Chick-fil-A has repeatedly donated millions of dollars to anti-LGBTQ groups. Despite its promise to stop supporting these charities in 2012, it donated again in 2017.
Boycotts against Chick-fil-A have occurred in the past and have been called again.
However, as a bisexual person myself, I do not support boycotting. Producers and products are separate entities. Beyond that, and the fact that boycotts in the past have proven ineffective, it seems hypocritical to do so. Most Americans stand for democratic ideals and human rights, yet many companies do not care about such things and we support them anyways.
If you drink Coke or Pepsi, you’re supporting companies causing drought in India. Major fashion companies like Nine West don’t even have policies on forced labor for its suppliers. Any real diamonds you buy are 25 percent more likely to fuel a bloody conflict in Africa, and if not, they were probably mined by children.
The point here is that often times, you are going to be supporting some horrible act. When you put all this into perspective, Chick-fil-A giving money to anti-LGBTQ groups that are not very effective isn’t the worst thing you could do.
Even if a boycott did occur, the classic mantra of voting with your wallet is uninspired and lackluster. Do you know what doesn’t cause change? Doing nothing, especially when you’re doing nothing against a giant company whose consumer base is as vast as this country.
Now of course, if you don’t want to eat at Chick-fil-A, I support you. Just don’t try and elevate your actions because your stance won’t hold under the scrutiny of all the goods you consume. If you actually want to do something, donate to pro-LGBTQ+ charities.
The real reason I don’t support boycotting Chick-fil-A, besides the reality of the situation, is that I believe you can do wrong and produce right. As South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg puts it: "I do not approve of their politics, but I kind of approve of their chicken.”
Beyond Chick-fil-A, this has come up often in terms of art. By consuming a horrible person’s media, you are inherently supporting them. Can you separate the content from the content producer? I believe you can. This is, of course, unless the body of work that the content producer creates is extremely personal. In that case, there shouldn’t be a separation.
Michael Jackson’s music doesn’t have to be spoiled by its pedophilic creator. A body of work has a life outside of the creators actions. You give the work new purpose and meaning from your interaction with it.
Yes, you’re giving money to a horrible person or company. However, plenty of people who do not know of their actions, or simply don’t care are going to give them money anyways. Instead of taking your money elsewhere, spend it on these things you feel guilty about. Then, use your guilt to do something productive, like donating your time and money to causes you care about.
There is no escaping consumerism and the evil that permeates it. There will always be a dollar going to something or someone horrible. Either understand that you need not give yourself grief for supporting something “bad”, or do something active to change the situation. Regardless of which path you choose, boycotting is going to do absolutely nothing.
