The recent cries to boycott Chick-fil-A are important examples of grassroots organizing to support socially responsible investing, especially in the face of Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay agenda.
The marriage seminar that Chick-fil-A sponsored offers marriage advice to straight couples, based upon the “biblical definition of marriage.” The president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, the seminar hosting organization, is also a vocal supporter of a statewide ban on gay marriage in Pennsylvania.
Yet, in addition to funneling money to anti-gay groups, Chick-fil-A has “considered potential employee’s marital status and civic and church involvement in their hiring process,” according to a recent article by Time magazine.
In fact, in 2002, Chick-fil-A settled a lawsuit by a former Muslim Chick-fil-A owner who claimed to have been fired after refusing to pray to Jesus with other Chick-fil-A employees during employee training, according to The New York Times.
My issue, however, is not only that Ms. Gregory fails to fully explain Chick-fil-A’s links to anti-gay groups. She also belittles activists’ current campaigns to support equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community. The source of the problem is not merely “hurtful anti-gay sentiment,” but anti-gay sentiment thriving under the protection of a giant corporate entity.
In the face of corporate support for human rights violations, we must join together to support socially responsible investing, or the idea that our investment decisions have the potential to change human rights situations worldwide.
As consumers, we should demand the corporations support human rights. Corporations that fail to do so will be faced with public outcry and boycott campaigns.
And if you still think boycotts aren’t effective, consider this: after over 200 American companies stopped investing in South Africa in protest of the apartheid, following a grassroots boycott movements, the apartheid regime came to a grinding halt. How’s that for slacktivism?
Danielle Bäck
Undergraduate
