Chick-fil-Yay or Nay? The Ethics of Consumption

by Thalia wolff

DELLA: Isn’t there something about Chick-fil-A not supporting, ah—

JEN: I support Chick-fil-A going right into my mouth.

She eats a nugget. Don’t tell Macy.

In Scene 3 of The Cake, Jen brings Della a bag of Chick-fil-A nuggets as a reconciliatory gesture, seeking to “[pretend] everything is normal and fine.” Della digs in enthusiastically, offers some to Jen, then hesitates: is this right?

In 2017, when The Cake was first produced, Chick-fil-A donated over $1.8 million to organizations with a history of anti-LGBTQIA+ discrimination, despite the company’s reported promises to stop giving money to such causes back in 2012. This news reignited concerns surrounding the company’s longstanding association with hateful messages directed toward the LGBTQIA+ community, from a CEO’s vocal opposition to marriage equality to company owners’ alleged connection with a charitable trust promoting the harmful practice of conversion therapy. In this moment of the play, Della takes note of the contradiction between Jen’s peace offering and the company's harmful practices, and wonders if she should be responding differently. However, Jen appears to care more about the food’s role as a point of connection between her and Della than what it relates to on broader societal levels.

In recent years, the things we purchase and consume have become increasingly tied up with morality in public discourse, placing pressure on companies to at least nominally support causes they anticipate or perceive as being important to their consumer base. For example, the public outrage over Chick-fil-A’s continued contributions to anti-LGBTQIA+ groups caused the company to issue multiple public apologies and withdraw from several of their more problematic affiliations over the course of the 2010s. That said, it took Chickfil-A over half a decade to stop spending over a million dollars a year on donations to groups with anti-LGBTQIA+ affiliations.

It's not just Chick-fil-A either: many corporations that Americans interact with every day are tied up in their own ethical quandaries. For instance, were you aware Nestle was sued for using child slave labor in the Ivory Coast to harvest cocoa? The case got to the Supreme Court before being dismissed in 2021 because, according to the Justices, none of the relevant conduct took place within the United States. Did you know McDonald's has been linked time and again to the deforestation of the Amazon? Or that Walmart often uses voluntary, but extremely low-paid prison labor to manufacture goods?

Often, big companies care more about the appearance of morality than actually behaving ethically or standing up for the rights of marginalized groups. In the context of LGBTQIA+ rights, this is especially evident during Pride Month, when companies that may be actively contributing to LGBTQIA+ discrimination through their business practices post as many rainbow symbols as possible on their products and social media in hopes that consumers will view them as allies, in spite of their harmful actions. This practice is referred to as rainbow capitalism.

In the face of public pandering by companies, the onus is often placed on the consumer to see through corporate deception and make their consumption choices ethically. As those companies continue to use the money and attention consumers provide them to contribute to discrimination against marginalized communities and individuals, some argue it is up to the individual consumer to make the "right" moral choice. However, the scene with Della and Jen involving Chick-fil-A highlights a complexity in this discourse: the contradiction between the principle of ethical consumption and the belief that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.

The principle of ethical consumption places the blame for companies’ harmful actions upon the consumers who support them. This principle has a negative psychological impact on consumers who may not have the time or money necessary to consistently consume ethically. In part to acknowledge this burden, the slogan “no ethical consumption under capitalism” was devised to better account for the corporate “incentive to sell the cheapest and quickest made products that more often than not result in pollution and unsafe workplaces.” Proponents of this viewpoint argue that the consumer is not the one at fault when a company behaves irresponsibly, especially when consumers lack the financial position to afford ethically-made materials.

The burden of ethical consumption upon the choice-limited consumer is especially taxing for marginalized people who are targets of discriminatory corporations. Della experiences guilt and cognitive dissonance knowing that she is enjoying food made by a company that does harm to Jen's community. Out LGBTQIA+ people can render visible a cognitive dissonance that makes it hard to ignore the ethical complications of an otherwise heartfelt exchange. For queer people, the shame over consuming unethically may be heightened by unearned shame over reminding family and friends, by their presence alone, that they are consuming unethically.

Della’s concern for Jen’s feelings about consuming Chick-fil-A comes from a place of caring. Although Della’s feelings about Jen’s lesbianism are conflicted, she does not want to hurt Jen or make her feel isolated. She worries about whether Jen will take offense at her consumption of food associated with a harmful company, ignoring the intention behind Jen’s act of bringing her said food. Jen is telling Della she would rather be simply seen and loved and treated like the family she is than worry about ethical consumption in this moment. In this way, she also asks to be treated not as a two-dimensional stand-in for the entire queer community, but as the individual she is, with her own unique cares, desires, likes, opinions, and needs.

To support a queer person in one’s life is to support that specific individual; the community is not a monolith. As Jen ultimately expresses to Della, the sentiments behind an action or decision can matter more to a person than the action itself: “I don’t need you to bake me a cake. I need you to love me.” While it is important where possible to be considerate of where one’s money, time, and attention are going and what they are supporting, it’s really important to listen to the people in your life about what they need from you, and to continue loving them indiscriminately as the individuals that they are.