisely the passionate pro-2nd-amendment attitude (the same attitude that directed ire towards Dicks) that assures this. To repeat myself - they don't want to wait till their backs are against a wall, to start pushing back. "Don't worry, you still have N-1 computing devices not locked-down by the manufacturer. N-2. N-3. N-4..."
The government can legally take away my property (eminent domain), my liberty by putting me in jail, they can force me to join the military, etc. Corporations have none of those powers.
None of that conflicts with what I said.
Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic.
The government is the only threat to my legal rights. Not made up “rights” that a corporation won’t let me do something that I am allowed to do.
What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone?
The government is the only threat to my legal rights. Not made up “rights” that a corporation won’t let me do something that I am allowed to do.
What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone?
> What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone?
Maybe you'll be happier if I call it an "ability", not a "right", since I am not interested in a debate on what rights are.
To answer your question - none. That's what makes it so easy to lose. But do you not see the problem? Suppose all computers, not just phones, become so locked down. Your computing would be completely under the control of a handful of giant corporations - all without any legal right getting infringed.
Of course I don't need hypotheticals. Lets look at another example: Before the Civil Rights act, no rights were being infringed on by segregated businesses either, and people were free to choose non-segregated businesses. The government wasn't stopping anyone - yet it was still a problem.
> The government is the only threat to my legal rights.
If 100% of the phones on the market automatically censored mentions of Tiananmen Square, are your legal rights still not under threat? It doesn't matter if you're able to exercise your rights, as long as you have them?
The Civil Rights act doesn't cover sexual orientation, so in many states, you can still be fired for being gay. Hypothetically, if 10% of businesses refused to hire gays, would your answer still be "The government is the only threat to their legal rights"? What if it was 50%? 90%? 100%? How high would you let that % go before acting?
Maybe you'll be happier if I call it an "ability", not a "right", since I am not interested in a debate on what rights are.
To answer your question - none. That's what makes it so easy to lose. But do you not see the problem? Suppose all computers, not just phones, become so locked down. Your computing would be completely under the control of a handful of giant corporations - all without any legal right getting infringed.
Of course I don't need hypotheticals. Lets look at another example: Before the Civil Rights act, no rights were being infringed on by segregated businesses either, and people were free to choose non-segregated businesses. The government wasn't stopping anyone - yet it was still a problem.
> The government is the only threat to my legal rights.
If 100% of the phones on the market automatically censored mentions of Tiananmen Square, are your legal rights still not under threat? It doesn't matter if you're able to exercise your rights, as long as you have them?
The Civil Rights act doesn't cover sexual orientation, so in many states, you can still be fired for being gay. Hypothetically, if 10% of businesses refused to hire gays, would your answer still be "The government is the only threat to their legal rights"? What if it was 50%? 90%? 100%? How high would you let that % go before acting?
> you can still be fired for being gay. Hypothetically, if 10% of businesses refused to hire gays, would your answer still be "The government is the only threat to their legal rights"? What if it was 50%? 90%? 100%?
In the Federalist papers, James Madison famously said that it wasn't enough for a government to protect its people from the tyranny of a central authority (e.g., a king), a government must also protect various groups from tyrannizing each other.
In the Federalist papers, James Madison famously said that it wasn't enough for a government to protect its people from the tyranny of a central authority (e.g., a king), a government must also protect various groups from tyrannizing each other.
> The Civil Rights act doesn't cover sexual orientation
It doesn't by name, but the pre-Trump EEOC viewed sexual orientation discrimination as necessarily involving gender stereotypes and thus being sex discrimination, and established precedent in two federal appellate circuits along that line; at least one circuit disagreed, and case has been heard by the Supreme Court this month (but not yet decided) which will likely resolve the circuit split.
It doesn't by name, but the pre-Trump EEOC viewed sexual orientation discrimination as necessarily involving gender stereotypes and thus being sex discrimination, and established precedent in two federal appellate circuits along that line; at least one circuit disagreed, and case has been heard by the Supreme Court this month (but not yet decided) which will likely resolve the circuit split.
> What law or part of the constitution says that I have a right to an unlocked phone?
The constitution is an important part of the legal system, but it's not the only part. There are also laws that legislators pass in service of the desires of the people the government serves.
For one, anti-trust law can potentially provide an avenue for challenging locked down phones. Providing a platform and then inhibiting open competition on that platform to the detriment of consumers is often an antitrust violation (see, for example Microsoft antitrust battles in the 1990s).
But even if current laws do not provide for unlocked phones, society can make new laws that require them. That's the beauty of democracy, we can choose how we want to live.
The constitution is an important part of the legal system, but it's not the only part. There are also laws that legislators pass in service of the desires of the people the government serves.
For one, anti-trust law can potentially provide an avenue for challenging locked down phones. Providing a platform and then inhibiting open competition on that platform to the detriment of consumers is often an antitrust violation (see, for example Microsoft antitrust battles in the 1990s).
But even if current laws do not provide for unlocked phones, society can make new laws that require them. That's the beauty of democracy, we can choose how we want to live.
You mean the antitrust lawsuit that was overturned and that MS later settled?
And the government forcing business to do what the “people want” is fine until the “people” elect someone who doesn’t share your views - whether it be banning guns on the left or restricting the rights of gay people to get married on the Right or banning interracial marriage up until the 60s because “the people” thought it wasn’t “Christian”.
You should always be worried about giving the government - the one entity that can take away your property, liberty and life more power.
And the government forcing business to do what the “people want” is fine until the “people” elect someone who doesn’t share your views - whether it be banning guns on the left or restricting the rights of gay people to get married on the Right or banning interracial marriage up until the 60s because “the people” thought it wasn’t “Christian”.
You should always be worried about giving the government - the one entity that can take away your property, liberty and life more power.
> You should always be worried about giving the government - the one entity that can take away your property, liberty and life more power.
In the day of company towns, your livelihood could be taken away at the whim of the company. A business relying on one of the app stores can be (and frequently is) ruined overnight by getting an opaque, unappealable, unexplained ban. Thousands died in the Bhopal disaster due to lax safety, and people have died being wrongly denied insurance they paid for [1]. Entire governments have been toppled by corporations [2]. "beyond question ... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products" [3] Oil companies knew their product caused global warming, and that it would have global adverse effects, and actively prevented measures against it to be taken, with lobbying and deception [4].
Thinking the government is the only threat to property, liberty, and life, isn't myopic - it's blind. All of feudalism can be re-cast to just landowners exercising their property rights - if the serfs don't like the terms of use, they can find their own land.
You also seem to be working under the assumption that it doesn't matter what kind of 'power' we give to the government. Just more=bad, less=good. There's a huge difference between expanding environmental protections or social programs, and increasing the length of jail terms, the scope of surveillance, and anti-circumvention laws.
[1] https://fox8.com/2018/11/10/aetna-ordered-to-pay-25-5-millio...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kurtz-Phelan...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
In the day of company towns, your livelihood could be taken away at the whim of the company. A business relying on one of the app stores can be (and frequently is) ruined overnight by getting an opaque, unappealable, unexplained ban. Thousands died in the Bhopal disaster due to lax safety, and people have died being wrongly denied insurance they paid for [1]. Entire governments have been toppled by corporations [2]. "beyond question ... the dominant position of the Standard Oil Co. in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products" [3] Oil companies knew their product caused global warming, and that it would have global adverse effects, and actively prevented measures against it to be taken, with lobbying and deception [4].
Thinking the government is the only threat to property, liberty, and life, isn't myopic - it's blind. All of feudalism can be re-cast to just landowners exercising their property rights - if the serfs don't like the terms of use, they can find their own land.
You also seem to be working under the assumption that it doesn't matter what kind of 'power' we give to the government. Just more=bad, less=good. There's a huge difference between expanding environmental protections or social programs, and increasing the length of jail terms, the scope of surveillance, and anti-circumvention laws.
[1] https://fox8.com/2018/11/10/aetna-ordered-to-pay-25-5-millio...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/books/review/Kurtz-Phelan...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil#Monopoly_charges_...
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
Chick-Fla-A is a private company (and forced to be so in the founder's will), so they have no shareholder obligation to pursue growth at all costs. They'll probably just shrug it off and concentrate on domestic expansion.
Can a founder really "force" all of the owners not to go public after he dies? Who is going to force them?
I wonder if the company was set up in some legal framework like a trust and therefore it would not be up to the current managers to make certain changes.
Just found this.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311452
They can’t go public but they are allowed to sell their ownership. So there is nothing stopping them from creating a shell company, “selling to it” and taking it public or “selling” to a smaller already public company.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311452
They can’t go public but they are allowed to sell their ownership. So there is nothing stopping them from creating a shell company, “selling to it” and taking it public or “selling” to a smaller already public company.
The executor of the estate.
Given they are closed on Sundays, I doubt they are worried about what people think of their religious stance/beliefs or worried about bending to pressure/common opinion just to increase profits (or they'd open on Sundays like every other fast food company).
There's really nothing puzzling about it. In each case it is their practice to cower before the biggest bully on the stage. When dealing with China, that bully is China, of course. But in the US domestic market the LGBTQ groups are the biggest bullies.