Chick-Fil-A

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A started a controversy when he declared that his company was against same-sex marriage. The Mayor of Boston and the mayors of several other cities throughout the country told him that a corporation with those views are not welcome in their communities, while others sided the Mr. Cathy in his condemnation of the rights of gays to marry.

If Mr. Cathy had kept those views as his own personal views and if his donations to anti-gay organizations were his own personal donations and not from his company, I don't think there would have been as much of a controversy. His individual opinion would not have reflected upon his company - at least not to the degree that it has.

An individual holds much less power and influence than a company does. An individual's statement is not going to raise the suspicion of discriminatory practice the same way that a corporate donation does. For example, an individual is not going to deprive his married same-sex employees of benefits that are afforded to heterosexual couples. Will Chick-Fil-A only hire people who agree with the CEO about same-sex marriage? Will they refuse to hire gay employees? Will they refuse to serve a gay couple?

I'm not saying that Chick-Fil-A is discriminatory in their practices. I have no proof of such an allegation. What I am saying is that by stating his own personal view is also that of his company, it raises the questions. A company consists of more than just the CEO. Do his employees all share his views? Do the franchise owners and regional managers share his views? Do they have to in order to be a part of this chain? Would they fire someone who disagreed or "worse" turned out to be gay?

While I think free speech is incredibly important for individuals, I don't think corporations should share that same right. A corporation is not a homogeneous whole with all of its parts sharing the same viewpoints as its CEO. If the CEO wants to voice an individual opinion, he has that right, as much as I might disagree with him. When the CEO claims that his company as a whole holds those same viewpoints, he has crossed a line. He is depriving his employees of their free speech by speaking for them without regard to what their opinions are. The power and influence of that corporate opinion overwhelms the voices of the individuals. Employees may be afraid to voice a dissenting opinion for fear of losing their jobs. A gay employee may feel persecuted by his employer and fear that he will lose his job.

Also a corporation has more resources than individuals have. An individual's viewpoint that differs will have less influence because an individual has less money to donate. The way our system is currently set up - especially with the Citizens United decision to allow corporations to donate as much as they wish - is lopsided in favor of those with the most money.

So when Mayor Mennino wrote his letter to the CEO of Chick-Fil-A saying that his company was not welcome in Boston because of its stance on gay marriage, I was a little conflicted. The part of me that believes in free speech felt that the Mayor had no right to attempt to deter someone from speaking his mind. But at the same time, same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and a corporation (more so than an individual) with a policy against what is legal is suspect of discrimination for all of the reasons I cited above. The mayor was not attempting to thwart an individual's right to free speech. He was attempting to inform the CEO of a company that his company's stance against gay marriage was not welcome in a state where gay marriage is legal.