Among our several unalienable rights — promised in the Declaration of Independence and secured in the Constitution — is the freedom of speech. While it might be protected from government infringement, it does not promise immunity from public backlash.
In 2000, the Boy Scouts of America won a Supreme Court case allowing them to deny membership to gay members. Since then, the organization has been bleeding funding. In September, Intel pulled its annual $700,000 donation. This year’s Boy Scout Jamboree has been losing celebrity performances from Carly Rae Jepsen to Train because of anti-gay policies, and the donations to the Jamboree itself have greatly suffered.
In fact, just this week Chipotle in Utah pulled its donation from the Boy Scouts — which amounted to more than $4,000 — in protest of the organization’s policy toward gay members.
The controversy over the Boy Scouts brings to mind a statement from the chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, made last year. After declaring that his company was in support of “traditional marriage,” graffiti, boycotts and blocks on new restaurant applications were supported by gay-rights proponents. In response, Chick-fil-A supporters organized an appreciation day last August, and the company made about 30 percent more per store that day.
These types of reactions are expected, but the surprising factor is the appreciation day supporters of Chick-fil-A promoted “free-speech rights” as the motivation for coming to Chick-fil-A’s defense.
But Chick-fil-A’s free speech was never in jeopardy. The Constitution promises “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” What it does not promise is that people won’t get offended and boycott businesses expressing speech with which consumers disagree.
The First Amendment allows people to call each other names, swear, insult someone’s family and even protest the funerals of dead soldiers. That same amendment, however, allows others to be offended and respond as they will — within legal limits.
The Boy Scouts, then, are being punished for their policy toward gay people by Chipotle’s decision to pull its funding, which amounts to Chipotle’s symbolic speech. This is exactly the interchange the First Amendment promotes.
The Boy Scouts are allowed to ban gay members because they “have a constitutional right to exclude gay members because opposition to homosexuality as a part of the organization’s ‘expressive message.’ ” Likewise, Chipotle has every right to pull its funding from the Boy Scouts. The same law that permits the former permits the latter.
We live in a capitalistic society. Businesses, organizations and public figures all live and die on advertising. If the public’s opinion of the company didn’t matter, then a Walmart greeter wouldn’t be a job position. Race car drivers, high school sports teams and parades all have sponsors — companies essentially declaring their support for one idea over another.
The realization companies are coming to is that every decision is not, and does not, have to be an economic decision.
Choosing to use one’s organization to promote an idea might be a good or bad business decision — but the right to make that decision has never needed to be defended, no matter the side of the debate on which one falls.