Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Why I’m not cheering the termination of Vante’s CFO for his anti-Chick-fil-A political stunt

    Why I’m not cheering the termination of Vante’s CFO for his anti-Chick-fil-A political stunt

    A number of readers have alerted me to this video, which originally was posted on YouTube by Adam Smith, the Chief Financial Officer of medical products maker Vante (via Gateway Pundit):

    Why pick on a drive-through window clerk?  The video seemed to capture in minutes the entire bullying methodology of the left.

    Needless to say, the reaction has been substantial.

    Now the person in the film, Adam Smith, has lost his job (unclear if he resigned or was fired, but clear what the cause was)(h/t reader John):

    TUCSON, AZ–(Marketwire – Aug 2, 2012) –  The following is a statement from Vante:

    Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.

    The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

    We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.

    I just can’t cheer.  Yes, he brought it on himself.

    But aren’t many of the arguments you can make in favor of the termination just variations on the arguments used against conservatives all the time?  Where to draw the line certainly is a problem.

    Or am I just drawing a false moral equivalence?


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    WarEagle82 | August 4, 2012 at 12:03 pm

    One of the things I have heard over and over is “all publicity is not good,” and conversely, “there is such a thing as bad publicity.”

    I suspect Arizona is an “at-will” employment state. As such, you have no “right” to your job and can be terminated for any number of reasons. And damaging the company’s relationship with hundreds, thousands or even millions of customers and potential customers is simply a big deal for an officer of any company.

    The last thing a company wants to hear repeated around the world is that “So-and-so at XYZ Company is a @#$%@#[email protected]#!” It leaves an impression, even for those who don’t know what “So-and-so” did. The idea that “XYZ Company” has at least one “major @#$%@#[email protected]#” runing the place is a big negative.

    The guy probably walked with a 90 day severance package and maybe more. As an officer, he probably had some this stuff written into his employment agreement. And there were probably clauses in that agreement letting him know there were lines he could not cross without giving grounds for dismissal. Either he didn’t care or wasn’t smart enough to pay attention to the fine print. Or he thought his board wouldn’t care.

    Either way, nastiness, arrogance, venomous bile, poor judgment and inattention to detail are not traits people find endearing in a C-level appointment.

    But, sadly enough, there are ideologues out there who will hire this guy for ideological reasons.

    I just hope I don’t see another 7 minute video from the guy any time soon…

    I thought it might be good to re-visit what started this whole business, the so-called ‘anti-gay marriage’ comments of Dan Cathy, characterized in that way even by people who support Chick-fil-A and by conservative radio.

    So here’s the full interview that lit this fire:

    I’ve seen statements to the effect that Chick-fil-A ‘launched an attack on gay marriage’, based on this interview. I must confess to puzzlement that our local conservative talk radio station (owned by Clear Channel, FWIW) characterized these remarks as ‘anti-gay marriage’ in their news coverage. Expressing support of and belief in traditional marriage is not quite the same as being ‘anti-gay marriage’. Cathy didn’t condemn anyone, didn’t criticize anyone, didn’t say he didn’t know how someone could live with themselves if they supported gay marriage… you get the idea.

    Being a conservative does not equate to gay-hate, in case the point hasn’t been made already. I have close relatives in gay relationships. I attended the wedding of one; he and his spouse are close with us and we treat them as we do any other members of our family, with affection and respect. Haven’t been to Burning Man with them, yet, but we’ve been invited. The ‘tolerance enforcers’ can’t seem to grasp the ludicrous irony of their intolerance of others’ differing views.

    BarbaraS | August 4, 2012 at 2:39 pm


    Only a fool would bring this to court no matter how much the law would permit it and I doubt it would permit it. Free speech triumphs it all. The media would have a field day. OTOH, it might bring out another Chick-Fil-A attendance day and be a blowout like the last one. There is no bad publicity.

      colonialBoy in reply to BarbaraS. | August 4, 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Sorry, BarbaraS, that really isn’t the case at all any more. Once digital recording devices became widespread, the number of prosecutions and/or suits for things people have said has exploded.

      You might have the constitutional right to say what you like, but if your speech causes someone demonstrable injury, you will find yourself defending yourself in court.

      While I agree that it is unlikely that legal action will come of this, I still don’t think it is impossible. As I have stated previously, I JUST DON’T KNOW enough about this situation to be confident. Where did this take place? Is she a minor? WHO is she? How has this affected her?

      Contrary to public opinion, in America, the law is NOT enforced evenly. If that composed young lady is a 21-year old working in a large city, she will just have to be satisfied with the praise she is getting for doing her job well. But if it turns out she is the minor dependent of a County Supervisor, and is now suffering nightmares from what just happened to her at her first Summer job, the ex-CFO is DOOMED. (see previous comments)

      There are ALTOGETHER too many plausible scenarios that can be generated from this event. I badly wish I had some accurate details upon which I can base my comments 🙁

    BarbaraS | August 4, 2012 at 2:47 pm

    Henry Hawkins

    Bottom line is all. Mess with that and you are gone. No mercy. No second chances. Companies with a will to succeed in the business world do not put up with this kind of stuff. The phrase “hardheaded businessmen” didn’t come out of think air. Vante is looking out for itself and they should for the sake of their stockholders.

    BarbaraS | August 4, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    “He seriously misread the atmosphere of the moment.”

    In your head…out your mouth with no second thought is no way to go through life, son.

    What he is actualy saying is that he thought he would be applauded by more people. That is the only interpretation for his remark.

    Pah, I have no sympathy for this jerk. He picked on a kid who had no option of answering back. If he did this to anyone on the street, he would be taking a chance of getting punched in the nose or shot.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to BarbaraS. | August 4, 2012 at 7:04 pm

      “If he did this to anyone on the street, he would be taking a chance of getting punched in the nose or shot.”

      [Mental Note To Self: Do NOT piss off BarbaraS.]

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend