[w8vY7ER]

Fascinating to see such clear ramifications of allowing religious beliefs to creep into the outcome of successful product expansion. I wonder if they will make any attempt to overcome this image in the future, or instead focus inwardly and try to continue engaging the existing customer base more frequently to pursue growth.

[mrrrgn]

> Fascinating to see such clear ramifications of allowing religious beliefs to creep into the outcome of successful product expansion.

Dicks sporting goods recently took a stand against firearms that raised the ire of some of its customer base. Tons of companies go out of their way to support political messages all the time. I'd say taking moral/political positions is very much a normal tactic these days in the business world.

Time will tell how it pans out, but my guess is that it isn't some sort of disaster. Most people seem apathetic to such messaging and for every person who decides to buy a chicken sandwich from Popeye's instead of Chik-fil-a in order to "fight hate" there will probably be another one or two who go out of their way to eat Chik-fil-a in order to "stick it to the man" or whatever.

I'm just curious when this phenomenon started. Has it always existed? It seems like a straightforward tactic for building brand loyalty (staking out a position on some sort of lifestyle issue).

[scarface74]

There is a huge moral difference between "I won't sell guns" and "I want the government to discriminate against consenting adults doing something because I personally disapprove"

[deogeo]

Not as large a difference as you might hope. Replace "guns" with "phones with freely unlockable bootloaders", and "I" with "7/10 manufacturers" (made up statistics, but it's in the ballpark I think). If that 7/10 trends up to 10/10, then their right to control their own devices effectively disappears, even though the government didn't get in the way. I wager those who value the right to bear arms, don't want to wait until they are barely able to buy guns, at a dwindling handful of companies, before taking action.

[scarface74]

You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married, make end of life decisions for each other as the next of kin, be on family insurance, etc?

Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.

[deogeo]

> You’re really comparing “unlocking bootloaders” to the right for a gay couple to get married...

I'm making a comparison to show you don't need the government to restrict rights - a handful of corporations that control a market can do so just as well. Thinking the government is the only threat to your rights is myopic. The specific activity I chose to illustrate this is utterly besides the point. (Though it is worrying that anyone on this site would think control of your own computer is unimportant.)

> Trust me, I live in the south. If the chains don’t sell guns, there will always be some local shops that will.

It is precisely the passionate pro-2nd-amendment attitude (the same attitude that directed ire towards Dicks) that assures this. To repeat myself - they don't want to wait till their backs are against a wall, to start pushing back. "Don't worry, you still have N-1 computing devices not locked-down by the manufacturer. N-2. N-3. N-4..."

[scarface74]

The government can legally take away my property (eminent domain), my liberty by putting me in jail, they can force me to join the military, etc. Corporations have none of those powers.

[tomatotomato37]

Chick-Fla-A is a private company (and forced to be so in the founder's will), so they have no shareholder obligation to pursue growth at all costs. They'll probably just shrug it off and concentrate on domestic expansion.

[scarface74]

Can a founder really "force" all of the owners not to go public after he dies? Who is going to force them?

[solotronics]

I wonder if the company was set up in some legal framework like a trust and therefore it would not be up to the current managers to make certain changes.

[scarface74]

Just found this.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311452

They can’t go public but they are allowed to sell their ownership. So there is nothing stopping them from creating a shell company, “selling to it” and taking it public or “selling” to a smaller already public company.

[CodeWriter23]

The executor of the estate.

[ryanmercer]

Given they are closed on Sundays, I doubt they are worried about what people think of their religious stance/beliefs or worried about bending to pressure/common opinion just to increase profits (or they'd open on Sundays like every other fast food company).