Its really good chicken, I don't see why people are making such a big stink over it. If everybody makes purchasing decisions based off whether or not a company CEO's views are in line with their own, the economy would come to a screeching halt pretty fast.
Boycotts are always a joke, people will be back in line in a couple months.
@Flawed_System1). Who ever said Christians are all bigots? Not me that's for sure, and yes the victim card. When I see a person trying to "cure the gay." and is openly against gay marriage and somebody calls them an idiotic bigot, they ALWAYS pull out "stop being intolerant of my opinion." and to me that's absolute bullshit, you're the one trying to take rights away from a group of people, and 2). deserve to get chastise for your beliefs. Could you imagine the backlash of suddenly black people were not allowed to get married, Muslims not allowed? Etc.
Extreme Hypothetical.
Numbers 1). and 2). contradict each other.
So you agree that every religion should be 'chastised' if it doesn't support gay marriage? What about Muslims? They don't support gay marriage or adultery. Do they deserve to be chastised as well?
How is that hypocritical, your religion has literally nothing to do with why you deserve to be chastised, you hating a group of people for irrational reasons and trying to take away their rights is why you deserve to be chastised. How do you not understand this? I have nothing against religious people as long as you're not a bigoted idiot who thinks certain groups of people shouldn't have the same rights as you
Hypothetical. Not hypocritical.
There's no animosity between Christians and gays. They disapprove of sodomy.
What you're basically saying is that you hate these groups because their views differ from yours. Wouldn't that classify you as a bigot?
What about Muslims? They don't support gay marriage or adultery. Do they deserve to be chastised as well?
There you go again, playing victim by calling people who support gay rights bigots because, again... If your views are trying to take the rights away from another human being, you can go fuck yourself. I don't care if you're Christian, atheist, catholic, whatever. It doesn't fucking matter. When you start trying to make others inequal to you, there's a problem and deserve to be called out on it and chastised, calling bigoted assholes out on being bigoted assholes is bein a bigot to you, and that's fucking ridiculous.
Okay, so we've firmly established that you are intolerant of Muslims, Christians, and Jews. How is it "playing victim" when, by the definition you posted, the stance you're taking is bigoted?
Ugh. I'm done with you. I've made my point numerous times In this topic and you just keep ignoring it and yelling "bigot!" even though I'm the one who wants equal rights for every single person, while you're quite the opposite.
@Flawed_System1). Who ever said Christians are all bigots? Not me that's for sure, and yes the victim card. When I see a person trying to "cure the gay." and is openly against gay marriage and somebody calls them an idiotic bigot, they ALWAYS pull out "stop being intolerant of my opinion." and to me that's absolute bullshit, you're the one trying to take rights away from a group of people, and 2). deserve to get chastise for your beliefs. Could you imagine the backlash of suddenly black people were not allowed to get married, Muslims not allowed? Etc.
Extreme Hypothetical.
Numbers 1). and 2). contradict each other.
So you agree that every religion should be 'chastised' if it doesn't support gay marriage? What about Muslims? They don't support gay marriage or adultery. Do they deserve to be chastised as well?
How is that hypocritical, your religion has literally nothing to do with why you deserve to be chastised, you hating a group of people for irrational reasons and trying to take away their rights is why you deserve to be chastised. How do you not understand this? I have nothing against religious people as long as you're not a bigoted idiot who thinks certain groups of people shouldn't have the same rights as you
Hypothetical. Not hypocritical.
There's no animosity between Christians and gays. They disapprove of sodomy.
What you're basically saying is that you hate these groups because their views differ from yours. Wouldn't that classify you as a bigot?
What about Muslims? They don't support gay marriage or adultery. Do they deserve to be chastised as well?
But Muslims don't get together in large groups and try to take away people's liberties like Christians do (In the western world).
But nice try!
And what are we basing this assertion on? Your own convictions?
Now we're trying to define parameters? So it's okay as long as they don't do it in the Western World? Could it possibly be that Christianity is the predominant religion in the Western World, thus, more Christians mobilize when they feel their beliefs are in jeopardy? Islam is the main religion in the middle-east, applying your logic, they do in fact "get together in large groups to take away people's liberties".
And while that's true for those extremist groups of Islam in two countries outside of America you're trying for guilt by association in order to deflect blame from a localised issue; the issue of gay rights being denied in America. You're trying to trap CL60 in a cage marked 'chastises religions for their oppressive behaviour' when in actual fact, he (and most others here) are only talking in response the illusion that American Christians Organisations have painted ever since Roe vs Wade (where Abortion was defined as a precedent as a woman's right to choose) that their rights are being taken away. American Christians do not own morality and America is meant to be a nation where Church and State are to be separate when it comes to legislation and yet time and again we have seen the Church meddle directly in legislation at almost every level from basic human rights to education and greater scientific research issues. When American Christian political groups do these things it is actually they who are impinging on the rights of the people and when the people protest these various forms of Christian Moral Doctrine as Laws and win Christians get offended at a working Democratic process.
