My normal state of half-awake was disturbed one day in tenth grade American History when my teacher began to lecture on the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918. Typically, I spent this class period inventing new ways to scribe my name, but as my teacher began to elaborate on this lecture, American history suddenly got a hell of a lot more interesting. The Sedition Act was put into place by Congress during World War I as an extension of the Espionage Act of 1917, prohibiting U.S. citizens from criticizing the war or U.S. government in either speech or writing. If a person was found in violation of this law, s/he could be given a jail sentence of up to twenty years. When my teacher asked the class if this Act was morally right or constitutional, everyone in the class—save me—agreed that, yes, the Sedition Act, a clear violation of First Amendment rights, was a necessary and good thing. Raising my hand to disagree was the singular act that caused me to be labeled as a communist by the other 499 students in Ida High School, but it did earn me points with the teacher, who I remember to be one to lean to the left.

When I first spoke up about my belief that it was wrong to censor the public’s opinions on the war, I had no idea that there would be such a fervent backlash from my classmates. The constant taunts of “commy” overwhelmed the small amount of silent praise I received from my teacher, rendering it inchoate. The controversy I faced over my contextually unpopular political opinion back in high school is very similar to the controversy that certain business organizations are finding themselves in the middle of because of their stances on Gay Rights. Most recently in the news, we have been hearing about Chick-fil-A and its Christian-based beliefs leading its CEO Dan Cathy to openly support “the traditional family.”

On August 1st of 2012, Chick-fil-A had record-breaking sales across the country, as other believers of the Bible and traditional family values wound circle queues around the restaurants as a part of “Support Chick-fil-A” day. At first this may seem like a good thing for Chick-fil-A—what company has qualms with record-breaking sales? However, by making the political statements that it has, Chick-fil-A is in danger of isolating a significant number of the chicken-eating population. The latest polls report that more than half the population of the U.S. citizenry is in support of gay marriage and equal rights. Further, it’s estimated that 10 percent of the entire population is a part of GLBT community. As a member of the community myself, I can say that, even if I wasn’t a vegetarian, I would certainly not patron a restaurant or business that is actively working to deny me and my loved ones equal rights. Doesn’t it make sense, then, that 50 percent of the population would think twice before choosing Chick-fil-A’s chicken over one of its competitors? Sure Chick-fil-A may have had a momentary spike in sales, but the long-term consequence is a permanent loss in clientele, and ultimately, money. Let’s face it—not every day can be “Support Chick-fil-A Day.” (Also, the more I have to type its name, the more I am beginning to despise it. Can I get some grammar here?)

And the case goes both ways. Department store chain, J.C. Penny, came under attack by right-wingers after featuring same-sex couples in their Mother’s and Father’s Day catalogues. One Million Moms, an organization of women devoted to upholding the aforementioned “traditional family values,” spearheaded a boycott of J.C. Penny stores. Other GLBT-friendly companies such as Starbucks, Target, and Macy’s were also boycotted by the group. Even though it’s a bit of a stretch to say that One Million Moms has one million members (based on the number of “likes” on their Facebook page, membership is less than 60,000), for these companies, those are several potential customers lost because of their public political stances. That does not include the many other organizations similar to One Million Moms and individuals who are opposed to equal rights for GLBT people.

Do I believe that companies should be entitled to their right to express controversial political opinions? Yes. Do I believe that it is economically smart or sound business practice? No. Not picking a side on controversial issues can protect companies from reprisal. For example: Popeyes Chicken, a competitor of Chick-fil-A, has not taken a stance on GLBT Rights, and consequently, will receive no loss of business. In fact, I imagine they should experience an increase, serving the former customers of Chick-fil-A whenever they have a craving for chicken that isn’t seasoned with politics.

Just as I should have been more conscious of voicing my liberal political viewpoint in my conservative high school, so should companies be conscious of the negative financial impacts and polarizing effects of doing the same. So, my advice to Chick-fil-A when it comes to making bold political statements is this: “Shut the cluck up.”