Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Progressives Against Lunch

From a WSJ editorial:
Progressives want to politicize everything, even chicken sandwiches. Witness New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign to get his fellow citizens to boycott the Chick-fil-A restaurants that are opening around the Big Apple.

The fast-food chain opened its first New York restaurant last year, and the line at lunch time at the restaurant near our office stretches around the block. This is no small feat in midtown Manhattan, where you can’t walk 20 yards without hitting a deli, a food truck or some other fast-food joint.

This meeting of popular supply and demand is too much for Mr. de Blasio, who last week urged New Yorkers not to eat the spicy chicken fare because the chain’s owners are known for opposing same-sex marriage.

“Chick-fil-A is anti-LGBT,” said the mayor, who fancies himself a spokesman for all progressive causes. “I’m certainly not going to patronize them and I wouldn’t urge any other New Yorker to patronize them. But they do have a legal right.” Good to know he isn’t trying to ban the business, though give him time.

A Chick-fil-A spokesman responded that, “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their beliefs, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” There are also laws that ban discrimination.

Mr. de Blasio’s real objection is that the company’s owners won’t conform to his political views. The Supreme Court has said that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, and transgender bathrooms are proliferating, but that isn’t enough for progressives. They also want to stigmatize and punish anyone who disagrees with them. The silver lining is that if they do boycott the chain, the lines will be shorter for the rest of us.
I really think that boycotts, in general, are pretty wacky.  Why can't we keep transactions to things we have in common? I want a chicken sandwich, Chik-fil-A wants cash for their chicken sandwich. Done deal. Do we really need to demand a questionnaire be filled out with anyone we transact with before we do business with them, instead of limiting the transaction to what we have in common?



  1. Same thing applies to Target. I may not be thrilled with their new bathroom policy, but if they have something I need, I'm going to buy it from them. If I stopped talking to someone I disagreed with, I wouldn't talk to anyone.

  2. On the other hand, businesses are (supposed to be) privately owned, so those owners should be able to operate them as they see fit. The voluntary entities with whom they interact (landlords, suppliers, and customers) should then be able to respond as *they* see fit, by interacting with the company--or not--according to their own values and needs. Non-voluntary entities (aka government) should have nothing to say about the matter (and should not exist in the first place).