"Should brands support positions that discriminate against certain segments of society? Chick-Fil-A against Gay Marriage for example".

This is a very interesting question Karen. I have said before that brands that stand for something, those that embrace certain values, will create greater emotional connection to those who share their values. Depending on what those values are and how offensive they might be to others, those values may also drive people who don’t share those values away.

Brands that take stands on issues that are important to specific market segments will increase the loyalty of people in those segments.

Brands are all about choices and very few, if any, brands appeal to all people.

For instance, Fox News will appeal to some people, while it will completely turn others off. The same goes for Air America. Some people will sing the praises of the Unitarian Universalist brand of religion, while others will steer completely clear of it.  Conversely, some people will find great meaning in the Southern Baptist church, while others will avoid it at all costs.

The more interesting question is, “Should brands that presumably were designed to appeal to all people or at least a broad cross-section of the public take stands that discriminate against certain segments of society?” If the brands are privately owned and run, it is their prerogative, although I am not sure how wise that is from a business perspective, as many would argue against it from a moral perspective. Certainly Chick-Fil-A and Boy Scouts of America (B.S.A.) have done just this.