IHOP

Liberals are once again calling for a boycott. Someone online posted an image from an IHOP restaurant where a note was posted blaming Biden for a staff shortage, resulting in reduced hours.

There are similarities between this potential boycott and some of the others that I have addressed. There is also a key difference. This is a call for a boycott of an entire chain based on the actions of one restaurant.

Before I go any further, I can't validate the authenticity of the image. It wouldn't be all that difficult to print a letter like this and take a picture of it. The picture I saw only showed IHOP as text in the letter. Personally, I suspect that it is legitimate for one reason. The person posting it seemed to black out a store identifier while indicating that it might be corporate policy. If you wanted to convince people it was corporate, why would you need to include something that indicates otherwise.

Not only did the image black out an item in the letter, but there was at least one obvious grammatical error that would not have made it through proofreading. The letter did not feature IHOP branding. Similar letters were not shared from other locations. If legitimate, the letter was clearly a decision specific to one location. It was not corporate policy.

To an extent, I can understand a boycott of the specific restaurant in question. I'm still reluctant to embrace punishing a business for the actions of one person, but that one person is a much bigger part of this story than most people who lead to talks about boycotts. Of course, this is only if you are talking about the specific restaurant. Punishing an entire chain because of what one person says is ridiculous. This is especially true if the person in question has no influence over the chain.

If you have read my prior posts about freedom of speech (from an ethical perspective), you know that I typically draw the line based on whether someone is representing himself or if he is representing others. Putting a letter on the front door and signing off as a local IHOP restaurant definitely qualifies as speaking on behalf of the business. While it makes sense to reduce hours due to a shortage of workers, politics should have been left out of the letter. Ownership can and probably should take action. By contrast, the chain has little to do with this. A boycott is an extreme overreaction.