Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Chick Fil-A and Indiana University

I got an email from Change.org today, asking me to sign a petition to remove Chick Fil-A from the campus of Indiana University.
Students at Indiana University South Bend (IUSB) are standing up and challenging the presence of Chick-fil-A on campus, spreading the word that Chick-fil-A has given more than $1.1 million to support anti-gay organizations that oppose marriage equality and promote “curing” gay people through discredited “conversion therapy.”
There’s just one problem. IUSB’s Chancellor, Una Mae Reck, is refusing to act. Despite overwhelming support from students and faculty to remove Chick-fil-A’s food from campus, Reck has ignored student resolutions, ignored faculty senate resolutions, and even abruptly walked out of a meeting where student leaders were waiting to discuss the issue.
I don't support the organizations that Chick Fil-A has been contributing to. In fact I actively oppose them, going so far a to donate money to organizations on the opposite end, and going to equal-rights protests. I'm also a fan of boycotting as a method to express disapproval to companies, because you are under no ethical obligation to do business with a company. What I don't support though, is this petition.

By using Government, in the form of the University administration, to ban a business, we open the door to thought control. The majority is fickle, and by giving the majority the power to legislate what is right and wrong, we set a dangerous precedent. This petition, if successful, will do just that. We will be punishing the owners of Chick Fil-A because they think homosexuality is wrong. Their opinion I don't agree with. But they should be allowed to have it, without being threatened by the government. If we allow suppression of dissent, we are no longer free.

Petition Source



  1. I can't understand being personally opposed to this petition, the petition is a democratic process, seeking people (students) to support telling a business to leave their property. That company is allowed to be on public property, the university's campus. The University (especially the students) should have the right to tell them to move. Doesn't the university have property rights?

  2. If it was a private university, sure. It's not, it's a public school, subsidized by my tax dollars.

  3. Why does that change the fact that a discriminatory business is on the property? In fact that makes me feel just as justified in it. Why should we not allow public institutions to not allow discriminatory business practices happen on its property? It's just like how institutions that receive public funding can't have discriminatory practices. Do you think your tax dollars should support discriminatory business practices?

  4. Because the business isn't harming anyone. Not directly in any rate. If the university removes them because of their donations, then it is punishing them for those donations. Should you be punished for donating to the courage campaign?

    We aren't talking about direct discrimination. If the Chick Fil-A was doing something to directly harm someone, then the government would be called in to stop it. But supporting an organization that promoted various pieces of legislation isn't directly harming anyone. Just because we disagree with that legislation doesn't mean that we should force others to disagree as well, and punish them if they don't.

    And it's different than your example at the end. The university isn't giving them money. It's not giving them anything. It's leasing property to them, the same as it leases property to anyone. Not based on their beliefs.

    And yes, I am awake, lol. I woke up to use the bathroom and was too curious not to check this.

  5. Leasing property=giving them something. Money or property, it is tangible, and from the government. It is an individual college being pushed to make such policy changes by students. The policy change is deciding what companies can do business on their public property. If a store opened on a campus, and decided to cater to, say, the elderly.. none of the college students would use that business anymore. It's wasting public space. It's not that the business is being closed off and exiled into oblivion, it just has to move. Which businesses do all the time. The college should maintain the authority to decide what businesses can be on their property, just like they should be able to keep specific businesses off of campus, such as store that sell alcohol or guns. Of course it's an entirely different reasoning behind it, but it still demonstrates that colleges do have the authority to maintain such control over their campus property. And for good reason.

  6. Leasing property isn't giving them anything. The company is paying for the property.

    Colleges do have that authority. But it's being used for the wrong reason here.

    Also, to really discuss the leasing thing more. I'm considering the leasing to be neutral, since it's being offered to all companies regardless of belief, and therefore the revoking of that lease to be a punishment. You are considering the leasing to be a positive action already, and that there revoking would be going back to neutral.

    It really doesn't matter, either way of looking at it, because it's still not being treated fairly. It's still being punished in comparison to the other businesses, who aren't being threatened with revoking of permits.

    This is a clear case of tyranny by majority. The majority doesn't like the beliefs of a minority, in this case Chi Fil-A, and is trying to force the government, the university, by popular demand, to punish it.

  7. No, by my way of viewing it it isn't punishment, it's just a fact that businesses face when operating on campus property.

  8. That's pretty much exactly what I said. You don't view revoking the lease as a punishment. I'm glad you agree, lol.