Why does Chick-fil-A avoid the Northeast

[Big John]

If there is one successful way for restaurants to lose business, it's by killing your customers. 

(Hi, Chi-Chi's!)

In an ironic way, this isn't true for all lines of business.  Amusement parks are very good at weathering deaths.  And skydiving companies.  :-)

Though Jack in the Box survived, and to a lesser extent there are still Sizzler restaurants.

[SD Mapman]

I wish there were more Chick-fil-As in the upper great plains area... the closest one's 6 hours from me. Heck, they'd have a very strong customer base up here.

[Mr_Northside]

Some of those are open on Sundays. They have at least one mall location in Columbus that is open on Sundays.

Really?  Such seems to contradict CFA's overall corporate policy of not opening any CFAs on Sundays; including ones located in shopping malls and airport terminals/concourses where all other stores are typically open on Sundays.  I'm curious to know how the Columbus, Ohio area pulled such off. 

From my own observations, the ones in the North Shore Mall (Peabody, MA), Granite Run Mall (Lima, PA prior to the whole mall closing), the Gallery Mall (Philadelphia, prior to the mall's entire food court closing down) and at Philadelphia International Airport (Terminal B/C Marketplace) aren't/weren't open on Sundays.

I can't vouch for this mall example in Columbus, either way, but it's possible the Mall has some sort of penalties for stores / businesses not being open at certain times.
I remember reading that some of the malls (or at least one) around here were looking to penalize some stores (I forget the method how, penalties, possible eviction, etc) who weren't gonna join in the recent trend of opening earlier and earlier into Thanksgiving (the Black Friday creep into T-Giving) and stay closed that day.  (This is an overall observation, nothing related directly to Chick-Fil-A, but a mall may have some sway)

[1995hoo]

Some of those are open on Sundays. They have at least one mall location in Columbus that is open on Sundays.

Really?  Such seems to contradict CFA's overall corporate policy of not opening any CFAs on Sundays; including ones located in shopping malls and airport terminals/concourses where all other stores are typically open on Sundays.  I'm curious to know how the Columbus, Ohio area pulled such off. 

From my own observations, the ones in the North Shore Mall (Peabody, MA), Granite Run Mall (Lima, PA prior to the whole mall closing), the Gallery Mall (Philadelphia, prior to the mall's entire food court closing down) and at Philadelphia International Airport (Terminal B/C Marketplace) aren't/weren't open on Sundays.

I can't vouch for this mall example in Columbus, either way, but it's possible the Mall has some sort of penalties for stores / businesses not being open at certain times.
I remember reading that some of the malls (or at least one) around here were looking to penalize some stores (I forget the method how, penalties, possible eviction, etc) who weren't gonna join in the recent trend of opening earlier and earlier into Thanksgiving (the Black Friday creep into T-Giving) and stay closed that day.  (This is an overall observation, nothing related directly to Chick-Fil-A, but a mall may have some sway)

I would expect that a business, like Chick-Fil-A, whose management feels very strongly about not being open on certain days would insist on their right to observe their preferred hours being included in their lease.

[cl94]

Some of those are open on Sundays. They have at least one mall location in Columbus that is open on Sundays.

Really?  Such seems to contradict CFA's overall corporate policy of not opening any CFAs on Sundays; including ones located in shopping malls and airport terminals/concourses where all other stores are typically open on Sundays.  I'm curious to know how the Columbus, Ohio area pulled such off. 

From my own observations, the ones in the North Shore Mall (Peabody, MA), Granite Run Mall (Lima, PA prior to the whole mall closing), the Gallery Mall (Philadelphia, prior to the mall's entire food court closing down) and at Philadelphia International Airport (Terminal B/C Marketplace) aren't/weren't open on Sundays.

I can't vouch for this mall example in Columbus, either way, but it's possible the Mall has some sort of penalties for stores / businesses not being open at certain times.
I remember reading that some of the malls (or at least one) around here were looking to penalize some stores (I forget the method how, penalties, possible eviction, etc) who weren't gonna join in the recent trend of opening earlier and earlier into Thanksgiving (the Black Friday creep into T-Giving) and stay closed that day.  (This is an overall observation, nothing related directly to Chick-Fil-A, but a mall may have some sway)

Confirmed. One of their other area mall locations is closed Sundays, but not this one.

