Chick-fil-A to End Donations to Christian Charities after LGBT Backlash

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

A sad day in America.

 

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/chick-fil-a-to-end-donations-to-christian-charities-after-lgbt-backlash/

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Bad decision to capitulate to PC authoritarians, I guess they don't get that every time they do this it just emboldens this mob to further employ these bullying tactics.

[Boris Farage 353]

I don't eat their dreck anyway, but organisations that bend to the will of the far left should suffer the wrath of those who have supported them. Vote with your wallet, get your dreck elsewhere.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

That is just sad. 

[Dashinka 24,747]

I read the memo, are they stopping donations to all faith based organizations?  It seems their focus will be JA and Covenant House, not sure about JA, but Covenant House definitely started as a faith based organization, and I believe it still is.

[yuna628 9,700]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I read the memo, are they stopping donations to all faith based organizations?  It seems their focus will be JA and Covenant House, not sure about JA, but Covenant House definitely started as a faith based organization, and I believe it still is.

No they aren't. Just selectively omitting a few organizations and changing directions to other organizations that I actually think is an even better marketing decision for them. They also stated that they would take up consideration of sponsoring any organization in the future - both faith and non-faith based. There is only two off their list right now, SA and FoCA.

 

Directing focus to homelessness, poverty, and hunger in the US is good.

Edited November 19, 2019 by yuna628

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

No they aren't. Just selectively omitting a few organizations and changing directions to other organizations that I actually think is an even better marketing decision for them. They also stated that they would take up consideration of sponsoring any organization in the future - both faith and non-faith based. There is only two off their list right now, SA and FoCA.

 

Directing focus to homelessness, poverty, and hunger in the US is good.

I agree their new focus is good.  And they already made good on their previous donation promises.

 

What I feel is a mistake is WHY they pulled the donations.  They should have just ignored the pressure IMO.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

10 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

No they aren't. Just selectively omitting a few organizations and changing directions to other organizations that I actually think is an even better marketing decision for them. They also stated that they would take up consideration of sponsoring any organization in the future - both faith and non-faith based. There is only two off their list right now, SA and FoCA.

 

Directing focus to homelessness, poverty, and hunger in the US is good.

If only this was as innocuous as you make it sound.

 

This occurred because of harassment campaigns by LGBT groups, and includes a significant change in partnership scope.

 

It wasn't done merely to focus on homelessness and poverty.

 

Thus, Chick-Fil-A capitulates to the mob, which reinforces their bullying behavior, as if they needed more reinforcement of it. Companies really need to stop doing this. They think they're doing themselves a short term favor by getting people off their backs, but rather, screwing themselves in the long term.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[yuna628 9,700]

47 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I agree their new focus is good.  And they already made good on their previous donation promises.

 

What I feel is a mistake is WHY they pulled the donations.  They should have just ignored the pressure IMO.

Sure, they could have ignored pressure. But this is a free market economy, and businesses typically make decisions based upon what their customers want and need. It's not just right-minded businesses that make these sort of decisions either. What I've found, especially in our local franchises, is that the owners aren't really into the constant controversy, and have been making decisions to support local and educational based charities and fundraisers long ago. They usually donate proceeds of sales to our local schools and colleges one night a week and throw a little party too. Twice a year they do police, veteran, and Special Olympic charities too. I think this sets a good example for corporate ownership in these changing times. The CEO can surely still support these charities if he wants to, and they have made clear they are not nixing any other religious based charities they may sponsor.

46 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

If only this was as innocuous as you make it sound.

 

This occurred because of harassment campaigns by LGBT groups, and includes a significant change in partnership scope.

 

It wasn't done merely to focus on homelessness and poverty.

 

Thus, Chick-Fil-A capitulates to the mob, which reinforces their bullying behavior, as if they needed more reinforcement of it. Companies really need to stop doing this. They think they're doing themselves a short term favor by getting people off their backs, but rather, screwing themselves in the long term.

I'm not trying to make it sound any 'innocuous' way, nor do I really care why it did or didn't occur. CFA is seeking to expand globally and is quickly becoming an intense competitor in the industry. Most of these types of decisions are all going to come down to free market economics and making changes (however much the outcry) based on whatever drives their current model at the time. No they aren't fooling anyone, but I for one enjoy CFA, enjoy the good work with the kids in the town they do, and I think these organizations they are going to start focusing on are far well worth their support and will overall improve their business model over time. Which is usually all shrewd men in the industry care about - the bottom line.

Edited November 19, 2019 by yuna628

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

21 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Sure, they could have ignored pressure. But this is a free market economy, and businesses typically make decisions based upon what their customers want and need. It's not just right-minded businesses that make these sort of decisions either. What I've found, especially in our local franchises, is that the owners aren't really into the constant controversy, and have been making decisions to support local and educational based charities and fundraisers long ago. They usually donate proceeds of sales to our local schools and colleges one night a week and throw a little party too. Twice a year they do police, veteran, and Special Olympic charities too. I think this sets a good example for corporate ownership in these changing times. The CEO can surely still support these charities if he wants to, and they have made clear they are not nixing any other religious based charities they may sponsor.

I'm not trying to make it sound any 'innocuous' way, nor do I really care why it did or didn't occur. CFA is seeking to expand globally and is quickly becoming an intense competitor in the industry. Most of these types of decisions are all going to come down to free market economics and making changes (however much the outcry) based on whatever drives their current model at the time. No they aren't fooling anyone, but I for one enjoy CFA, enjoy the good work with the kids in the town they do, and I think these organizations they are going to start focusing on are far well worth their support and will overall improve their business model over time. Which is usually all shrewd men in the industry care about - the bottom line.

Harassment campaigns and coercion are nothing to do with the free market any more than holding a gun to someone's head and making them choose A or B is that person exercising a free choice on the free market. Coercion is coercion is coercion.

 

What you're describing is a perversion of what once was common sense CSR, but now hijacked by social justice bullying. It's neither conducive to freedom nor business, but is overtly the strategy of a political demographic to forcefully institute their political ideologies. 

 

Some are simply more honest about it than others.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,300]

Why is it bad for a corporation to want to maximize shareholder value? Aren't we supposed to let the market dictate whether a corporation will rise or fall? If their internal metrics indicate that redirecting charitable contributions should be redirected to ensure or further success, why should they stick with something that is affecting their bottom line? Are corporations supposed to be moral creatures now? 

 

Questions.

[yuna628 9,700]

7 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why is it bad for a corporation to want to maximize shareholder value? Aren't we supposed to let the market dictate whether a corporation will rise or fall? If their internal metrics indicate that redirecting charitable contributions should be redirected to ensure or further success, why should they stick with something that is affecting their bottom line? Are corporations supposed to be moral creatures now? 

 

Questions.

Personally, if the CEO were that convicted on a subject than the 'mob' wouldn't matter a hoot. No, no one is really fooled here. They've got a business model and it's a pretty good one, but they recognize times are changing, the desire to expand the market globally is fueling new decisions, and $. It usually all comes down to $. I see this all as a lot of media kerfuffle over nothing that big. There are and will continue to be plenty of Christian organizations they will donate too, but honestly if they wanted a little less controversy (which is also a different sort of clever marketing ploy) they could have followed their individual franchise owner's examples long ago.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why is it bad for a corporation to want to maximize shareholder value? Aren't we supposed to let the market dictate whether a corporation will rise or fall? If their internal metrics indicate that redirecting charitable contributions should be redirected to ensure or further success, why should they stick with something that is affecting their bottom line? Are corporations supposed to be moral creatures now? 

 

Questions.

I don't think CFA has ever pretended to support the LGBTQ crowd in any way, but yes, corporate profits rule.

 

The morals of the founders have prevented them from working on Sundays and not supporting the above crowd.  Not that they are supporting them by changing their contributions, it does certainly appear that the change comes due to pressure from thence.  Which, IMO, it shouldn't have.

 

I also don't think bakers should be forced to ale cakes against their religious views.  But that's me.

[laylalex 7,300]

3 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I don't think CFA has ever pretended to support the LGBTQ crowd in any way, but yes, corporate profits rule.

 

The morals of the founders have prevented them from working on Sundays and not supporting the above crowd.  Not that they are supporting them by changing their contributions, it does certainly appear that the change comes due to pressure from thence.  Which, IMO, it shouldn't have.

 

I also don't think bakers should be forced to ale cakes against their religious views.  But that's me.

What are ale cakes?

 

I don't have a problem with them not working on Sundays -- it's a business model that works for them. But a corporation should be responsive to the people who are buying and who want to buy their products. I'm certain the people in the CFA boardroom aren't fools about business, given their profits. If it makes more sense for them economically to redirect their contributions, given sentiment of those pressuring them, they will do it. There aren't really morals at play, of CFA or those pushing from the outside. The bottom line is what's at stake, and on balance, a change must have made more sense. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

What are ale cakes?

 

I don't have a problem with them not working on Sundays -- it's a business model that works for them. But a corporation should be responsive to the people who are buying and who want to buy their products. I'm certain the people in the CFA boardroom aren't fools about business, given their profits. If it makes more sense for them economically to redirect their contributions, given sentiment of those pressuring them, they will do it. There aren't really morals at play, of CFA or those pushing from the outside. The bottom line is what's at stake, and on balance, a change must have made more sense. 

First it auto-corrected "make" to male, and I didn't notice it then went to ale.  *sigh*  Now I know why NB is so focused on proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation.