BaptistLife.Com Forums.

I affirm the good work that the Cathy family has done. And they've done great work especially helping troubled boys and girls. The boys home in my hometown - Paul Anderson Youth Home - has several buildings named after the Cathy family. Truett Cathy - or Uncle Truett as the "boys" there know him - has supported that youth home since the late Olympian (former "World's Strongest Man") Paul Anderson started it decades ago.

Lots of other great charitable works too. I've also always heard that Chick-fil-A pays its employees better than other competitors. I don't know if this is true or not.

However, I don't affirm how the Cathy family has directed their corporation to donate large amounts of money to support certain organizations like Family Research Council - an organization that does much more harm than good, IMO.

I also affirm the freedom of folks to refrain from eating Cathy's delicious chicken treats.

That said, I eat at Chick-fil-A at least once a week, generally Saturday lunch at the Waco location.

I think this emerging controversy does give us Baptist moderates and progressives a good opportunity to talk about stuff like corporate responsibility and socially and ethically responsible investments. We Baptists from the South don't chat much about that. Although, American Baptists were very involved in the corporate responsibility movement in past decades. Most recently, PC-USA had a big debate about investing in businesses in Israel like Caterpillar (big Caterpillar location here in Waco)

Ed I believe that study is disputed by other studies. But be that as it may, I don't want to get off the topic of the FRC. The FRC is just one several conservative Christian organizations that has gotten heavily involved in politics and wants to make abortion, gay marriage, and a few other issues the main reasons to vote Republican or Democrat. It is a very narrow focus for political choice and it honestly bothers me. I've met a few people who would vote for Satan himself if they thought he'd vote the way they believe on abortion or homosexuality even if the candidate is a lousy Presidential choice.

It is funny how Sandy and I agree and disagree depending on if it is politics or theology. Friend Sandy I still have a heck of a time figuring how you fit your viewpoints together. But that is your choice.

Ed I'm not going to go dig up the studies because if there is one thing I'm avoiding discussing with you it is homosexuality. Frankly I think you are near rabid about the issue and I have no intention going around and around that subject again with you.

"Harmful" isn't the word I would choose to describe the Family Research Council. There are some positions they take that I support, or at least, agree with, others I don't. But as far as boycotting a business that contributes to them, I'm not going to do that. I don't support the Mormons, but if a Marriott hotel gives me the best rate, I'm not going to Hilton across the street.

I support businesses for very simple reasons. They have a product I need or a service I need and the price is right. There are thousands of stories circulating about what someone who owns stock in some business does with his profits. That's their choice. I'm not going to punish myself by paying a higher price, or getting less service just because of the political inclinations of people who may own a share of the business. Not all of the information out there is accurate, anyway. I remember a few years back a rumor circulating that McDonald's gave a portion of its profits to the Church of Satan. They had trouble squelching it, and it cost them a lot, even though it wasn't true. There are too many causes and agendas to keep up with and be consistent.

Truett Cathy is a great example for other businesses, proof that you can do business ethically, and without profiteering, and still make a reasonable profit.

I generally am not that big on boycotts either Sandy. But I'm just too uncomfortable with his political spending to want to contribute to his coffers for the sake of a chicken sandwich. Just the idea now of eating his product takes away my appetite. So he has lost me as a customer, boycott or no boycott. I wouldn't be able to enjoy the food. And that is why you buy the food right?

Sure he has the right to spend his money how ever he wants. And if his product was something I really needed to survive and couldn't get elsewhere I'd have an ethical dilemma to deal with. Well I don't need a chicken sandwich. So this is a case of me simply choosing to buy a chicken sandwich from one of numerous other vendors if I want one. Given what he sells it isn't even an inconvenience for me not to buy his product. And that is a problem for his business in the long run. No one needs Chic Fil A.

Business people who are running a business which basically provides something none of us really need ought to think twice about the ramifications of political involvement in hot button issues that really have nothing to do with their business. Maybe Cathy is willing to lose money on this deal, again his choice. But IMHO it isn't very good business to PO a group of your customers when you are already basically selling a "luxury item."

Ed's right here. "Profiteer" means to make objectionably excessive profits, not to make a profit.

I take you guy's point on the def. of profiteer although I would generally reject the concept that any market where there is a willing seller and buyer that profiteering can exist. I certainly reject the assertion of profiteering by health insurance providers. Their margin is not excessive.

have you checked the margin on software?

Just wanted to add that Timothy Daily - who wrote the homosexuality links to pedophilla "studies" - has long served FRC as a staff member, research fellow, etc. His research is funded by FRC and friends of FRC. He's not in the business of doing peer-reviewed research.

His findings have been widely critiqued from the left and right especially with regard to his methodology. That particular study is not taken seriously by anyone including conservative evangelicals who study same-sex relationships, etc.

I don't want to debate that. It's a waste of time.

There are many conservative Christian groups out there that deal with "family" and "marriage" issues. Most don't have the reputation of FRC which this year alone has given an award to an incredibly vile anti-gay pastor (conservative evangelicals ) and hired as their Exec Vice-President a controversial figure that believes Muslims shouldn't enjoy religious freedom. That selection too has been criticized by conservative evangelicals, .

As usual BDW your posts are well said and well researched. You pointed to a lot of information I remember reading but didn't have the sources at hand.

You know, a much wider discussion than the Chic Fil A story might be, "When should businesses get involved in political issues outside of business practices and law?"

Businesses are in business to make money. As far as product goes, I think Chi Fil A has a good product. I've thought it was several steps above what you get from similar vendors. But in taking sides in the culture wars the owner was bound to make someone mad on either side of the argument and negatively effect his business.

To me the way to get a handle on this kind of thing is to go back to some sensible laws on financial contributions to politics, political agendas, and candidates. Right now the sky is the limit and if you are rich enough you can flood the airwaves with your viewpoint. Is that fair? Basically money has been ruled to be speech in our society. How is this fair in a democracy?