[jeffandnicole]

Some of those are open on Sundays. They have at least one mall location in Columbus that is open on Sundays.

Really?  Such seems to contradict CFA's overall corporate policy of not opening any CFAs on Sundays; including ones located in shopping malls and airport terminals/concourses where all other stores are typically open on Sundays.  I'm curious to know how the Columbus, Ohio area pulled such off. 

From my own observations, the ones in the North Shore Mall (Peabody, MA), Granite Run Mall (Lima, PA prior to the whole mall closing), the Gallery Mall (Philadelphia, prior to the mall's entire food court closing down) and at Philadelphia International Airport (Terminal B/C Marketplace) aren't/weren't open on Sundays.

I can't vouch for this mall example in Columbus, either way, but it's possible the Mall has some sort of penalties for stores / businesses not being open at certain times.
I remember reading that some of the malls (or at least one) around here were looking to penalize some stores (I forget the method how, penalties, possible eviction, etc) who weren't gonna join in the recent trend of opening earlier and earlier into Thanksgiving (the Black Friday creep into T-Giving) and stay closed that day.  (This is an overall observation, nothing related directly to Chick-Fil-A, but a mall may have some sway)

Confirmed. One of their other area mall locations is closed Sundays, but not this one.

Well, that's not right.  Let's all protest and boycott them.

[Scott5114]

Chick-fil-A has some of the best quality fast food out there. Their quality is consistent. They also have very good and fast service, despite their resteraunts being very busy. Their employees are more polite and higher caliber than other fast food reseraunts.

If forcing their employees to operate on script is your idea of polite, then sure. Personally it creeps me out whenever I say "Thank you" and invariably get back "My pleasure" from every single employee. It's very Stepford. I always start wondering what their training must be like and feel sorry for them that they can't even be trusted to choose their own response to customers.

I can't eat there anymore since the big gay marriage controversy anyway. It is tasty food but once I start eating it I think about what my money is funding and begin to feel uncomfortable. So I eat elsewhere. Norman has a Chicken Express, a couple Raising Cane's, and just got a Zaxby's, so there's no end to good chicken restaurants in town.

[rawmustard]

Confirmed. One of their other area mall locations is closed Sundays, but not this one.

I wonder if the mall just listed default hours absent any other information. Chick-fil-A's own website seems to omit hours for locations in other shopping centers in the Columbus area. This would probably be something which would need visual confirmation.

[Mapmikey]

Confirmed. One of their other area mall locations is closed Sundays, but not this one.

I wonder if the mall just listed default hours absent any other information. Chick-fil-A's own website seems to omit hours for locations in other shopping centers in the Columbus area. This would probably be something which would need visual confirmation.

Other restaurants in that food court do have different hours listed (e.g. Cheesecake Factory) from those stated in the Chick Fil A listing...

Mike

[roadman65]

Chick-fil-A has some of the best quality fast food out there. Their quality is consistent. They also have very good and fast service, despite their resteraunts being very busy. Their employees are more polite and higher caliber than other fast food reseraunts.

If forcing their employees to operate on script is your idea of polite, then sure. Personally it creeps me out whenever I say "Thank you" and invariably get back "My pleasure" from every single employee. It's very Stepford. I always start wondering what their training must be like and feel sorry for them that they can't even be trusted to choose their own response to customers.

I can't eat there anymore since the big gay marriage controversy anyway. It is tasty food but once I start eating it I think about what my money is funding and begin to feel uncomfortable. So I eat elsewhere. Norman has a Chicken Express, a couple Raising Cane's, and just got a Zaxby's, so there's no end to good chicken restaurants in town.

The times are that you are told to say "Welcome to X" instead of your own "Good Morning, Good Afternoon, etc" like in the past.  Yes we live under scrutiny where the president, CEO, and Executive VP's now see what the low paying hourly employees do via camera and paperwork that the supervisors must log to give to their bosses, who give it to their bosses, and so on.  Plus with computer entries, you have the big guys looking in as they now have access to all computer files associated with their companies at all levels.

