Good move? Bad move?
Personally, I think the point of a business is to make money and I'm not convinced that Chic-Fil-A's ambitions are horribly inconsistent with that. Even a not-for-profit shares the same objective; a for profit business should line your own pockets and a NFP should line the pockets of someone else to achieve some goal of bettering society. Even though Chic-Fil-A may have it's leanings and connections that they support, I don't think it is their mission to go out of their way to achieve social goals such as preventing gays from marrying. Now, if the LDS church turned out to be the majority shareholder (hahah, I honestly wouldn't be surprised....), then we'd have a different story.
Good move for Boston? Bad Move? And not based on the future lack of Chic-Fil-A in Boston or because it's gay marriage, but rather for taking a stand (albeit a good one) against a group whose *primary* mission is to make money and not most likely to achieve social outcomes...... Personally, I agree with Mayor Menino. His job is to make the city a better place for everyone and Chic-Fil-A's presence in Massachusetts is limited and social change accelerates when someone in a position of power stands up and says something. Thoughts?