Rachel Yeates, Campus Carrier Managing Editor
Georgia’s “religious liberty” bill, or HB 757, drew flak from the NFL last week when they released a statement to the Atlanta Journal Constitution that hinted at denying Atlanta a chance to host the Super Bowl were the bill to pass. This bill, according to the Georgia General Assembly Legislature, enables religious officials and business owners to deny service based on their religious views.
Spokesman Brian McCarthy’s statement reads, “NFL policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness, and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or any other improper standard.
Whether the laws and regulations of a state and local community are consistent with these policies would be one of many factors NFL owners may use to evaluate potential Super Bowl host sites.”
However, as AJC columnist Kyle Wingfield points out, other states vying to host the 2019 and 2020 Super Bowls include Florida and Louisiana, which already have laws in place similar to HB 757. The NFL has not spoken out against these states’ existing legislation.
For members of the LGBT community, this is a reminder that for businesses, the bottom line is profit. The NFL is only a fair-weather ally. Reprimanding Georgia legislators in a post-DOMA (the act passed in 1996 stating that the federal government wouldn’t recognize same-sex marriages) society is a public relations move for a company with no necessary political stance working to rebuild an image that is not centered on domestic abuse and player injury.
According to a 2015 survey by Cone Communications, 71 percent of consumers would pay more for a socially or environmentally responsible product or service. Consumers expect corporations to take a stand on social and environmental issues. Not to do so means loss of sales. In a 2010 Cone Communications study, 80 percent of consumers would even switch brands if another comparable product supported a cause.
As consumers, we should be aware of the views corporations espouse and whether or not those line up with their business model. Take Toms for example. The “do-good” one for one shoe company has donated over 50 million pairs of shoes to date. For all of their perceived philanthropy, critics question the actual benefits of these donations.
In a 2012 Mother Jones article, Kiera Butler saw potential in the buy-one-give-one (B1G1) model, but not in the execution. Toms floods local markets with imported shoes without much support for local businesses and entrepreneurship. It’s not a lasting good.
“Buy-one-give-one companies can work,” Butler said. “If they solve a real problem, and if they don’t compete with local businesses.”
Sarika Bansal of the New York Times agrees.
“The core idea of B1G1 remains a powerful one, as it engages customers in the developed world in a way many philanthropic programs do not,” Bansal said in a 2012 opinion piece. “To be effective, however, the B1G1 program must be designed to be sustainable and consistent with the needs of the developing world recipients.”
Companies operating for profit, no matter their philosophical platforms, are still working to make a profit. The appeal of corporate stance on current issues extends as far as the buck. There may be good intentions, but if they are not supported by the company’s actions and business practices, I’m inclined to believe they are just for show.