As far as boycotting I think you are going to far, but if you feel that you do not want to be part of funding programs that go against your beliefs you have that right.  However, how many businesses I patronize give money to causes I hate or go against my personal, religious, and political beliefs. 

The way  I look at it I am not giving money to that cause, I am paying for a service.  What that person does after with my money is their transgression and not mine.  Believe it or not Scott, I have people from Church tell me to boycott certain places, but I do not.  I have them tell me to not buy music cd's because the artist supports a specific charity or group they do not believe in which I do buy.  In fact I know a lot of people who tell me that they won't buy a Linda Ronstadt album because of her political views, feeling that they are supporting the political party they feel is not for them.  I could care less what a person believes, if I like their music unless they state in advance, that all proceeds generated go to this charity then I will not give.

That is my take on this whole thing.

[jp the roadgeek]

If there is one successful way for restaurants to lose business, it's by killing your customers. 

(Hi, Chi-Chi's!)

In an ironic way, this isn't true for all lines of business.  Amusement parks are very good at weathering deaths.  And skydiving companies.  :-)

Umm, tell that to the owners of Action Park

[PHLBOS]

Confirmed. One of their other area mall locations is closed Sundays, but not this one.

I wonder if the mall just listed default hours absent any other information. Chick-fil-A's own website seems to omit hours for locations in other shopping centers in the Columbus area. This would probably be something which would need visual confirmation.

Agreed.  Given Chik Fil-A's long, well-known & publicized stance of not being open on Sundays at any location; if such were the case, the news would have spread like wildfire... especially on the internet.

[jeffandnicole]

If there is one successful way for restaurants to lose business, it's by killing your customers. 

(Hi, Chi-Chi's!)

In an ironic way, this isn't true for all lines of business.  Amusement parks are very good at weathering deaths.  And skydiving companies.  :-)

Umm, tell that to the owners of Action Park

That was actually part of the appeal.  I think insurance costs and lawsuits is what did them in.

[jeffandnicole]

Confirmed. One of their other area mall locations is closed Sundays, but not this one.

I wonder if the mall just listed default hours absent any other information. Chick-fil-A's own website seems to omit hours for locations in other shopping centers in the Columbus area. This would probably be something which would need visual confirmation.

Agreed.  Given Chik Fil-A's long, well-known & publicized stance of not being open on Sundays at any location; if such were the case, the news would have spread like wildfire... especially on the internet.

There are the occasional one-offs that don't fit the normal operations of a company.  Sometimes it's known; other times the reaction is 'eh'.  Wawa advertises their fee-free ATMs in every store.  However, I worked at the ONE store in the entire multi-hundred chain that did not have an ATM, due to a shopping-center/landlord agreement that a bank within that shopping center was permitted to have the only ATM in that shopping center.  Wawa never advertised "almost every location" had an ATM though.

Banks, especially those that open on Sundays, tend to have this issue too, because even though they advertise they are open on Sundays, they are some - usually found in cities - that aren't.

[1995hoo]

....

The way  I look at it I am not giving money to that cause, I am paying for a service.  What that person does after with my money is their transgression and not mine.  Believe it or not Scott, I have people from Church tell me to boycott certain places, but I do not.  I have them tell me to not buy music cd's because the artist supports a specific charity or group they do not believe in which I do buy.  In fact I know a lot of people who tell me that they won't buy a Linda Ronstadt album because of her political views, feeling that they are supporting the political party they feel is not for them.  I could care less what a person believes, if I like their music unless they state in advance, that all proceeds generated go to this charity then I will not give.

....

I think that's a reasonable outlook. While I'm generally conservative, I'm a huge Bruce Springsteen fan and I don't let his generally liberal politics deter me from attending his concerts–except in 2004, when he participated in a tour that was explicitly stated in advance to be in support of the so-called "MoveOn" PAC and the John Kerry campaign. I didn't agree with that and didn't want to support it (especially after multiple media reports about MoveOn members slashing tires on cars displaying Bush/Cheney stickers in Pennsylvania....I think that sort of thing is a disgrace no matter which side does it!), so I didn't go the concert that time. Springsteen usually isn't in-your-face too much and recognizes that his fanbase spans the political spectrum. There are other musicians who are fairly obnoxious or condescending about their politics and I'm a lot less likely to attend their shows even if I like their music (I've been told Jackson Browne is an example, although I do think it's pretty cool how he's managed to take his ranch off the electrical grid with wind turbines).

The thing about corporations is that the vast majority of them are, at some point, going to give money to various organizations such that someone's always going to have some basis for complaint. It's a fact of doing business in this country that it's going to be almost impossible to be 100% consistently ideologically pure. I suppose this risks going off on a political tangent, but I think that's often true for individuals voting on Election Day as well–I don't think there's anything "wrong" with voting for a candidate with whom you disagree strongly on one particular issue (say, the candidate is very vocal about being pro-abortion and you are strongly pro-life) if that candidate's positions on other issues that also matter to you are more in line with your views than the opponent (say, the candidate also has far more experience and has a better transportation plan than his opponent). I think voting strictly on party lines is one of the most idiotic and uneducated ways to vote unless you're a political appointee whose career depends on it. But to go back to the music example, I find Neil Young to be one of the musicians who's extremely obnoxious about his political views, and frankly I don't like most of his music anyway, but that would not deter me from buying a PonoPlayer if/when my iPod gives up the ghost. I agree with him about wanting to see high-rez music become more widespread instead of crappy lossy-compressed .mp3 nonsense, and I'd view the money spent on the device as going to that cause even if he might use some of it in support of some sort of political crusade.

To make this road-related, I think the only political issue on which I'd truly be a stickler would be that I will always vote against any candidate who makes a statement in favor of returning to the old 55-mph national speed limit, regardless of any other position(s) said candidate might espouse. (It so happens the current presidential candidate who's made statements favoring a return to 55 mph is someone for whom I'd never vote anyway due to a whole host of other issues, but the 55-mph issue alone is enough for me.)

[SD Mapman]

I suppose this risks going off on a political tangent, but I think that's often true for individuals voting on Election Day as well–I don't think there's anything "wrong" with voting for a candidate with whom you disagree strongly on one particular issue (say, the candidate is very vocal about being pro-abortion and you are strongly pro-life) if that candidate's positions on other issues that also matter to you are more in line with your views than the opponent (say, the candidate also has far more experience and has a better transportation plan than his opponent).

For some of us, it depends what that said issue is.

I do also think people have a right to not buy a product if they don't agree with something about it, just like how I try to avoid shopping in Sioux City because I don't want my sales tax supporting Sioux City.

[PHLBOS]

Given Chik Fil-A's long, well-known & publicized stance of not being open on Sundays at any location; if such were the case, the news would have spread like wildfire... especially on the internet.

There are the occasional one-offs that don't fit the normal operations of a company.  Sometimes it's known; other times the reaction is 'eh'.  Wawa advertises their fee-free ATMs in every store.  However, I worked at the ONE store in the entire multi-hundred chain that did not have an ATM, due to a shopping-center/landlord agreement that a bank within that shopping center was permitted to have the only ATM in that shopping center.  Wawa never advertised "almost every location" had an ATM though.

I have to wonder if there's either a small asterisks or very fine print that reads where applicable/available for such.

Banks, especially those that open on Sundays, tend to have this issue too, because even though they advertise they are open on Sundays, they are some - usually found in cities - that aren't.

Again, those usually have some type of small-print disclaimer listed somewhere in their advertising.

FWIW, here's Chik Fil-A's current Sunday Policy.  Do note that there's no asterisks or fine print stating otherwise.

Given that Chik-Fil-A's founder, S. Truett Cathy, died just over a year ago; I, personally, do not believe that even a special-case exception for select store either existed or was even in the works since his passing.

An actual visit (from someone in the area) to one of the Columbus area CFAs in question would verify or disprove the above.

