Remember when Oreo cookies were an escape? How dunking them in a tall glass of milk washed away all the stress of a busy day? How twisting one open revealed a bright center sandwiched between two chocolate cookies? It was a reminder that even in the middle of darkness, we could still find the light.
OK, maybe you don’t have the same emotional connection to Oreos as me, but surely you can remember when America’s Favorite Sandwich Cookie was just that – a very popular cookie.
Well that’s all changed. Politics, that unwelcome conquistador of other aspects of our daily lives, has now made its way into our food.
While you won’t find “gay rights advocacy” following soy lecithin and vanillin in the ingredients list of your pack of Oreos, Kraft certainly made clear their stance on this hot issue. The company recently posted a picture of an Oreo cookie with a rainbow of filling above the word “Pride” on their Facebook page.
Like many, when I first saw that image, I was overtaken by powerful feelings: I had to find that octuple-stuffed rainbow cookie because it looked delicious.
Apparently, most of the country had a different reaction. Here was one of the biggest food companies in the country aligning itself on a divisive issue sure to play a role in the 2012 election.
More recently, on the other side of the spectrum, Chick Fil-A, a chain of restaurants specializing in chicken products, has been in the news after company president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press he was “guilty as charged” of supporting traditional marriage.
In the wake of those comments came public outrage, calls for boycotting the restaurant, and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel’s effort to prevent the chain from opening a restaurant in Chicago, saying “Chick Fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values.”
Here’s my problem: I enjoy both Oreos and Chick Fil-A! I grew up going to Chick Fil-A in Texas and was thrilled to find out they recently opened up a restaurant in Schaumburg. My love of Oreos is also well known by anyone who truly knows me or who has read the first paragraph of this column.
So, now can I not have both? Do I have to choose a side between these mutually exclusive issues and companies?
I refuse. I say neither Kraft nor Chick Fil-A should have taken a stance on this issue. There is simply no room for politics in the drive-thrus and grocery aisles of our country.
While I am completely opposed to what these companies are doing, I can see why they do it. As Jack Nicholson once said, “follow the money.”
Kraft, by giving gay rights groups the warm fuzzies, is reeling in another demographic. Advertisers know people are emotionally attached to ads and will pitch a product using feelings more than emphasizing how it tastes/looks/works/etc.
Likewise, the right wing “take back America” motif of Cathy is not just a political rallying cry, but a lure for conservatives to order breaded chicken sandwiches with waffle fries. Now, Chick Fil-A has created an environment where every dollar they earn (seemingly) goes to support conservative Christian values, and they couldn’t be any happier about that.
And sure, there has been backlash on both sides, Kraft, like JC Penney before them, has received criticism from conservative groups for supporting gays and Cathy is now under fire with claims of bigotry. Because I believe these political moves were calculated, I think both companies believe the pluses will outweigh the minuses. Only time will tell.
In the meantime, I am disappointed that these two companies are cashing in on the political season. It’s bad enough when celebrities get the four-year itch and start spewing self-righteous political banter.
Worst of all is the people getting tied up in this mess and helping to blow things up way out of proportion. Just look at the chain of events stemming from the Chick Fil-A incident.
Cathy says he is for traditional marriage. Quote spreads across media. People are outraged. Emanuel says he’d stop Chick Fil-A from opening in his neighborhood. Rush Limbaugh (oh boy) calls Emanuel “Stalinist” and says his remarks are “a direct assault on Christianity.”
And when Rush makes remarks like that, you’ve got a three-ring circus. Though to Limbaugh’s credit, he makes a valid point. Chick Fil-A surely has gay employees, and doesn’t publically discriminate. This is all just much ado about one man’s remark.
I looked into that, and he’s not entirely right. According to a report by Forbes, Chick Fil-A is very open about its Christian values, with a plague at company headquarters emphasizing their mission of “glorifying God” and closing stores on Sundays.
Well a day off and holding a moral code doesn’t seem so bad, and Chick Fil-A has certainly been successful in a business sense. But then I read a little more and found things like this: Chick Fil-A has been sued at least 12 times over employment discrimination since 1988. A Muslim manager was fired after not participating in a group prayer. Employment screenings include questions on religion and may even extend to asking questions of family members to see how a potential employee handles their family life.
So maybe there’s more to this uproar than I thought. Maybe Cathy’s recent remarks were the last straw for people like Emanuel, who reacted so strongly.
Does a business have to be pro-gay marriage to open in Chicago? I should think not. But is what Chick Fil-A has allegedly done right? It doesn’t sound that way to me.
It’s too bad that a chicken sandwich can’t just be a chicken sandwich.
1 Comment
Mason,
Interesting editorial. My only comment would be to refrain from editorials that deal with business, politics, and free speech in one package. It’s a package hard to deliver without something leaking.
Let me end your confusion between an individual and a corporation. The first problem is with the statement: “So maybe there’s more to this uproar than I thought. Maybe Cathy’s recent remarks were the last straw for people like Emanuel, who reacted so strongly.”
I assume that you understand that the uproar about the “definition of marriage” here was made by an individual in a TV interview since you referred to Cathy as such. This seems to clash with your theory in reference to Kraft foods, thusly: ” Kraft, by giving gay rights groups the warm fuzzies, is reeling in another demographic. Advertisers know people are emotionally attached to ads and will pitch a product using feelings more than emphasizing how it tastes/looks/works/etc.”….Here’s the problem.
I do not believe, if memory serves me, that the CEO, or any officer of Kraft has ever made a public statement regarding his personal opinion on gays or gay marriage. If Kraft as a corporation donates to such causes I’m sure the media would bury that on page 96, quarter column, lower left. But then, I to like Oreo s.
My opinion of this whole thing is simply one of free speech and the fact that you refer to Chick Fil-A as not being right, seems to be a bit hypocritical in spite of the fact that you let Kraft off the hook for delving into social justice arguments, whether or not you feel that either gay argument is right or wrong. It stands that the comment made was made by an individual. And yes, I’m sure he guides the company as a traditional Christian. Speaking of which, there are a few companies that are run with traditional Christian values not the least of which is Hobby Lobby and Mardel book stores. All closed on (good grief) Sunday.
The idea that Chick Fil-A has been sued 12 times since 1988 has to stand as the last great achievement of any corporation in this litigious social environment. It would seem that to make a point of a company being sued for harassment of almost any kind one would turn to their Webster dictionary, look up sue, whereupon they would find a Walmart logo. Let’s get serious.
The suit for the Muslim was settled out of court. Who knows ???
Lastly, political hacks like the mayors of Chicago ( And one alderman ) and Boston are to be congratulated for demonstrating the epitome of voter ignorance. Chicago values and even contemplating that government can determine who can open a business ? And the mayor of Boston who donated for a Mosque in that city. I’m not going to touch on the attitude of Islam towards gays. (That would make a good follow up editorial ) How gullible are we supposed to be ?
The question I really want answered, but people will never consider, is this. Do you think that the proclivity for the gay man’s sexual release, by sucking on each others penis, is really accepted in mainstream thinking ?
Now that would make a good editorial.