Sad Day for Chick-fil-A

| November 23, 2019


Michael Ramirez

Poetooper sends us another article, this one about how an iconic fast food franchise, Chick-fil-A has caved, ala Dick’s Sporting Goods, to pressure from far left loons. This is unfortunate. Maybe someone with an MBA can explain how refuting core principles like family values and unabashed patriotism, to pacify a small but loud portion of society is a good business model.

Chick-fil-A Caves to the Left, the Cartoon

John Hinderaker

I wrote here about Chick-fil-A caving in to liberal pressure by limiting its financial support to a small group of organizations that does not include, among others, the Salvation Army. This strikes me as an unforced error and a terrible business decision. Chick-fil-A is the country’s fastest-growing and arguably most successful fast-food company. Its fanatical customer loyalty is undoubtedly fueled in part by the company’s open patriotism and its refusal (until now) to knuckle under to far-left activists. So this appears to be another instance of a company prioritizing the liberal-leaning fraternity of CEOs over its own customers.

Michael Ramirez comments, brilliantly, I think.

The only time I went to a Chick-fil-A, the place was slammed with the lunch bunch; still, the place was clean, the staff friendly and helpful, and the reasonably priced chow arrived in an acceptable time. That’s all I really need to know about a fast food franchise. Thanks, Poe, for the link, which may be viewed here: Powerline Blog.com

Category: "Teh Stoopid", Guest Link, SJW Idiocy

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. LC says:

    Maybe I’m just missing something – it seems like they’re shifting their donations from 300 charities to 3, so at least 297 places that previously received donations will no longer get them. I’m inclined to bet they’ll still donate the same amount to those three focus areas, though.

    I’m a cancer survivor and donate to a number of cancer charities, and used to include two of the big ones, Susan G. Komen and the American Cancer Society among those I targeted. I no longer include them, and instead give to places where I feel more of the money goes directly into research, and less into ‘awareness’ (who the fuck isn’t aware of cancer?) and admin salaries. This is about wanting to get the most out of the donations.

    It seems like Chick-Fil-A is doing something similar. They’re still going to spend the same amount of money, on the same Christian causes, just in a more targeted way. Good for them. I don’t see an issue.

    • LC says:

      And just to add to this, a more relevant example for this community – back in the day, I gave some to the Wounded Warrior Project. Well, when it came out Nardizzi was spending lavishly, I switched to Team Rubicon.

      Switching away from WWP doesn’t mean I hate the troops, or the anti-war lefties ‘got’ to me. It just means I found better value for my donations elsewhere.

      I know most here love to hate on ‘the left’, but it’s not like Chick-Fil-A is suddenly abandoning their principles due to a small subset of their market being the always-angry far left. They’re just finding better recipients for their money. Again, good for them.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      Could you post the names and info on those that you feel do a better job, LC?

      The people here are pretty generous and q few have relatives with cancer or are cancer sruvivors themselves.

      Thanks!!

      • LC says:

        I wish I had a good answer to that – to be honest, it changes over time. Generally because I get increasingly frustrated with charities as they grow and start paying high-level employees exorbitant salaries.

        Right now, the two I typically do are “SU2C” (Stand Up 2 Cancer), which is part of the Entertainment Industry Foundation and I imagine the star-studded celebrity events won’t go over well with this crowd (or myself, but I bear with it if it brings in money). I like them because they focus on research – I know of people who’ve received grants from them.

        The other is the Leukemia Research Foundation, which is ‘small’ compared to the bigger names, but the CEO takes only $120K/year, vs. the 500K-700K of some of the bigger charities. Plus it’s another research-focused one. I’m all for charities that help people currently suffering, but I personally prefer ones that tackle the root causes.

        I’m definitely open to ideas from other people, too. And for an article about people who earned a special place in hell, read this – it’s about a family that ran four charities with legitimate sounding names (‘Cancer Fund of America’, ‘Breast Cancer Society’, etc) that raised over $180M, and spent almost all of it on themselves:
        https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/19/us/scam-charity-investigation/

        • Ex-PH2 says:

          Thanks! I am also leery of people who puff themselves off as do-gooders when they are later shown to be fund-looters instead.