[1995hoo]

I suppose this risks going off on a political tangent, but I think that's often true for individuals voting on Election Day as well–I don't think there's anything "wrong" with voting for a candidate with whom you disagree strongly on one particular issue (say, the candidate is very vocal about being pro-abortion and you are strongly pro-life) if that candidate's positions on other issues that also matter to you are more in line with your views than the opponent (say, the candidate also has far more experience and has a better transportation plan than his opponent).

For some of us, it depends what that said issue is.

Some people may feel that way. As you may have noticed, at the end of my prior comment I stated the one issue on which I would be a single-issue voter. But as I said, for the most part there is nothing wrong with deciding that a candidate's positives outweigh that candidate's negatives unless the one issue is simply too important for you. Most of the time I'd say that's going to be the sort of thing you're going to have to weigh as to every candidate in every election because I highly doubt there is ever any one "perfect" candidate out there for any voter, other than the automatons who vote strictly based on party.

But, just as there is nothing wrong with someone feeling that one particular issue trumps all others when voting, and just as that person should not be condemned for that, it's equally valid for other people to say, "I disagree with this candidate on issue X, but I'm going to hold my nose on that and vote for him anyway because I think issues Y and Z are important too and he's better on those." It's wrong to condemn people who decide to vote that way.

Just in case there's any doubt, I've voted for members of both major parties and for third-party candidates. I think the only office for which I've never voted for a Democrat is US president, though I did vote for an independent candidate once. For governor I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and one time a third-party candidate. I cannot think of any candidate in any of those elections with whom I agreed on every single issue.

I do also think people have a right to not buy a product if they don't agree with something about it, just like how I try to avoid shopping in Sioux City because I don't want my sales tax supporting Sioux City.

Of course. I don't believe I ever said a person doesn't have that right. Obviously, each person has the right to spend his money, or not to spend his money, as he sees fit. What I object to is the current attitude displayed by people who think it's acceptable for them to demonize anyone who patronizes the businesses, or buys the products, or listens to the music, to which those people object. If someone chooses not to patronize Chick-Fil-A because the company's COO made statements opposing homosexual "marriage," that's his prerogative, but it's equally other people's prerogative to choose to patronize Chick-Fil-A for whatever reason they choose, whether it be a desire to support the COO's position, simply enjoying the food there, the location being convenient, or whatever. The "either/or" attitude many people seem to have these days is tiresome. Just because someone chooses to eat at Chick-Fil-A doesn't make that person some kind of "bigot" who wants to apply that verse from Leviticus that calls for execution by stoning for all homosexuals, and just because someone chooses not to eat there doesn't mean that person is doing so out of some desire to "support" homosexual "marriage," yet with the way people act these days, you'd think those are the only two possible positions (well, I suppose there are two more that would reverse the descriptions to portray the person eating there as a devout person and the boycotter as a pederast, right?). An example of a person who doesn't eat there for independent reasons might be a vegetarian who couldn't care less about the political issues and simply doesn't eat chicken.

[J N Winkler]

What I object to is the current attitude displayed by people who think it's acceptable for them to demonize anyone who patronizes the businesses, or buys the products, or listens to the music, to which those people object. If someone chooses not to patronize Chick-Fil-A because the company's COO made statements opposing homosexual "marriage," that's his prerogative, but it's equally other people's prerogative to choose to patronize Chick-Fil-A for whatever reason they choose, whether it be a desire to support the COO's position, simply enjoying the food there, the location being convenient, or whatever. The "either/or" attitude many people seem to have these days is tiresome. Just because someone chooses to eat at Chick-Fil-A doesn't make that person some kind of "bigot" who wants to apply that verse from Leviticus that calls for execution by stoning for all homosexuals, and just because someone chooses not to eat there doesn't mean that person is doing so out of some desire to "support" homosexual "marriage," yet with the way people act these days, you'd think those are the only two possible positions (well, I suppose there are two more that would reverse the descriptions to portray the person eating there as a devout person and the boycotter as a pederast, right?). An example of a person who doesn't eat there for independent reasons might be a vegetarian who couldn't care less about the political issues and simply doesn't eat chicken.

I confess to some perplexity as to why you are bringing the word pederast into this discussion.  The gay people I know have shown interest only in other consenting adults of the same sexual orientation.  (They are not uniformly in favor of marriage equality, by the way.)

