
Chick-fil-A’s first UK location to close after pressure from LGBTQ rights group - hkmaxpro
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/18/chick-fil-as-first-uk-location-will-close-after-pressure-from-lgbtq-rights-group.html
======
pmdulaney
In the light of the NBA's problems with China some commentators have been
puzzled. Why is it that American companies are so concerned with civil rights
at home in the US, but don't seem to care at all about human rights in China?

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.

~~~
beardbound
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?

------
w8vY7ER
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.

~~~
mrrrgn
> 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).

~~~
scarface74
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"

~~~
deogeo
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
deogeo
> 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..."

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
deogeo
None of that conflicts with what I said.

~~~
scarface74
_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?

~~~
deogeo
> 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?

~~~
speedplane
> 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.