I find it insightful that right wing Christian hate groups try and attack Islam's presence with the looming shadow of Shariah Law because it will supposedly impinge on freedoms of women and fringe groups when Christian Moral Doctrine has directly influenced some very key American legislation which denies rights to women and homosexuals (who are without a doubt a fringe group, statistically speaking at around 4.5% of the population).
I understand that you seem to enjoy arguing but unless you can defend Christian Moral Doctrine applied as law in America when it directly attacks the rights of Women and Homosexuals while also negatively affecting Education and Scientific Research as it applies to America then please leave international policies in relation to other religions out of this discussion. Chick-Fil-A and its CEO are American and their product is only available in America and the Christian groups it funds are only American and these groups only target their collective political and otherwise negative energies on the rights of American homosexuals. Therefore, to bring other international and religious contexts into this discussion serves only to distract from a localised American Christian issue.
Drawing a long bow to make everyone look like a hater isn't going to distract from the existence of politically empowered hate groups and that's what we're actually discussing with regards to Chick-Fil-A.
I never felt like I got my money's worth when I went to Chik-Fil-A in the past, the portions always seemed really small compared to similarly-priced fast food joints. The food itself was always mediocre, easily replaceable, which is fortunate as I won't be eating there anymore; I don't want any of my money going to anti-gay groups.
God, I feel like I ran a goddamn marathon now that I've read this entire thread. Anyway...
@SeriouslyNow said:
@Flawed_System said:
@Jumbs said:
@Flawed_System said:
@CL60 said:
@Flawed_System
@CL60 said:
@Flawed_System1). Who ever said Christians are all bigots? Not me that's for sure, and yes the victim card. When I see a person trying to "cure the gay." and is openly against gay marriage and somebody calls them an idiotic bigot, they ALWAYS pull out "stop being intolerant of my opinion." and to me that's absolute bullshit, you're the one trying to take rights away from a group of people, and 2). deserve to get chastise for your beliefs. Could you imagine the backlash of suddenly black people were not allowed to get married, Muslims not allowed? Etc.
Extreme Hypothetical.
Numbers 1). and 2). contradict each other.
So you agree that every religion should be 'chastised' if it doesn't support gay marriage? What about Muslims? They don't support gay marriage or adultery. Do they deserve to be chastised as well?
How is that hypocritical, your religion has literally nothing to do with why you deserve to be chastised, you hating a group of people for irrational reasons and trying to take away their rights is why you deserve to be chastised. How do you not understand this? I have nothing against religious people as long as you're not a bigoted idiot who thinks certain groups of people shouldn't have the same rights as you
Hypothetical. Not hypocritical.
There's no animosity between Christians and gays. They disapprove of sodomy.
What you're basically saying is that you hate these groups because their views differ from yours. Wouldn't that classify you as a bigot?
What about Muslims? They don't support gay marriage or adultery. Do they deserve to be chastised as well?
But Muslims don't get together in large groups and try to take away people's liberties like Christians do (In the western world).
But nice try!
And what are we basing this assertion on? Your own convictions?
Now we're trying to define parameters? So it's okay as long as they don't do it in the Western World? Could it possibly be that Christianity is the predominant religion in the Western World, thus, more Christians mobilize when they feel their beliefs are in jeopardy? Islam is the main religion in the middle-east, applying your logic, they do in fact "get together in large groups to take away people's liberties".
And while that's true for those extremist groups of Islam in two countries outside of America you're trying for guilt by association in order to deflect blame from a localised issue; the issue of gay rights being denied in America. You're trying to trap CL60 in a cage marked 'chastises religions for their oppressive behaviour' when in actual fact, he (and most others here) are only talking in response the illusion that American Christians Organisations have painted ever since Roe vs Wade (where Abortion was defined as a precedent as a woman's right to choose) that their rights are being taken away. American Christians do not own morality and America is meant to be a nation where Church and State are to be separate when it comes to legislation and yet time and again we have seen the Church meddle directly in legislation at almost every level from basic human rights to education and greater scientific research issues. When American Christian political groups do these things it is actually they who are impinging on the rights of the people and when the people protest these various forms of Christian Moral Doctrine as Laws and win Christians get offended at a working Democratic process.
I find it insightful that right wing Christian hate groups try and attack Islam's presence with the looming shadow of Shariah Law because it will supposedly impinge on freedoms of women and fringe groups when Christian Moral Doctrine has directly influenced some very key American legislation which denies rights to women and homosexuals (who are without a doubt a fringe group, statistically speaking at around 4.5% of the population).
I understand that you seem to enjoy arguing but unless you can defend Christian Moral Doctrine applied as law in America when it directly attacks the rights of Women and Homosexuals while also negatively affecting Education and Scientific Research as it applies to America then please leave international policies in relation to other religions out of this discussion. Chick-Fil-A and its CEO are American and their product is only available in America and the Christian groups it funds are only American and these groups only target their collective political and otherwise negative energies on the rights of American homosexuals. Therefore, to bring other international and religious contexts into this discussion serves only to distract from a localised American Christian issue.
Drawing a long bow to make everyone look like a hater isn't going to distract from the existence of politically empowered hate groups and that's what we're actually discussing with regards to Chick-Fil-A.
Slow clap for you, good sir. Slow clap for you.
@salad10203 said:
I never thought it was great but I am eating there now to support them.
Please explain.
Actually, never mind. Don't do that.
@SpaceInsomniac said:
@CL60 said:
There you go again, playing victim by calling people who support gay rights bigots because, again... If your views are trying to take the rights away from another human being, you can go fuck yourself. I don't care if you're Christian, atheist, catholic, whatever. It doesn't fucking matter. When you start trying to make others inequal to you, there's a problem and deserve to be called out on it and chastised, calling bigoted assholes out on being bigoted assholes is bein a bigot to you, and that's fucking ridiculous.
Homosexuals deserve the same rights that we heterosexuals enjoy. I feel that a gay man should be able to marry any woman he chooses.
*ducks thrown tomato*
Only kidding, of course. But seriously, the Bible specifically condemns homosexuality. Most of it is in the old Testament, and most of that stuff isn't followed anymore, but it does make a definitive statement about the subject. As a Christian, he also considers marriage to be a sacred union before God. It's not too hard to understand why he feels the way he does.
While you see him as trying to oppress others, I'm sure he just views his actions as trying to follow the beliefs of his religion. But no matter your view on how right or wrong he is for doing so, I do think it's a mistake to suggest that he hates gay people, which I've seen a lot of in this thread. Speaking of which...
@CL60 said:
Your religion has literally nothing to do with why you deserve to be chastised, you hating a group of people for irrational reasons and trying to take away their rights is why you deserve to be chastised.
So you're fine with religious people, but only if they ignore the parts of their religion that you don't agree with? That's like a Christian saying "oh, I'm fine with homosexuals, they just can't have sex with other homosexuals."
I understand you wanting everyone to have equal rights and all--and that's certainly a noble goal--but they're just opposing viewpoints. Many Christians view homosexuality as a sin, and--from their point of view--don't want their society to redefine the traditional definition of marriage. Many others see marriage as the loving union of two people, and feel that union shouldn't be denied to anyone. In the end, no matter who gets their way, toes are going to be stepped on.
Quote 1: There's a difference between thinking homosexuality is wrong due to your religious beliefs, and wanting legislation that effects a multicultural nation to reflect your religious beliefs.
Quote 2: But can't they just be happy with a "Catholic Definition" that Catholics follow as part of their religion, separate from law that effects everyone? That's what I don't understand, there should be a separation of church and state, no?
Ugh. I'm done with you. I've made my point numerous times In this topic and you just keep ignoring it and yelling "bigot!" even though I'm the one who wants equal rights for every single person, while you're quite the opposite.
I don't believe I ever took a stance. If you made a point other than, "those who don't agree with my views are bigoted" then it wasn't outlined clearly enough for me to decipher.
Ugh. I'm done with you. I've made my point numerous times In this topic and you just keep ignoring it and yelling "bigot!" even though I'm the one who wants equal rights for every single person, while you're quite the opposite.
I don't believe I ever took a stance. If you made a point other than, "those who don't agree with my views are bigoted" then it wasn't outlined clearly enough for me to decipher.
Then you are a moron because he clearly stated his views for everyone else. Seems more like you simply want to deflect the issue by feigning ignorance.
Ugh. I'm done with you. I've made my point numerous times In this topic and you just keep ignoring it and yelling "bigot!" even though I'm the one who wants equal rights for every single person, while you're quite the opposite.
I don't believe I ever took a stance. If you made a point other than, "those who don't agree with my views are bigoted" then it wasn't outlined clearly enough for me to decipher.
Then you are a moron because he clearly stated his views for everyone else. Seems more like you simply want to deflect the issue by feigning ignorance.
I suggest you re-read my responses to his posts before claiming I "feigned ignorance".
Underlined: Terrible way to start a sentence if you want to be taken seriously.
Quote 2: But can't they just be happy with a "Catholic Definition" that Catholics follow as part of their religion, separate from law that effects everyone? That's what I don't understand, there should be a separation of church and state, no?
You answered your own question. It effects everyone...religious included.
I'm curious to see how this will actually impact Chick-Fil-A. I'm guessing sales might actually spike.
I mean, say the country is 50/50 on the whole gay marriage issue. Then reduce that to however many people can actually be bothered to let their political opinion override their appetite AND would normally eat at Chick-Fil-A. I'd think the number of customers that boycott the chain would be less than the number of people who otherwise might not have eaten at Chick-Fil-A, but will eat there now in opposition to the outcry against Chick-Fil-A.
Unless LGBT's disproportionately favor chicken over other options like fish, beef, mystery meat and vegetarian burgers.
Look, when it comes down to it all, here's what people need to realize:
America, as a nation, is constantly trying to say "we fight for equality and welcome diversity". However, we have a Bill of Rights and Constitution that specifically says you have the freedom of speech, religion, and press. This means that we, as a nation, allow bigotry to be legal. How? Because despite any laws we create, we offer the freedom of religion.
Can someone name me any mainstream religion that is NOT anti-gay?
No?
Then let's put a wrap on this thread because it's going to go nowhere but back and forth. I personally don't support Chick-Fil-A, much the same way that I stopped supporting multiple other businesses because of either donations they made to various organizations or their personal beliefs. I do not wish to support something where I have a logical choice of saying "I'm not supporting them".
Yes, I'm aware that Muslims put gays to death. I'm also aware that America, as a nation, refuses to allow the Middle Eastern nations to stop dependency on oil both in their homelands as well as America. In turn, there's little choice other than riding a bike everywhere...and I live in Texas, where it's 105 degrees today...at 7:00pm. Fuck...that.
If you want to continue eating Chick-Fil-A, that's your prerogative. You are allowed to do that. Just know that you are supporting an organization that literally wants to take rights away from someone the next time you wish to preach about freedom in the United States. = /
It's funny: gays want to expand the rights allowed while Christians want to take away rights...and the Christians are the ones getting the support here.
I love chik-fil-a. I don't give a shit if they hate blacks, gays, or white people like me. As long as their food continues to please, i will still eat at chik-fil-a.
Quote 2: But can't they just be happy with a "Catholic Definition" that Catholics follow as part of their religion, separate from law that effects everyone? That's what I don't understand, there should be a separation of church and state, no?
You answered your own question. It effects everyone...religious included.
It provides everyone those freedoms. If gay marriage is legal, and no Christian gay couples are being married, then no, it doesn't effect them. It's not in their right to control what others can and can't do. We don't live in a Theocracy.
Quote 2: But can't they just be happy with a "Catholic Definition" that Catholics follow as part of their religion, separate from law that effects everyone? That's what I don't understand, there should be a separation of church and state, no?
You answered your own question. It effects everyone...religious included.
It provides everyone those freedoms. If gay marriage is legal, and no Christian gay couples are being married, then no, it doesn't effect them. It's not in their right to control what others can and can't do. We don't live in a Theocracy.
Marriage is important to Christians because it's a fundamental aspect of their religion [one of the seven sacraments]. If legislation is passed defining marriage as the joining of two parties it directly effects their belief system. This would cause a problem because Genesis specifically states that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Jesus, in the Old Testament, also defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
A Theocracy implies that the Government is ruled directly by God with Priests or Bishops holding high governmental positions. The U.S. government is far from this.
Underlined: We can't just assume no gay Christian couples will want to be married.
Quote 2: But can't they just be happy with a "Catholic Definition" that Catholics follow as part of their religion, separate from law that effects everyone? That's what I don't understand, there should be a separation of church and state, no?
You answered your own question. It effects everyone...religious included.
It provides everyone those freedoms. If gay marriage is legal, and no Christian gay couples are being married, then no, it doesn't effect them. It's not in their right to control what others can and can't do. We don't live in a Theocracy.
Marriage is important to Christians because it's a fundamental aspect of their religion [one of the seven sacraments]. If legislation is passed defining marriage as the joining of two parties it directly effects their belief system. This would cause a problem because Genesis specifically states that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Jesus, in the Old Testament, also defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
A Theocracy implies that the Government is ruled directly by God with Priests or Bishops holding high governmental positions. The U.S. government is far from this.
Underlined: We can't just assume no gay Christian couples will want to be married.
Paragraph 1: Except marriage exists outside of Catholicism. People of other religious beliefs can get married, even Athiests can get married, they just don't do so within Catholic churches.
Paragraph 2: Yes, and it should stay this way. Basing our laws off of religious beliefs is one step closer to that.
Paragraph 3: Well, I said there could be a Catholic definition of marriage that churches follow. These laws won't force churches to marry gay couples, only make it so that the States recognize same-sex marriage, and they can at least be married at city hall or something.
Its great. I get the Nuggets and drizzle their Texas Pete's sauce on them, wash it down with Sweet Tea, and a Nilla Wafer Banana Pudding shake for desert... oh man i think i'm gonna go right now.
Quote 2: But can't they just be happy with a "Catholic Definition" that Catholics follow as part of their religion, separate from law that effects everyone? That's what I don't understand, there should be a separation of church and state, no?
You answered your own question. It effects everyone...religious included.
It provides everyone those freedoms. If gay marriage is legal, and no Christian gay couples are being married, then no, it doesn't effect them. It's not in their right to control what others can and can't do. We don't live in a Theocracy.
Marriage is important to Christians because it's a fundamental aspect of their religion [one of the seven sacraments]. If legislation is passed defining marriage as the joining of two parties it directly effects their belief system. This would cause a problem because Genesis specifically states that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Jesus, in the Old Testament, also defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.
A Theocracy implies that the Government is ruled directly by God with Priests or Bishops holding high governmental positions. The U.S. government is far from this.
Underlined: We can't just assume no gay Christian couples will want to be married.
Paragraph 1: Except marriage exists outside of Catholicism. People of other religious beliefs can get married, even Athiests can get married, they just don't do so within Catholic churches. Paragraph 2: Yes, and it should stay this way. Basing our laws off of religious beliefs is one step closer to that. Paragraph 3: Well, I said there could be a Catholic definition of marriage that churches follow. These laws won't force churches to marry gay couples, only make it so that the States recognize same-sex marriage, and they can at least be married at city hall or something.
I think where we went wrong was letting government see marriage as a legally binding contract (or whatever it is). They should have let the religions do their little ceremonies and kept out of it (edit: and not recognize any kind of change other than one person changed their name). That way, government wouldn't have to get involved in religious matters like it's supposed to. What use is marriage anyways? Especially when the divorce rate is what? 60%?
Ugh. I'm done with you. I've made my point numerous times In this topic and you just keep ignoring it and yelling "bigot!" even though I'm the one who wants equal rights for every single person, while you're quite the opposite.
I don't believe I ever took a stance. If you made a point other than, "those who don't agree with my views are bigoted" then it wasn't outlined clearly enough for me to decipher.
Then you are a moron because he clearly stated his views for everyone else. Seems more like you simply want to deflect the issue by feigning ignorance.
I suggest you re-read my responses to his posts before claiming I "feigned ignorance".
Underlined: Terrible way to start a sentence if you want to be taken seriously.
I have no intention of being taken seriously by you. I simply wish to lambast you for continually equating the person with the religion, while CL60 clearly made a difference (on multiple occasions) between the person and their religion. You constantly ignored this and tried to hide behind some abhorrent version of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion stops when it goes against the modern laws and views of the society in which it exists. Or do you want to be able to stone adulterers as well? That's fairly clearly stated in your good book as well, and I'm sure that would affect the divorce rate.
This whole thing is totally silly. If we were to base where we ate on the higher-up's political and religious views, we wouldn't eat out anymore. There wouldn't be a damn place in the world with their hands clean of everything. Chik-Fil-A has always been an extremely publicly Christian restaurant, is it really surprising they are taking a Christian stance on a topic? Why should it matter if you agree with them or not? If they are producing quality food / services, who cares? They've always been STREETS ahead in those terms, especially compared to other fast food chicken joints, so I will continue to eat there and not give a damn what their personal beliefs are. Chicken4life!
This whole thing is totally silly. If we were to base where we ate on the higher-up's political and religious views, we wouldn't eat out anymore. There wouldn't be a damn place in the world with their hands clean of everything. Chik-Fil-A has always been an extremely publicly Christian restaurant, is it really surprising they are taking a Christian stance on a topic? Why should it matter if you agree with them or not? If they are producing quality food / services, who cares? They've always been STREETS ahead in those terms, especially compared to other fast food chicken joints, so I will continue to eat there and not give a damn what their personal beliefs are. Chicken4life!
It's not about one higher-up making an offhand comment about his own personal alignments, and people getting upset over it. That one offhand comment is nothing by itself, sure, but it did bring light to the fact that Chick-Fil-A allegedly donate tonnes of money to foundations that aim to prevent things like gay marriage. So yeah, he might have a mouth, but he's also got money, and he's putting it where his mouth is. If you give money to Chick-Fil-A, your association doesn't just end at receiving a tasty chicken sandwich in return.
This whole thing is totally silly. If we were to base where we ate on the higher-up's political and religious views, we wouldn't eat out anymore. There wouldn't be a damn place in the world with their hands clean of everything. Chik-Fil-A has always been an extremely publicly Christian restaurant, is it really surprising they are taking a Christian stance on a topic? Why should it matter if you agree with them or not? If they are producing quality food / services, who cares? They've always been STREETS ahead in those terms, especially compared to other fast food chicken joints, so I will continue to eat there and not give a damn what their personal beliefs are. Chicken4life!
This whole thing is totally silly. If we were to base where we ate on the higher-up's political and religious views, we wouldn't eat out anymore. There wouldn't be a damn place in the world with their hands clean of everything. Chik-Fil-A has always been an extremely publicly Christian restaurant, is it really surprising they are taking a Christian stance on a topic? Why should it matter if you agree with them or not? If they are producing quality food / services, who cares? They've always been STREETS ahead in those terms, especially compared to other fast food chicken joints, so I will continue to eat there and not give a damn what their personal beliefs are. Chicken4life!
It's not about one higher-up making an offhand comment about his own personal alignments, and people getting upset over it. That one offhand comment is nothing by itself, sure, but it did bring light to the fact that Chick-Fil-A allegedly donate tonnes of money to foundations that aim to prevent things like gay marriage. So yeah, he might have a mouth, but he's also got money, and he's putting it where his mouth is. If you give money to Chick-Fil-A, your association doesn't just end at receiving a tasty chicken sandwich in return.
All of us right now are funding something shitty somewhere in the world through the products we buy. I can almost guarantee that. There is nothing wrong with putting money where your mouth is, but on the issue of the political/religious/social values of companies, just be sure you make peace with the fact that any such boycotts results in unintended hypocrisy.
The sandwiches are decent, but I didn't think they were as amazing as billed.
I don't understand how the personal beliefs of the owner changed people's opinions of the company...it didn't even effect anything related to the actual company. I find it grosser that city majors were saying they weren't going to let a company into their town because they didn't agree with the company's owner's opinions. That's gross.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with the owner's opinions or not. That's irrelevant.
Apple directly supported Prop 8 and (most) conservatives didn't lose their minds and try to ban Apple stores. That was a direct contribution too vs expressing a viewpoint.
There is totally a line around the block for the Chick-Fill-a in my town. Their owned by Mormons if no ones mentioned that yet. Hence, they are always closed on Sundays.
This whole thing is totally silly. If we were to base where we ate on the higher-up's political and religious views, we wouldn't eat out anymore. There wouldn't be a damn place in the world with their hands clean of everything. Chik-Fil-A has always been an extremely publicly Christian restaurant, is it really surprising they are taking a Christian stance on a topic? Why should it matter if you agree with them or not? If they are producing quality food / services, who cares? They've always been STREETS ahead in those terms, especially compared to other fast food chicken joints, so I will continue to eat there and not give a damn what their personal beliefs are. Chicken4life!
It's not about one higher-up making an offhand comment about his own personal alignments, and people getting upset over it. That one offhand comment is nothing by itself, sure, but it did bring light to the fact that Chick-Fil-A allegedly donate tonnes of money to foundations that aim to prevent things like gay marriage. So yeah, he might have a mouth, but he's also got money, and he's putting it where his mouth is. If you give money to Chick-Fil-A, your association doesn't just end at receiving a tasty chicken sandwich in return.
All of us right now are funding something shitty somewhere in the world through the products we buy. I can almost guarantee that. There is nothing wrong with putting money where your mouth is, but on the issue of the political/religious/social values of companies, just be sure you make peace with the fact that any such boycotts results in unintended hypocrisy.
Yes, it's inevitable that we are, but when it's extremely obvious in some cases and you have a chance to rectify it easily, then why not? We can't be educated about all the issues in the world, which is why we usually stick to our passions. I don't see it as hypocrisy so much as it just being a necessary detriment to the way we, as humans, make progress on social issues like this. If you focus on too much, it's overwhelming. If you focus on nothing, progress is never made.
I stick to things that I am passionate about, and I trust that there are others sticking to the things they are passionate about. Things which, unfortunately, I don't have the capacity to deal with. It's the fundamental concept behind any good team.
There certainly are instances where putting money where your mouth is, is wrong. For instance, if I were funding all my business profits towards human trafficking. Sure, it's an extreme example, but it demonstrates that there can be something wrong with it.
I probably eat Chick-Fil-A more than anything else. Do I agree with their politics? Not really. But I can't argue with their nuggets and Polynesian sauce. They've made a stance on marriage, but what @Dagbiker: posted seems to indicate that they won't discriminate against anyone though the president has made his stance. When we start hearing about mass firings of homosexual employees, then we can all boycott the restaurant.