          I prefer to just donate to food pantries for now.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          No objections from me towards celebrities pushing charity. Now, if it is just “Me! Me! Memememeeeee!”, I tend to discount it. Gary Sinise certainly does good. There are many others.

          Last I checked, Salvation Army does good. They also show up -way- early in disasters, easily beating the Red Cross in time and success. Witnessed that firsthand. Are they a bit odd as an org? Yes. They also live charity as a lifestyle.

          Habitat for humanity has impressed me, repeatedly. After Hurricane Andrew smashed south Florida, some neighborhoods had only a few homes left standing. They were Habitat homes. No one scrimped on nails. I am not a fan of Jimmy Carter, but his Habitat work is genuine and helpful. I would shake his hand for that, indeed.

          I get that top talent takes top pay to attract. I don’t work for free, either. But I do not like to see a major charities paying for-profit salaries and perks. If someone sees a charity as just another job, and just another max-bid paycheck, they are likely the wrong person for -charity- work. I do my own charity work gratis, sometimes accepting something like “we’ll feed ya”, but it is not my job. If it were, I would cash the check, but not demand the kind of money I can make on the for-profit market. That would still be a -job-, not charity. But that is just me. Charity is a net outflow.

          I also get a bit peeved when charities move money from a “donate to X” bucket into something else, on the QT. This is most especially true when “X” money winds up in the general “pay perks and salaries” bucket, or in something almost on the other side of reality from X. If they genuinely have -way- too much, then publicly announce the shift, into something very similar. Don’t Sneaky-Pete it.

          But I will strongly advocate for everyone to do -something- charitable, as you can. To borrow from Shepard Book, I don’t care what you charity, just charity.

    • SFC D says:

      To the poo-flinging, screeching social justice warrior howler monkeys, one must donate to the charities that THEY deem acceptable, not the charities the donor seems acceptable. The solution is painfully obvious. If you don’t like how a company uses the money you spend in their establishment, spend elsewhere. It’s their money, not yours.

  2. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Maybe someone with an MBA can explain how refuting core principles like family values and unabashed patriotism, to pacify a small but loud portion of society is a good business model.

    The course title is “Corporate Social Responsibility” and was part of my MBA program. Told you everything you need to know about how to knuckle under to any SJW/minority group with an axe to grind.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      For me it was “engineering ethics” that dealt
      more with safety margins vs cost.
      That was in the late seventies.
      Today it probably deals with gender based
      design and equality in awarded contracts
      regardless of safety or choice of diety.

    • Anonymous says:

      Workforce and customers (not to mention Red China for LeBron and the NBA) demand progressive left/libtard policies, so pander to them or you’ll goe broke! (That’s Business conventional wisdom encouraged by trendy hipster [i.e., “woke” progressive, etc.] Business “thought leader” types today.) Since when did leftist BS make a profit?

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Some businesses try to be gray, offend no one. Some that discover a controversy try to gray out. That can be difficult when a fraction of the market adopts “with us or against us” in all things. Forgiveness and tolerance does require forgiving and tolerating the folks you do not like, eh?

      Most times, it seems better to stay the course on genuine beliefs, even if that costs you some potential or actual business. Better an honest dollar for an honest job, than trying to be slick-shifty for one more buck. Your loyal customers are your core business, not the fringes of “maybe”. Losing those core folks is -costly-.

  3. Poetrooper says:

    Rev. Franklin Graham seems to agree with LC:

    https://www.breitbart.com/faith/2019/11/22/franklin-graham-chick-fil-a-ceo-assured-me-company-hasnt-bowed-down-to-lgbt-demands/

    For once, LC, you’re on the side of the angels.

    But ya gotta admit, Ramirez nailed it with that cartoon, which, more than the issue itself, is what prompted me to give Ed a heads up.

