My friends Brenda and Clayton have been getting into it a bit over whether and when boycotting is a good idea on their respective blogs. Naturally, I cannot resist heedlessly jumping in.
Like Brenda, I would argue that boycotting someone merely because they adhere to an unpopular minority position (or worldview, or faith, or what-have-you) is generally a terrible idea. I’ve seen faith-based boycotts levied against freethinker-owned businesses such as the eatery formerly known as the Daily Grind in Ponca City. The subsequent history of that eatery would not make for particular uplifting reading, and I’m not about to write it down. I will say that David eventually went on build a new and better life for himself, and I wish him all the best.
Like Clayton, however, I would argue in favor of boycotting Chick-Fil-A. Indeed, I argued for even more proactive measures, such as protests highlighting exactly what brand of hatred you’d be financing with your nasty little chicken sandwich. At the time of the controversy, I did not desire merely that Chick-Fil-A take a small hit to their bottom line, I wanted them to fail so utterly and miserably that we no longer saw them built anywhere outside of the Old South. I wanted their franchisees to go bankrupt and tell cautionary tales about how they lost their fortunes, their trophy wives, and their golf club memberships because they foolishly invested in Chick-Fil-A.
How can I consistently maintain that it is wrong to organize a boycott because of an owners religious faith (or lack thereof) but morally correct to actively work for the financial ruination of corporations like Chick-Fil-A? In a word: consequentialism. The question we must ask ourselves is this: If a boycott succeeds, will it make the world a less hateful and bigoted place?
Boycotts against people of minority faiths are the direct result of faith-based bigotry on the part of those who are doing the boycotting. Boycotts against corporations who finance homophobic propaganda are the result of bigotry on the part of those who control the corporation. If you desire to reduce the amount of bigotry in the world, you should stand against boycotts which are justified by bigotry, while standing for boycotts which aim to undercut such bigotry by depriving it of ongoing funding.
End note: Of course, there is always the question of efficacy. It is not enough to ask after intended consequences are, we must also look at the most probable consequences. In the case of Chick-Fil-A the results as muddled at best. Some articles, such as this piece at POLITICO, strongly suggest that the boycott worked. Others suggest no change was affected. Time will tell.