This would be a good opportunity to say that cities that have forbidden the chain from opening new stores may be the real villains in this situation. They're flat out denied a private company their right to free speech.
In terms of whether it is good, its just cheap fast food. Off-shoot fast food restaurants that are not part of a larger conglomerate (e.g. In and Out Burger, maybe Whitecastle and Sonic) end up with more positive reputations than the standard restaurants that sell pretty much the same unhealthy sort of trash.
Do you like the idea of eating chicken with soggy breading? Imagine taking a chicken fritter from any other fast food restaurant (Wendy's, Arby's) and soaking it in lukewarm water for 10 minutes, then quickly throwing it on a bun.
Also imagine your hands are now greasy and defiled.
People like you are missing the fact a lot of people have made as to why they aren't going there anymore. THEY DONATE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ANTI-GAY GROUPS.
False. Being anti-gay marriage is not even close to being the same thing as anti-gay. Try again.
I don't give a fuck how you choose to rationalize taking people's rights away. Your intent is irrelevant.
The end result is the same -- you are making people's lives harder for no other reason than your own pathetic hang-ups about sexuality and potentially repressed homoerotic tendencies. That is anti-gay, whether you try to hide your oppression behind semantics or not.
Ugh, I can't wait for the day when retarded viewpoints like this are finally considered socially unacceptable. I assure you, these same dime-a-dozen arguments about semantics and "U R THE REAL BIGOT!!!!!" would have been made half a century ago about Women rights if the internet was around.
People like you are missing the fact a lot of people have made as to why they aren't going there anymore. THEY DONATE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ANTI-GAY GROUPS.
False. Being anti-gay marriage is not even close to being the same thing as anti-gay. Try again.
I don't give a fuck how you choose to rationalize taking people's rights away. Your intent is irrelevant.
The end result is the same -- you are making people's lives harder for no other reason than your own pathetic hang-ups about sexuality and potentially repressed homoerotic tendencies. That is anti-gay, whether you try to hide your oppression behind semantics or not. Ugh, I can't wait for the day when retarded viewpoints like this are finally considered socially unacceptable. I assure you, these same dime-a-dozen arguments about semantics and "U R THE REAL BIGOT!!!!!" would have been made half a century ago about Women rights if the internet was around.
Nobody is denying anyone's natural rights to be with the person they love. Mormons aren't allowed to marry multiple people, but nobody is up in arms about that. Should they all have the right to marry however many people they want? This whole fiasco is a free speech issue and not a rights issue. This isn't your repressive regime where you can silence anyone who doesn't agree with you. That wasn't what America was founded on. Everyone (in America) has the right to say stupid things. If you don't like it, then show it by not going to the chain.
Sure one group wants gay people to be denied equal rights, but the other side is also mean therefore both sides are just as bad.
I cannot stress this enough but the idea that calling out bigotry is the same as bigotry is absolute BULLSHIT.
Also your religion does not give you special privilege to oppose civil rights. We live in a secular country, governed by secular laws. If your religion says interracial marriage is wrong no one would or should give a shit. It's not even feasible to respect all religious practices (and it's specifically unconstitutional).
Nobody is denying anyone's natural rights to be with the person they love. Mormons aren't allowed to marry multiple people, but nobody is up in arms about that. Should they all have the right to marry however many people they want?
Mormons are not being denied basic rights other people get to enjoy. Absurd, nonsensical comparison.
...Not that enforced monogamy by the law isn't its own goddamn issue, of course.
@Jams
said:
This whole fiasco is a free speech issue and not a rights issue.
My post had nothing to do with "this issue" about Chick-fil-a. I'm talking about the far bigger issue of a certain group of people trying to systematically oppress a minority.
It is not a free-speech issue. Its an oppression issue.
This isn't your repressive regime where you can silence anyone who doesn't agree with you. That wasn't what America was founded on. Everyone (in America) has the right to say stupid things. If you don't like it, then show it by not going to the chain
When I say "Ugh, I can't wait for the day when retarded viewpoints like this are finally considered socially unacceptable" I mean exactly what is written there. You are also free to shit on woman's rights these days, but you will be dismissed as a loon by the vast majority of people. Hopefully, within a generation or two people will look back on this absurd, nonsensical, disgusting mindset and just say "What the fuck were these idiots thinking?"
Which is pretty much exactly what happened with the idiots who fought back so vehemently when woman decided they wanted to enjoy the same privileges as men.
@BoG: Video is not available in your location, I'm using a UK IP address btw. For my stance on this issue, Mcdonalds has done much worst stuff for the world yet no one is boycotting them. Every corporation has done shitty stuff, that isn't going to change my mind on getting food from Chick-Fil-A and I don't even eat there.