I have been careful not to use the word bigot in relation to the Chick-fil-A counterprotesters.  I did refer to "overtly bigoted businesses" in a context in which it was clear that Chick-fil-A was intended as one example of such.  I acknowledge that it has to be a matter of personal conscience whether an individual participates in a boycott and that people will weigh the various factors involved--the chain's stance on a political issue, the quality of its food and service, etc.--differently.  I have already noted that I continue to buy Barilla products despite its CEO's very questionable statements on gay marriage.

However, I decline to apologize for characterizing Chick-fil-A's management as bigoted.  They are not donating to anti-gay causes privately and on their own account; they have linked their chain to that stance.  This is why I feel more of a personal imperative to boycott Chick-fil-A than I did when I was living in Britain and avoided taking Stagecoach buses whenever I reasonably could because Brian Souter, a very conservative Catholic who funded anti-abortion and anti-gay causes out of his own pocket, had a substantial ownership interest.

[hbelkins]

You all do know that it's possible to be opposed to the redefinition of marriage and not be a bigot, don't you?

It's a pretty big leap to assume that Mr. Cathy and the Chick-Fil-A ownership are/were bigots because they opposed the redefinition of marriage. I oppose it, and if you call me a bigot, you're a liar.

[1995hoo]

....

I have been careful not to use the word bigot in relation to the Chick-fil-A counterprotesters.  I did refer to "overtly bigoted businesses" in a context in which it was clear that Chick-fil-A was intended as one example of such.  I acknowledge that it has to be a matter of personal conscience whether an individual participates in a boycott and that people will weigh the various factors involved--the chain's stance on a political issue, the quality of its food and service, etc.--differently.  I have already noted that I continue to buy Barilla products despite its CEO's very questionable statements on gay marriage.

....

I wasn't intending to refer to anyone on this forum nor to the debate here (although I will admit that one of the more cantankerous forum members, who shall remain nameless, did cross my mind while I was typing). I was referring to overall societal discussion in general, the tenor of which has declined badly in recent years for a whole host of reasons. Sorry if that wasn't clear from my comments.

[J N Winkler]

You all do know that it's possible to be opposed to the redefinition of marriage and not be a bigot, don't you?

It's a pretty big leap to assume that Mr. Cathy and the Chick-Fil-A ownership are/were bigots because they opposed the redefinition of marriage. I oppose it, and if you call me a bigot, you're a liar.

Let me put it this way:  if I learned that Mr. Cathy (or one of his senior managers) was a participant on this forum, I would not air my views about Chick-fil-A here.  Commenting on a public figure is one thing; starting a personal quarrel on a Web forum is another.

There are many ways to bring about social change.  A boycott is one way:  sometimes it is effective, and sometimes it is not, but either way it relieves the boycotter of the burden on his or her conscience of financially supporting a cause he or she disagrees with.  Another is to keep up gentle sales pressure in hopes that hearts and minds change as people's experience expands.

[Buffaboy]

I know the forum's policy on political discussions so I won't veer off this road to that place.

Ben & Jerry's IMO exemplifies the separation of a company and its executives. The company isn't in support of any one politician or political party (i.e. they don't donate their money), but the executives are (Ben and Jerry and Bernie Sanders supporters) politically aligned.

Chick-fil-A, AFAIK, in the past did the opposite. I don't know if they still do this however.

I suppose this risks going off on a political tangent, but I think that's often true for individuals voting on Election Day as well—I don't think there's anything "wrong" with voting for a candidate with whom you disagree strongly on one particular issue (say, the candidate is very vocal about being pro-abortion and you are strongly pro-life) if that candidate's positions on other issues that also matter to you are more in line with your views than the opponent (say, the candidate also has far more experience and has a better transportation plan than his opponent).

For some of us, it depends what that said issue is.

Some people may feel that way. As you may have noticed, at the end of my prior comment I stated the one issue on which I would be a single-issue voter. But as I said, for the most part there is nothing wrong with deciding that a candidate's positives outweigh that candidate's negatives unless the one issue is simply too important for you. Most of the time I'd say that's going to be the sort of thing you're going to have to weigh as to every candidate in every election because I highly doubt there is ever any one "perfect" candidate out there for any voter, other than the automatons who vote strictly based on party.

But, just as there is nothing wrong with someone feeling that one particular issue trumps all others when voting, and just as that person should not be condemned for that, it's equally valid for other people to say, "I disagree with this candidate on issue X, but I'm going to hold my nose on that and vote for him anyway because I think issues Y and Z are important too and he's better on those." It's wrong to condemn people who decide to vote that way.

Just in case there's any doubt, I've voted for members of both major parties and for third-party candidates. I think the only office for which I've never voted for a Democrat is US president, though I did vote for an independent candidate once. For governor I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and one time a third-party candidate. I cannot think of any candidate in any of those elections with whom I agreed on every single issue.

I do also think people have a right to not buy a product if they don't agree with something about it, just like how I try to avoid shopping in Sioux City because I don't want my sales tax supporting Sioux City.

Of course. I don't believe I ever said a person doesn't have that right. Obviously, each person has the right to spend his money, or not to spend his money, as he sees fit. What I object to is the current attitude displayed by people who think it's acceptable for them to demonize anyone who patronizes the businesses, or buys the products, or listens to the music, to which those people object. If someone chooses not to patronize Chick-Fil-A because the company's COO made statements opposing homosexual "marriage," that's his prerogative, but it's equally other people's prerogative to choose to patronize Chick-Fil-A for whatever reason they choose, whether it be a desire to support the COO's position, simply enjoying the food there, the location being convenient, or whatever. The "either/or" attitude many people seem to have these days is tiresome. Just because someone chooses to eat at Chick-Fil-A doesn't make that person some kind of "bigot" who wants to apply that verse from Leviticus that calls for execution by stoning for all homosexuals, and just because someone chooses not to eat there doesn't mean that person is doing so out of some desire to "support" homosexual "marriage," yet with the way people act these days, you'd think those are the only two possible positions (well, I suppose there are two more that would reverse the descriptions to portray the person eating there as a devout person and the boycotter as a pederast, right?). An example of a person who doesn't eat there for independent reasons might be a vegetarian who couldn't care less about the political issues and simply doesn't eat chicken.

Here's my interpretation of this.

Wegmans is the grocery store (along with Tops to a lesser extent) I've been going to since before I was born. When Whole Foods opens in Amherst, NY in the coming months, if I lived in that area it would be another, competitive option. If I were the one in my house getting the groceries (I'm not), I would shop at Whole Foods in tandem with Wegmans if their CEO and company did not donate money to Conservative and Tea Party causes. I'm not saying I'll never shop at Whole Foods, but this has always been in the back of my mind when I walk in. The same can be said for Papa John's – I will call Domino's for a delivery over PJ's because their CEO has, on numerous occasions, made statements that I feel would be (personally) counterintuitive to how I view life, and that I would not want to feed my earned money into this system.

I understand my guilty affection for CFA maybe ironic as I don't support their views, but it doesn't bother me as much as other issues.

On a side note, this is an interesting conversation.

[Big John]

The same can be said for Papa John's — I will call Domino's for a delivery over PJ's because their CEO has, on numerous occasions, made statements that I feel would be (personally) counterintuitive to how I view life, and that I would not want to feed my earned money into this system.

If you don't believe in conservative values and vote with your pocketbook, Domino's may not be a better choice than Papa John's.

[J N Winkler]

Ownership is another consideration.  Of the examples cited, Whole Foods is publicly traded, while both Wegmans and Chick-fil-A are privately held.

Senior management at Whole Foods has come under fire for questionable labor practices (including an English-only policy at one point), greenwashing, overcharging, Proposition 65 violations, editorializing against the Affordable Care Act, etc.  In principle all of these are amenable to shareholder activism.  Compensation is also controlled by the board of directors and that is one way to limit the resources available to support causes that alienate the customer base or embarrass the company.

But because Chick-fil-A is privately held, there is no way to gain leverage simply by buying stock on the open exchange.  This leaves boycotts and open public criticism as the obvious viable approaches.