  4. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    What’s painfully obvious to me is that htose corporate entities like CHick-FIl-A simply need to tell the SJW screeching flower monkeys to go pound sand. Chick-FIl-A ascended to be THE #1 fast food franchise in the USA DESPITE the screeching SJW flower monkeys bawling for everyone to boycott them, give them even a fraction of an inch and they’ll demand at least half a mile!

  5. GDContractor says:

    I hate the left for politicizing a fucking chicken sandwich. But sadly, it’s not the left doing it, this time.

    Choose your enemies carefully, for you will become like them.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Yup. However, sometimes your enemies choose you.

      There was no avoiding this. The screeching poo-flingers will not allow anyone to opt out. You must obey. You must conform. And when -they- change you must accept splat, apologize, and applaud. Ad infinitum.

      The answer is swift defeat of the enemy. That minimizes the tendency to resemble the enemy, to become very much like the enemy.

      Now, do folks see why certain people want a -never ending- war with non-American enemies? Eh? The implications are obvious once you ponder that maxim, and know that they also know it.

  6. 5th/77th FA says:

    Their money, their foundation, their “woke” former “White House Fellow” under the oblowme admin foundation leader. ‘Splains a lot, don’t it Lucy?

    FIRST met Mr. Truett Cathy in ’70 when he opened his FIRST store in Mid Ga and he hired what became the FIRST Ex Mrs. He was a good guy and offered me a job. I turned him down cause I was already the night manager at The Colonel’s Chicken House. (Met and worked with Colonel Sanders on the line several times) Typical with any Family business you start getting into the 3rd generation and you start getting away from the original core business model. From what I’ve read on this subject, this decision was not a Corporate decision as much as the Foundation decision. Back to the “woke” former oblowme White House Fellow.

    I eat very little fast food and even less fast food fried chicken. There is a Chic-fil-a next to my fuel stop that I used on my Tampa runs. Would grab a sammich and a fresh squoozed lemon juice and keep on trucking. Won’t get one tomorrow caused it’s closed. Those 5 trips a year made up my quota of fast food and fried chicken. Since I won’t be making those 5 trips a year anymore, guess the that location nor the foundation will be getting much more of my money. Don’t think they’ll miss it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Their “Business ‘thought leaders'” convinced ’em their workforce and customers demanded progressive left/libtard policies and virtue signaling in order to (somehow) make money. (Never mind how leftist bullcrap is supposed to be profitable.) Or as Van Damme put it:

  8. xyzzy says:

    Forget Chick-Fil-A and go to Subway, instead. Their subs taste great, and are priced reasonably besides.

    Fun Fact: Did you know that the Subway shop at the Pentagon operates 24/7? I used to work there as a night shift janitor; I loved going there when my shift ended at 11:30PM and eating a sandwich in a dead-quiet food court.

    • 26Limabeans says:

      When I want a sandwich I don’t want to stand
      in line following the herd through the que
      while explaining to guy how to make it.
      Subway reminds me of Basic at Ft Dix.
      MOOOOOOO….

    • SFC D says:

      There are far better sandwiches to be had at local, non-chain shops. That’s always my first choice.

  9. Slow Joe says:

    Salvation army?

    WTF is that?

    Is it an army that saves people?
    Like the national guard?
    Saving people from bad weather and shit like that?

  10. OWB says:

    So, are they now going to send all their sammiches to the shredder? Refuse to sell any more of them? What? (Asking because I fail to see the parallel to Dick’s.) (Maybe.)

  11. David says:

    I read where the Boy Scouts have had to mortgage Philmont due to declining revenues. These had nothing to do with their embracing female/bi/LGBTetc values, or pissing off the Mormon Church by same, they claim. Chik-Fil-A would be well advised to note the slippery slope regardless of their intentions – perception nowadays is everything.

  12. ChipNASA says:

    So many folks asked what is a good charity?
    Not specific but here’s a GREAT tool for checking them out.

    https://www.charitynavigator.org/

    Personally, I give cash to Fisher House.