There’s something bizarrely compelling about the idea that fast-food restaurants can become entangled with hot-button social issues. In case you haven’t kept up on chicken-related current events, the popular restaurant Chick-fil-A is currently the subject of controversy because of comments made by one Dan Cathy. Cathy, the chain’s president and chief operating officer, said recently that he supports the “biblical definition of the family unit,” provoking a firestorm of positive and negative response.

There have essentially been two kinds of negative responses: those that seek to express disapproval toward Cathy’s statement and those that seek to damage Chick-fil-A’s profits and patronage. The first kind is laudable. The second kind is misguided.

Many individuals have responded to Cathy’s statements with symbolic demonstrations. For instance, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation have organized “kiss-ins” at Chick-fil-A’s throughout the country, and other groups have organized rallies and protests. These reactions are appropriate and reasonable and effectively accomplish the goal of showing distaste to an important individual’s uncouth remarks. In the long run, they will help the country understand that homophobia has a real, negative impact on real American people.

However, movements that have targeted Chic-fil-A financially fail to appreciate the context of Cathy’s statements. His comments came in response to a direct question from a journalist and do not reflect the company policies. In fact, Chick-fil-A has released a corporate statement saying sexual orientation is not a factor in their customer service and that the corporation has no discriminatory hiring policies.

It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that Chick-fil-A does not take issue with gay marriage. Dan Cathy may take issue with gay marriage, but this is his personal opinion, and it does not appear to extend to his company.

If you take issue with Cathy’s statements, let him know. Protest, write letters to the editor, or write letters to Cathy himself. But don’t mistake the man for the company he runs. If you picket or boycott Chick-fil-A, Cathy will never notice. He runs a successful restaurant chain, so he’ll be rich and secure regardless. You only stand a chance to hurt the chain’s lower employees, who aren’t likely to have said anything to deserve your indignation.

Don’t misunderstand me; if Cathy’s statements upset you so deeply that you no longer want to eat at Chick-fil-A, by all means, don’t eat at Chick-fil-A. But understand that boycotts and pickets don’t address the real problem nearly as effectively as other methods. Cathy won’t change because of what you buy, but you can send an important message with what you say.

Nathan James is a columnist for The Crimson White and a sophomore majoring in public relations.