Nobody is denying anyone's natural rights to be with the person they love. Mormons aren't allowed to marry multiple people, but nobody is up in arms about that. Should they all have the right to marry however many people they want?
Mormons are not being denied basic rights other people get to enjoy. Absurd, nonsensical comparison.
...Not that enforced monogamy by the law isn't its own goddamn issue, of course.
How is marriage a right? It's something for the religious by the religious. Though I think that if the government is going to have perks for married couples, then they should have it for all couples.
@Jams
said:
This whole fiasco is a free speech issue and not a rights issue.
My post had nothing to do with "this issue" about Chick-fil-a. I'm talking about the far bigger issue of a certain group of people trying to systematically oppress a minority.
It is not a free-speech issue. Its an oppression issue.
If you think it's an oppression issue then you need to see you're also wanting to oppress a minority yourself. There's a group of people out there where you want to force their views out of them. It's a clash between two views. Each side is absolutely sure they're right.
When I say "Ugh, I can't wait for the day when retarded viewpoints like this are finally considered socially unacceptable" I mean exactly what is written there. You are also free to shit on woman's rights these days, but you will be dismissed as a loon by the vast majority of people. Hopefully, within a generation or two people will look back on this absurd, nonsensical, disgusting mindset and just say "What the fuck were these idiots thinking?"
I'm sure as time goes on, people will be more open to gays. It's already happening with our youth. Unfortunately it's not quite time yet. You don't have the right to force your views on people. You have to let them get to that conclusion themselves. If you push too hard, they're just going to push back. That was the whole point of MLK's civil rights movement. You can't go around throwing bricks in windows to prove a point. You have to show people by civility and peace. Let them come to that conclusion themselves.
Which is pretty much exactly what happened with the idiots who fought back so vehemently when woman decided they wanted to enjoy the same privileges as men.
It takes time to fix these old human ways. Even then, they're never fully gone especially when there's people who like to remind everyone of how evil they are for being a part of the human race.
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
You have no idea what you're talking about. Non-religious people have the right to get married in this country too, it is not only a religious ceremony. Not to mention that marriage as a human concept certainly predates any of the religions regularly practiced today. For any marriage to be made "legal" the two people getting married, and a witness, have to sign a form and submit it to the government. It doesn't matter if a priest signs as the witness or a judge at city hall, and no ceremony is necessary. The debate is over whether two people of the same gender can sign that legal document. We are not debating whether a church must hold a religious ceremony.
How is marriage a right? It's something for the religious by the religious. Though I think that if the government is going to have perks for married couples, then they should have it for all couples.
Uh......what? In the modern world, marriage is first and foremost a civil union. Atheists get married too.
If you think it's an oppression issue then you need to see you're also wanting to oppress a minority yourself. There's a group of people out there where you want to force their views out of them. It's a clash between two views. Each side is absolutely sure they're right.
This is such bullshit and a gross misuse of the word "oppression".
Taking someone's beliefs to task is not the same thing as oppressing them.
...actively lobbying to have privileges taken away from a minority because they are different from the majority. That is oppression. Which is not what I'm doing. These idiots can spout off whatever nonsense they want, I have no intention to take their right to do so away.
I'm sure as time goes on, people will be more open to gays. It's already happening with our youth. Unfortunately it's not quite time yet. You don't have the right to force your views on people. You have to let them get to that conclusion themselves. If you push too hard, they're just going to push back. That was the whole point of MLK's civil rights movement. You can't go around throwing bricks in windows to prove a point. You have to show people by civility and peace. Let them come to that conclusion themselves.
MLK's methods were extremely aggressive. He sure as hell didn't sit on his ass and wait until privileged white men "saw the light". He actively engaged the issue for most of his life. What a terrible example to point to. Unless you're saying homosexual men "can't go around throwing bricks in windows to prove a point." And if you are: uh. whut.
To go back to that whole "women rights" thing we were just talking about...you know how women fought back and started progressively earning more and more privileges? It wasn't by acting meekly, and waiting on men who were indoctrinated from birth to believe that women were inferior fucktoys to reach their own conclusion. It was actively taking the conversations to them. standing around in front of movie theaters holding signs, protesting in huge numbers.
Uh.... why is everyone talking about this business? Okay they did some racist stuff, they got bashed, why are we still going on about it? Why are we talking about the quality of their food? They are no more or less fast food than a Burger King or a McDonalds. Their chicken sandwiches are "okay" but you can definitely find better. More to the point.... it is a Chicken Sandwich, unless you use crap chicken it is hard to screw it up.
Log in to comment