I grew up in America—specifically Delaware, the second smallest state. At the time of writing this, Delaware has 14 Chick-fil-A locations, one of the most popular fast food chains in the country. Among my peers in high school, Chick-fil-A consistently ranked the most popular fast food location, and at our third year prom it was pretty much a given that they would cater the event. I have always felt uneasy about its popularity, though.
Chick-fil-A has a dubious reputation in America. Yes, the chicken is really good. But the chain has also donated to anti-LGBTQ+ groups, and the CEO, Dan Cathy, has repeatedly been quoted speaking against the LGBTQ+ community. Yet the company has remained successful despite the controversy, opening locations in overwhelmingly liberal cities such as New York—and has continued to donate to homophobic groups. Is it ethically sound, then, for my high school classmates and me to continue to eat there?
Some would say that those who boycott it are engaging in a “fraudulent sense of moral superiority”, as Will Wilkinson put it in The Economist in 2012 when the controversy first became mainstream. “I’d suggest the best arena for moral disagreement is not the marketplace, but our intellectual and democratic institutions”, he wrote.
But is the marketplace, in the capitalistic world in which we live, not a vital part of both our intellectual and democratic institutions? Former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee launched a campaign to support Chick-fil-A despite the controversies. He remains a prominent Republican politician—a part of these democratic institutions—and heavily influences the market. His urgings to create a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” led to a boost in sales.
All of this happened in 2012. So why am I writing about it in 2019? For starters, Chick-fil-A remains one of the most successful businesses in America. It emerged from the controversy virtually unscathed—nothing changed, no consequences for their actions. We must decide, then, is it our responsibility as consumers to boycott it to this day? Does so-called problematic behaviour performed by businesses simply expire after a certain amount of time, clearing our consciences of wrongdoing when we spend money there?
We can make a difference as consumers. We are not totally powerless, kneeling at the feet of the companies that feed us. Boycotting is effective, but we often simply choose not to do it.
“I’m an agnostic queer woman who, of course, takes issue with Chick-fil-A’s anti- gay past but the company has moved on and we should, too”, wrote Samantha Allen for The Daily Beast in 2015. “The LGBT movement as a whole is far from over but same- sex marriage is now legal nationwide, so it doesn’t exactly matter what Dan Cathy [the CEO] thinks about that particular issue.”
Yes, same-sex marriage was made legal nationwide in America in 2015. But the Chick-fil-A Foundation donated to distinctly discriminatory charities as recently as 2017. It troubles me that we are so comfortable simply writing off the damage caused by these charities that are directly funded by that chicken sandwich simply because one battle has been won.
There’s not a whole lot to do in my hometown of Newark, Delaware. Friends and I would either go to the mall or leave the state. And invariably every time we went to the mall we would pass by the Chick-fil-A in the food court. The employees earn their salaries there, and I do not wish to deny them of that. But if I ordered those chicken strips, I would get something much more complex with it: the knowledge that I am, whether directly or indirectly, supporting a business that goes directly against my values—so I think I’ll pass.