★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 I think Boston should absolutely block Chick-a-filla from opening a restaurant. I agree with freedom of speech, but I wouldn't want a business run by neo-nazis or KKK members in my city. You have to take a hard stance against people who hate because they are amoral, heartless and conscienceless and cannot be appealed to with sense, logic, or empathy. As far as I know, CFA's president has not physically harmed anyone. While I greatly detest his bigoted stance on homosexuality, I cannot agree with the notion of squelching his freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If we support the undermining of freedom of speech and personal religious views, where will it end? Most of society would want to silence us skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc., so we'd be shit out of luck. Using legislative power to punish someone for merely making a statement, even if bigoted, is not the way to go. What would be better would be if society would continue waking up regarding such bigotry and simply boycott CFA because of his remarks. Sure, he has a right to his opinions and what-not, but he DOES NOT have a right to a business license, which is what he is being denied in Boston. Denied on flimsy grounds that violate freedom of speech and religious views. What if you were seeking a business license and politicians denied it to you over a skeptical statement they disagreed with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I've gone on a Wikibout and may not ever return. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I've gone on a Wikibout and may not ever return. Ok, sing along now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 ITT: everybody's cats look up alarmed at people bursting into song. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 What is it with the disproportionate (is that even a word? I have no spellcheck- someone help me out here) amount of cat lovers on this forum? I mean, I think it's wonderful, but I've never seen anything like it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 until now, the only time i'd ever heard of chick-fil-a was in that Ben Folds Five song 'Army'. "Grew a moustache and a mullet, got a job at Chick-Fil-A..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owen652 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 next time you're in australia try the filipino fur-burger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamps1962 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I have added CFA to my growing list of companies I do not patronize. It joins the likes of Domino's Pizza (opposing abortion rights) and Cabela's (totally in bed with the NRA). These companies have every right to do what they want to, as do I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norton65ca Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Cats ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLL! my current deity of choice is a feline ;-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser01 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 That was strange yet fantastic at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Then this'll make you very happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 My favorite cat on the internet is Maru on Youtube. Highly recommend watching Maru. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Damage control. They suck at it. OHHHHHHH! would love to be on that facebook page. Kudos to robert.. How the hell do you even figure that one out. Robert must be a free thinker no way he's a christian. even a facebook profile pic cant slip past him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadrunner Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Chik fil A is littered with religious rhetoric on the inside, they are closed on sunday, ceo says marriage is one man and one woman and we are shocked? As twisted, biased, and obsolete as that stance is, it's his OPINION. If I ate at only restaurants that I agree with the CEO views on everything I would be limited to such a small selection I may as well be amish and grow my own food. Had he said "Gays and lesbians can't eat here" or "being gay is bad" thats a different story and Id personally throw rocks through the window....well not really....... but I would only eat there if I had a coupon and I knew they would get less of my money. Id save the rocks for if they dont take my coupons. We have to remember that the fuel for his comments is coming from the same bronze age book that drove our lives once upon a time. I didnt respect gay rights until after I stopped believing that the god who gave me the right to enforce that stance didnt exist, so why would i expect that guy to think that way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro-bear Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 If it was just the owner's opinion, I might still eat there. But he gives money to groups that fund political opposition to gay rights. I will not contribute to that with my lunch money. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jensjam Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMDKitty Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I think Boston should absolutely block Chick-a-filla from opening a restaurant. I agree with freedom of speech, but I wouldn't want a business run by neo-nazis or KKK members in my city. You have to take a hard stance against people who hate because they are amoral, heartless and conscienceless and cannot be appealed to with sense, logic, or empathy. As far as I know, CFA's president has not physically harmed anyone. While I greatly detest his bigoted stance on homosexuality, I cannot agree with the notion of squelching his freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If we support the undermining of freedom of speech and personal religious views, where will it end? Most of society would want to silence us skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc., so we'd be shit out of luck. Using legislative power to punish someone for merely making a statement, even if bigoted, is not the way to go. What would be better would be if society would continue waking up regarding such bigotry and simply boycott CFA because of his remarks. Sure, he has a right to his opinions and what-not, but he DOES NOT have a right to a business license, which is what he is being denied in Boston. Denied on flimsy grounds that violate freedom of speech and religious views. What if you were seeking a business license and politicians denied it to you over a skeptical statement they disagreed with? Ummm, dude, this guy is actively working to deny LGBT folks OUR CIVIL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. That kinda trumps any argument about free speech. And he STILL does not have a right to own and operate a business -- Boston is perfectly within the law denying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 As far as I know, CFA's president has not physically harmed anyone. While I greatly detest his bigoted stance on homosexuality, I cannot agree with the notion of squelching his freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. If we support the undermining of freedom of speech and personal religious views, where will it end? Most of society would want to silence us skeptics, atheists, agnostics, etc., so we'd be shit out of luck. Using legislative power to punish someone for merely making a statement, even if bigoted, is not the way to go. What would be better would be if society would continue waking up regarding such bigotry and simply boycott CFA because of his remarks. Sure, he has a right to his opinions and what-not, but he DOES NOT have a right to a business license, which is what he is being denied in Boston. Denied on flimsy grounds that violate freedom of speech and religious views. What if you were seeking a business license and politicians denied it to you over a skeptical statement they disagreed with? Ummm, dude, this guy is actively working to deny LGBT folks OUR CIVIL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. That kinda trumps any argument about free speech. And he STILL does not have a right to own and operate a business -- Boston is perfectly within the law denying it. I fully agree that such bigotry is pathetic. Society should be so disgusted at it that they boycott CFA, thus hitting them in the wallet. However, I still don't see how a political ban on these grounds is not unconstitutional. A politician could just as easily try to ban a business for a freethinking (or simply liberal) CEO supporting gay marriage, and that would equally be unconstitutional. Don't you see the problem there? Am I missing something here? EDIT: I should add that I'd like to agree with you. I mean, gays deserve equal rights, and it's a shame that in this day and age they still don't have equality in most places. It could also be argued that granting blacks full legal status wasn't constitutional, since they were counted as 3/5 in the Constitution, and of course there was no moral justification for that. There is concern, though, of a potential slippery slope in this Chick-Fil-A case, because gay rights are so politicized and many, many polititicians oppose those rights, so allowing politicians to block companies on the grounds of personally disagreeing with their management's position on religious/political issues could actually hurt the gay rights movement (as well as the atheist/secular movement) in the long run. So, while part of me wants to applaud the mayor for standing against CFA, part of me is concerned that allowing something like that can be politically dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 26, 2012 Author Share Posted July 26, 2012 http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/07/23/muppets-dont-care-for-your-hate/ http://freethoughtblogs.com/wwjtd/2012/07/24/a-bigot-and-a-liar/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 27, 2012 Author Share Posted July 27, 2012 That's great! Thanks for sharing. Those of us near a Chick-Fil-A should do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurari Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Thankfully, we do not have CFA up where I live. We visit California frequently though, and both the husband and I are boycotting it, and so is our family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WMDKitty Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 He's not opposing it on the basis of "I disagree and therefore this is bad". He's opposing it because of ACTUAL HARM TO ACTUAL PEOPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentLoner Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Who's ready for more? Chick-Fil-A Would Prefer that Women Fry Chicken At Home Amid the storm of shit that is currently raining down on the fire-engine red signs of Chick-Fil-A, the homophobic purveyor of fried chicken is now facing allegations of gender discrimination. According to GLAAD, former Chick-Fil-A employee Brenda Honeycutt is suing the restaurant chain for wrongful termination stemming from a June 27, 2011 incident when owner and operator of the Duluth, Georgia Chick-Fil-A Jeff Howard fired Honeycutt so that, according to the lawsuit, she could remain a "stay at home mother." http://jezebel.com/5...chicken-at-home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted July 27, 2012 Author Share Posted July 27, 2012 He's not opposing it on the basis of "I disagree and therefore this is bad". He's opposing it because of ACTUAL HARM TO ACTUAL PEOPLE. From what I've seen and heard in the media and from the Boston and Chicago mayors, the primary focus has been on what Dan Cathy said. What they should do is shift the focus to things like Chick-Fil-A funneling money into Exodus International, which is an organization that directly causes serious harm to people. That would make for much better grounds for rejecting CFA's request for a business permit. As long as it remains a speech issue (as it currently is), we're walking on dangerously thin ice. Granted, I personally strongly oppose prejudicial remarks, including Dan Cathy's, but where should we draw the line on what can and cannot be said and what religious/political positions can be held? Whose opinion should prevail? The majority? If so, then atheists are fucked, and likely gays as well. Should it be the specific political leaders of given areas? If so, then in much of the country atheists and gays are still fucked. Please don't misunderstand me, as I am completely on your side in support of gay rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts