ConureDelSol Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 See, if Cathy had come out and said "I support tradition marriage only" I would've considered him a bigot, but I would've still eaten there. If the guy had said that and spent his own money donating to those anti-gay hate organizations, I would've still not liked him very much, but CFA would still be somewhere I would eat. It's the very fact that he donated profits from CFA to those organizations that pisses me off. That is our money. That is MY money going towards Exodus International. That is MY money that's supporting the criminalization of homosexuality. That is MY money that goes towards supporting the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda. It is MY money that fuels the very things I stand against. To be entirely honest I think anyone who claims to not care or who is just going to "eat there anyway because it's not really an issue" are guilty of supporting the discrimination, criminal punishment and killing of homosexuals. That's going to piss people here off and you know what? I don't care. That is how I see it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluegrassSkeptic Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Snopes killed the whole supports Ugandan Bill rumor. They did not, nor did the AFA, or whoever it is they donate to on a regular basis. Also, that same major christian group they donate to did lobby in regards to the whole senate bill condemning the Ugandan Kill Gays bill, BUT they didn't lobby to make it fail, they lobbied to change some language in it. Just a heads up. I support the right to run your business and say what you want. I also support my right to inform my friends and not have anything to do with you anymore. Legally, that is all I can do for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeasabird Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Snopes killed the whole supports Ugandan Bill rumor. They did not, nor did the AFA, or whoever it is they donate to on a regular basis. Also, that same major christian group they donate to did lobby in regards to the whole senate bill condemning the Ugandan Kill Gays bill, BUT they didn't lobby to make it fail, they lobbied to change some language in it. Just a heads up. I support the right to run your business and say what you want. I also support my right to inform my friends and not have anything to do with you anymore. Legally, that is all I can do for now. Link please. If you're talking about this one then there is no mention is their tie to Exodus International. http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConureDelSol Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Snopes killed the whole supports Ugandan Bill rumor. They did not, nor did the AFA, or whoever it is they donate to on a regular basis. Also, that same major christian group they donate to did lobby in regards to the whole senate bill condemning the Ugandan Kill Gays bill, BUT they didn't lobby to make it fail, they lobbied to change some language in it. Just a heads up. I support the right to run your business and say what you want. I also support my right to inform my friends and not have anything to do with you anymore. Legally, that is all I can do for now. Link please. If you're talking about this one then there is no mention is their tie to Exodus International. http://www.snopes.co...y/chickfila.asp I'm also curious if you have a link. I would be more than happy to admit my wrongness and eat my own words if that is true. I mean, I still wouldn't eat there, but the whole Ugandan thing I heard made me furious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flockoff Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 The nearest CFA is about an hour from me so I couldn't really support them if I wanted to. But if the Ugandan bill rumor is as false as it hopefully sounds, and someone just wanted their food that much I'd suggest matching the cost of the meal in donations to a pro LGBT org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeCycle Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I really don't give a flying flip where a company stands on an issue. I'm just interested in their product or service. I guess I'm weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tothemorning Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 We really need an objective investigation on this matter before we rush to judgement. Cathy does not seem to be the kind of guy who's intent is to kill off the LGBT population considering all that his organization does for at-risk kids. Watch out for media spin. If anything Cathy needs scrutinize more closely an organization to whom he donates. If he is an intentional player in the the Uganda shit then he is one wolf in sheep's clothing. Damn I'm craving chicken. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So banning chick fil a is a free speech issue? I thought it was the right of a city to say, "hey we don't want your business." Perfect case of that being done is walmart. You may disagree with the reasons, but, make a issue of the city having that kind of power, not free speech. I actually don't really care if chick fil a remains open or dan cathy is still a bigot it. But to say to say the mayor of chicago, "you have to allow chickfila to open a business there otherwise your anti free speech" is totally absurd. I wouldn't support chickfila, because most fast food chicken places are crap and the head of the company is a bigot. I would in a perfect world, want it to remain in the south where you get the feeling that they believe "ignorance is strength." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So banning chick fil a is a free speech issue? I thought it was the right of a city to say, "hey we don't want your business." Sorry Valk, you're wrong on this one. This is the crux of free speech rights. They limit government power to discriminate. Don't understand your WMT example. Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So banning chick fil a is a free speech issue? I thought it was the right of a city to say, "hey we don't want your business." Sorry Valk, you're wrong on this one. This is the crux of free speech rights. They limit government power to discriminate. Don't understand your WMT example. Care to elaborate? Well, the reason I brought up the walmart example is because, there is no objective reason for banning walmarts from entering into cities. However that doesn't change the fact that there are rules in place that can be used to prevent businesses like walmart from coming into a city.. If your going to argue from the same principal (which I think is valid in the case of walmart) you can't really say anything about chick fil a in regards to free speech without being a hypocrite. It really doesn't matter why in this instance but are you going to stomp one right to defend another. Sure its technically a free speech issue, but does that mean we can run roughshod over the rights of cities decide what businesses they want to have. I am honestly not convinced of that. If your going to abandon the principal that cities have a right to determine what businesses are going to be in there cities your going to, if you want to be consistent, have to say things like, no city can ever prevent a walmart from coming in. That was my point about bringing up walmart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 there is no objective reason for banning walmarts from entering into cities. I can think of a few. It requires attention to nuance, but a city could make an economic case against it as WMT has lowered living standards by killing local business. But additionally, they have bought off city councils and used other hard ball tactics to move into communities even to the point of receiving local subsidies. Bottom line, is these are complex issues that have nothing to do with free speech and discrimination protections and the fact is, cities have been very unsuccessful at applying any of these arguments legally. It's my personal opinion that WMT is representative of what's wrong with America today, but my opinion isn't law and is unenforceable and I'm not so sure it should be. If your going to argue from the same principal (which I think is valid in the case of walmart) you can't really say anything about chick fil a in regards to free speech without being a hypocrite. You can ban CFA if they don't comply with health standards, evenly applied city ordinances, etc.., but you can't ban them because you don't like their political/religious position. I don't see your logic here. Moreover, case law is against you on this one. If your going to abandon the principal that cities have a right to determine what businesses are going to be in there cities your going to, It's not a strong principle. Cities have very little power to ban a business. They actually have a very small leg to stand on over WMT and perhaps no leg at all. How many cities do you know that have been successful banning WMT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I don't know legal specifics in regards to banning walmart. I can think of only a handful of times where that has actually worked. In the small town I lived in, about the only business that has had success in getting access to here, is a pizza factory. It can happen, but its hard as hell. However in general, it seems to me, if one was going to way proper action. That citizenry deciding what can or can't be in there city is way more important then, some bigots right to fund hateful shit. The bigots can be where there wanted. Say if Chicago has decided to become really liberal city in regards to gay rights. They have a right I think to deny bigots from opening up shop. They may not even really have the legal means per see, but that to me shouldn't stop them from trying. Then question I have now, is these places that want to ban chick fil a. Are they doing it for political postering? Or is it because the population wants it? If its the latter I am all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 However in general, it seems to me, if one was going to way proper action. That citizenry deciding what can or can't be in there city is way more important then, some bigots right to fund hateful shit. The bigots can be where there wanted. You're a smart guy Valk, so I think you just need to spend a little time reading up on the concept of the Bill of Rights/Constitutional protections as you are missing the point of why they are there and how they work. Extrapolating from your argument, black businesses could be banned from white communities who don't want them there, atheists businesses from xian, etc... Free speech must be applied equally, even and especially if it offends the majority in the community, otherwise the right doesn't exist at all and the majority is free to tyrannize the minority. JS Mill wrote an awesome essay centuries ago explaining these concepts. I think with your mind and sense of curiosity, you'd really get a lot out of reading it. On Liberty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Heh, that was myopic of me. Even if its right to say that you don't want a walmart say in your town, to turn that into a operating principal is absurd for the reasons you pointed out. Heh, I see the point about free speech then. Ahh, now I get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I noticed while out and about yesterday that CFA is building a new store not far from my house. It's no longer an academic question for me. I wrote to the company to explain why they won't be seeing a dime of my money till they reverse their decision to put corporate funds toward hate groups. I wanted them to know that while the store will likely do well, it will be doing precisely as LESS well as I have money to put toward fast food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 They have free speech rights. They weren't abridged. Actually, the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech to individuals, not corporations. Dan Cathy has the right to a personal opinion on the matter but when he extends that opinion to his corporation, it is an entirely different segment of law. The first amendment has nothing to do with it at that point. Which law has Cathy broken then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I think there's a petition going around to Oreo to make rainbow cookies. BDP makes a fine point. Jesus is taking care of them. As I can see from the examples of absolutely no tornadoes in the South, super-ultra-mega-plus-low crime rates among Christians, and the complete and total lack of disability/welfare claims in states with a terrier grip on Christianity, he takes fine care of his peeps. He doesn't need my help. I'm not an Oreo lover but I could really get into the rainbow filling, mostly because it's huge and fun. I'll bet if they do a rainbow middle it will be swirled. Ya know, all chik-fil-a needs to do to be a success is have all it's employees pray and god will do whatever they ask. That'll teach us heathens! Keep the rainbow colors separate but equal, I say! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Reddit had a little meme (which I've since lost) about how, like Chick-Fil-A, we all need to boycott Saudi Arabian oil because of their execution and persecution (prosecution?) of homosexuals: http://wikiislam.net...s_(Saudi_Arabia) Time to stop driving our cars. Come on people, we can DO this thing! Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 Husband and I are buying an electric next go-round and already share one very efficient sportscar. Go nuts. The more serious answer: not really much of a choice at all regarding oil, is it? It's either "use no oil at all" or "use oil that might have come from a country that is exceptionally evil but we're not totally sure." I'm not sure it's a true equivalence to relate a consumer essential with absolutely no choice or even certainty about its origin to a luxury good produced by one company out of dozens if not hundreds of like companies. I'm open to correction if need be there, but it seems like there are dozens of fast food chicken restaurants. As a consumer, I have a choice about which chicken restaurant gets my money. I have no choices at all with oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I don't eat fast food, but I wouldn't go to CFA because I personally experienced bigotry at the hands of a manager there for being non-christian. So they can eat a bag of dicks, care of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
London Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Reddit had a little meme (which I've since lost) about how, like Chick-Fil-A, we all need to boycott Saudi Arabian oil because of their execution and persecution (prosecution?) of homosexuals: http://wikiislam.net...s_(Saudi_Arabia) Time to stop driving our cars. Come on people, we can DO this thing! Thoughts? Actually I would love to boycott them just because of the oil, then maybe becuse of the anti-female and anti-gay. Brazil people, we need to be like Brazil and dump oil. Sugar cane is our friend!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 LH - So much for their insistence that they happily and respectfully serve ALL patrons regardless of &etc. I figured that was just hot air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKR Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 I don't eat meat and they don't have them in Alaska, but I certainly support a boycott. I don't know what freedom of speech has to do with it. For one, no one's taking away that right by taking their business elsewhere. They have the freedom to say what they want and we have the freedom to not support their business. For another, they're using that money to take away people's rights, so I find it fucking ironic that people would talk about not boycotting them as if it's infringing on their rights when it's not, but they're infringing on the rights of others. Big picture: How effective are anti gay groups at swinging public opinion and policy? Fairly. They put millions of dollars into this issue. If the ad money wasn't there, it wouldn't be half as bad. People are fucking dumb and do what their tv's tell them to. Taking away their funding keeps them from having as many ads to spread bullshit and fear on tv for stupid people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Fairly. They put millions of dollars into this issue. If the ad money wasn't there, it wouldn't be half as bad. People are fucking dumb and do what their tv's tell them to. Taking away their funding keeps them from having as many ads to spread bullshit and fear on tv for stupid people. I agree that people are easily influenced by the media. The big however here is the trends strongly dispute the idea that spending has been effective on this issue. Anti homosexual bigotry has been around much longer than PR spending in favor of the anti position has been in effect and yet we are seeing great strides toward acceptance and toward change in the political system in terms of gay marriage and related issues. I suppose it could be argued that change would happen even more quickly without the PR efforts, but that would be pretty difficult to measure and frankly, the progress we've seen in recent years has been astoundingly rapid. It seems then that the spending in this case has been a lot more fruitless than in other areas where PR money has been spent for whatever reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akheia Posted August 30, 2012 Share Posted August 30, 2012 Doesn't matter if it's effective or not. My money would still be supporting something cruel and evil. The KKK isn't too effective either, but I still wouldn't support a shop with a big conical hat in its window. I'm glad the money's getting thrown out the window, but it won't be my money being thus wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts