Chick-Fil-A (restaurant chain) Controversy

[Oryx]

I don't know if he did say this but if he said that his stance against gay marriage is his alone and not those of the people who work in his franchises, this might not be much of a hellstorm as it has turned out to be.

We got more pressing issues to worry about than some dude who owns a bunch of chicken places who isn't a fan of gay marriage.

This is a bad attitude to take, because you can use it with literally anything you're arguing. Take the shooting in Colorado as a recent example. Should we say that we have more pressing issues to worry about than the shooting because thousands of people die every day in the US for various other reasons? Should we ignore hate crimes because of genocides in other parts of the world? What about a genocide in one country vs. a genocide in another? Which is more "pressing", and which should be entirely ignored?

Edit: In addition, this is about more than his opinions and his words. It's about the money and where it ends up. Him clarifying that his company doesn't follow the same values (it does) wouldn't change anything.

 

[Dakotah]

Why do they desire it, and why are they entitled to it. What have they done, what gives them this privilege. Marriage is not a right, this is a fact, if it is not given to other social groups, then it is not a right. How many ways does "marriage is not a right", does it have to be explained?

You need to brush up on your U.S. law.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967):

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.

And while this particular case deals with racial discrimination, the firsts 17 words alone debunks your assertion.

 

[Bluerang1]

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say about race up there. Anyway.

The thing is, the thing that people are upset about (or should limit themselves to being upset about) is that money from these businesses are going into politics. These politics are keeping same-sex marriage (and generally gay-friendly laws) from being legal. So this is forced on us. That's why we're upset. It's not because some guy doesn't like gay people. (We don't like that either, but we can deal with it.) It's because he's using lots of money to play politics against gay people.

If he didn't make those comments, no one would care though. Because he did, to further damage his reputation and that of his business, the LGBT community brought all that to light.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

You might not want to hire an atheist at a Christian bookstore, but you can't not hire them if that's your only reason not to hire them. Given Chick-Fil-A's history I think it's reasonable to make sure they are employing people in accordance to the law. You can't specifically hire/not hire people because you like their religious/moral views. Equal employment law:



[link]

This is all, of course, only in the US. Dunno how things work specifically in other countries, or if Chick-Fil-A has stores in other countries.

Well, you could not hire an atheist at a bookstore for that reason... just don't admit that as the reason. XD Heck, you can lose a job opportunity on a bad handshake.

I think at the small business level or the "mom & pop" shop, you should be able to hire whoever you want based on whatever reason. It's a tight space and you're going to interacting a lot - so you better like each other. We're not ganging up on local Chinese restaurants hiring predominately Chinese people.

At the big box or brandname level though - yeah, I completely agree that the equal employment law should apply. So, it would in the case here, yeah.

The thing is, the thing that people are upset about (or should limit themselves to being upset about) is that money from these businesses are going into politics. These politics are keeping same-sex marriage (and generally gay-friendly laws) from being legal. So this is forced on us. That's why we're upset. It's not because some guy doesn't like gay people. (We don't like that either, but we can deal with it.) It's because he's using lots of money to play politics against gay people.

Totally agree.

 

[Dakotah]

I think at the small business level or the "mom & pop" shop, you should be able to hire whoever you want based on whatever reason. It's a tight space and you're going to interacting a lot - so you better like each other. We're not ganging up on local Chinese restaurants hiring predominately Chinese people.

Here's where we differ. I think it is especially important that small businesses (regardless of size) shouldn't be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Remember, a lot of those big box stores out there started off as "mom and pop" shops. At what point should those business owners then suddenly no longer be exempt? It's easier, and smarter, to make ALL businesses operate on a level playing field. No special considerations and no exemptions. If you come into a town or city and are unwilling to adhere to the laws of that town or city, then it's best that you move along.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Here's where we differ. I think it is especially important that small businesses (regardless of size) shouldn't be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Remember, a lot of those big box stores out there started off as "mom and pop" shops. At what point should those business owners then suddenly no longer be exempt? It's easier, and smarter, to make ALL businesses operate on a level playing field. No special considerations and no exemptions. If you come into a town or city and are unwilling to adhere to the laws of that town or city, then it's best that you move along.

I don't know. When they expand? A second location? Franchise? If you run a dry cleaning service and it's really just yourself and one person you're hiring and will spend all day with. Best to make that one person someone you get a long with. Not just for you or for them, but the customers. Nobody wants to interact with someone who is pissed off.

Anyways, off topic :X

 

[Zet]

As for studding it, yes there are secular arguments that can be made against gay marriage, it is not all religion.
http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=285374

I am not sure if you read those arguments, or if you are simply trying to ignore the truth.

That whole argument was a load crap based on politics and law which were put in place because of religion, and the whole economics thing is also a huge load of crap. Did you know New York city got $259 million dollars because of gay marriage? I hardly call that a bad thing. Healthcare benefits and other such benefits are only for people who can afford it(or limiting to who can get them), which is a completely horrible thing since everyone should be entitled to them.

If you want marriage to be a privilege, I honest to God hope you lose your privilege to marriage and your privilege to repopulate. It would be for the greater good for this world and our future space alien gay overlords.

I'm glad Americans are able to voice their opinions openly and freely, as the owner did. He has the right to say what he wants. Chick-Fil-A serves any and all customers regardless of his views. If you don't like his views and it makes you not want to eat there, then don't eat there. If you like the food and don't care about one man's opinion (that doesn't affect the business he created or how you are served food in said establishment), then go eat there if you want it.

If you're gay, you can go to Chick-Fil-A and be served the same as a straight person, so I see nothing wrong with one man's opinion. If he chooses to donate his money to anti-gay groups, then that's also his right and it's his money. If he donates money from the business to it, it's still his right because it's his business. Once again, if you don't like his views, how he runs the operation, or what money is given to what group, then don't support Chick-Fil-A. Go eat somewhere that donates money to pro-LGBT causes.

As for them looking to hire people that share their values and beliefs, as long as they are not basing their hiring process solely on discrimination, I don't see how this is different than any other job. You wouldn't hire an atheist to work for the Family Christian Bookstore, you wouldn't hire someone that's anti-drug for a marijuana dispensary. If the hiring staff at Chick-Fil-A are looking for a set of values and standards when hiring, then they should be allowed that liberty. Once again, it's their business. They can choose who to hire. On the flip side of that, I won't condone firing anyone based on beliefs or values. A legitimate reason needs to be established for terminating employment.

It's more frightening to me that a city can ban a company from establishing a legitimate business over it. This seems like a much greater violation of rights than a man voicing HIS opinion, especially if Chick-Fil-A handled all requirements and permits to build restaurants there.

As for myself, I've never had Chick-Fil-A. I've heard it's good.

It's actually because chik-fil-a donates large amounts of money to places that go out and brutally murder people who are homosexual. That's why a majority of people(who are on the other side) have a problem with them. And a Christian bookstore will hire an atheist just as long as they're not an ass-hole about it.

 

[NarutoActor]

He gives to the Family Research Council, which spent 25,000 dollars on the Ugandan bill: original source here. At least once this was out in the open the FRC started backpedaling and insisting they were lobbying for a phrasing change.

And CFA has many wrongful termination suits that happen all the time for people who were fired for atheism or in the most recent case, to become a stay-at-home mother. Here's an older Forbes article about it, in case you were worried about bias against them considering all the drama now.

First you are blaming the guy for something that is two conections away from him. That is like saying you bought a hamber at Mcdonads, and the owner of McDonads then bot a boat from a company that then later killed someone, with the moeny they got from the boat deal. I have one question, when did he last donate to this organasation, or is he still donating.

You need to brush up on your U.S. law.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967):



And while this particular case deals with racial discrimination, the firsts 17 words alone debunks your assertion.

Your argument fails because it sais "as applied to race" and when dealing with law, that means everything said only allies to race and not anything else. You can use it in another court case as partial evidence for an argument, but all other court cases have not done such a thing.

PS. I will have you know that I got a 5 on the AP Test for Gov't/law and politics scoring in the top 10% of the country. If you don't believe me, I can take a picture of the letter I received, so please do not assume I do not know something, or that I am less intelligent just because I disagree with you. Quite frankly too many people do that, and it is very upsetting.

Here's where we differ. I think it is especially important that small businesses (regardless of size) shouldn't be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Remember, a lot of those big box stores out there started off as "mom and pop" shops. At what point should those business owners then suddenly no longer be exempt? It's easier, and smarter, to make ALL businesses operate on a level playing field. No special considerations and no exemptions. If you come into a town or city and are unwilling to adhere to the laws of that town or city, then it's best that you move along.

I agree with the idea that all business should recive the same treatment, but were are the small business' bailouts? The government and big business are very cloosly linked. I am pretty sure, not positive, that there are brackets to determine how "big", your business is.

It's nice to see different sides to the arguments. They are very one sided on here.



Hmm, I'm confused about my race, let me see if being white is how I'm born.. oh wait. Interracial marriage still involves different sexual organs making it different.

Everyone has their opinions, if it's not forced onto you, then move the hell on.

Are you alluding to the belief that it is wrong to say interracial, or racism, since we are all one race, the human race. And that there aren't different races, just different ethnic groups, and that a true interracial marriage would be something like a Dog and a Human.
Because I don't understand your statement either :/

 

[Livewire]

I'm beginning to get very tired of the endless cycle of one person making ridiculous and unfounded arguments and then getting beat up on by the rest of the posters, STOP POSTING FOR THE 12th TIME, MOVE ON. Or I will start deleting posts and clamp down on this ridiculously annoying thread. No more.

 

[Oryx]

First you are blaming the guy for something that is two conections away from him. That is like saying you bought a hamber at Mcdonads, and the owner of McDonads then bot a boat from a company that then later killed someone, with the moeny they got from the boat deal. I have one question, when did he last donate to this organasation, or is he still donating.

If I knew that was where the money was going, I wouldn't do it and if it was something that happened regularly (for example, if the owner of McDonald's used the money to hire hitmen to kill people once a month), I would no longer support the people that knowingly gave money to them, aware that the money was going towards killing. Donations have been on every single form that's available from 2003 on, with a massive jump in the latest year available (2009). It's reasonable to assume, based on the evidence of 6 consecutive years of donating, that Cathy has continued to donate at least until now.

Could I ask that you put a little more care into what you're typing? You lose a lot of credibility when you misspell 4-5 words in a single sentence.

Your argument fails because it sais "as applied to race" and when dealing with law, that means everything said only allies to race and not anything else. You can use it in another court case as partial evidence for an argument, but all other court cases have not done such a thing.

PS. I will have you know that I got a 5 on the AP Test for Gov't/law and politics scoring in the top 10% of the country. If you don't believe me, I can take a picture of the letter I received, so please do not assume I do not know something, or that I am less intelligent just because I disagree with you. Quite frankly too many people do that, and it is very upsetting.

It says "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man", not of certain men or some men or some people of each race. I'm really confused as to how you can read that very blunt, straightforward assessment by the Supreme Court and still try to argue that marriage is not a right.

Your AP scores are irrelevant in this discussion, and in fact in any discussion unless the discussion is about AP classes. Jay is correct whether or not you got a high score on a test.

 

[Dakotah]

Your argument fails because it sais "as applied to race" and when dealing with law, that means everything said only allies to race and not anything else. You can use it in another court case as partial evidence for an argument, but all other court cases have not done such a thing.

I'm afraid you're once again incorrect in this assumption. It is ridiculous to assume that the Supreme Court only stated that the only time marriage is a civil right is when it pertains to race. Is it not unconstitutional also to prohibit an inmate of a correctional facility from getting married? Is it also not unconstitutional to prohibit someone who is disabled from getting married? The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly said this is true, because in each case, they acknowledge that marriage is a civil right. There are, according to lawyers Ted Olson & David Boies, who are the lawyers fighting (quite successfully I might add) against Prop 8 in California), 14 instances of Supreme Court rulings in which it is ruled that marriage is a fundamental civil right. This is an incredible amount of legal precedent, and no amount of opinions to the contrary can alter the fact that marriage is a civil right protected under the U.S. Constitution.

PS. I will have you know that I got a 5 on the AP Test for Gov't/law and politics scoring in the top 10% of the country. If you don't believe me, I can take a picture of the letter I received, so please do not assume I do not know something, or that I am less intelligent just because I disagree with you. Quite frankly too many people do that, and it is very upsetting.

A piece of paper does not indicate that your are infallible. No matter what your credentials, you can still get something wrong. We all can.

Also, I would kindly ask that you do not put words in my mouth. I did not make any assumption as to your level of intelligence. I simply indicated that in this instance, your interpretation of the law was not correct. There is a big difference.

I agree with the idea that all business should recive the same treatment, but were are the small business' bailouts? The government and big business are very cloosly linked. I am pretty sure, not positive, that there are brackets to determine how "big", your business is.

Well I certainly didn't say all businesses ARE treated equal, just simply that they should. So in this case you and I are in agreement. In my opinion, there should have been no bailouts of any kind whatsoever, regardless of the consequences. But this is getting slightly off topic.

 

[Bluerang1]

The kiss-in had less of a turn out than the Wednesday event.

 

[Dakotah]

Of course. Are you really surprised? Proportionally, there's a lot less of us than there are of straights. And it should also be noted that in a lot of places, a good number of us are still not out for fear of retaliation by family members, co-workers, employers, or landlords. That does tend to keep participation levels low at public events like this.

 

[LightningShy]

Hmm, after reading all of this, I can almost say that my opinion has altered a little.

I grew up with my father being gay, so please keep in mind that I'm trying not to let that cloud my judgement.

While I applaud Chick-a-Fill for going with what they believe in, they should have known that something like this would occur, and that they'd most likely lose customers over it. I mean, they'd lose me as a customer, but that doesnt mean that I don't respect them in the sense that they had the guts (or overconfidence, but still. I don't know enough about the people in the company to say the ulterior motive behind the statement, despite the fact that we all are aware of their religious affiliation) to make a bold statement like that, despite the fact that it could possibly backfire.

Chick-a-Fill's statement is sorta like a gay protest, or pride parade. They're just stating what they believe in. And as with gay pride and protests, there will always be people who disagree.

My personal opinion is that if it makes their life happier, leave them be. I feel like if it made Chick-a-Fill as a whole company feel better by letting that off their chest, so be it. Sure, I won't eat there (to be honest I rarely do to this day, so its not much of a change) but I won't personally make a big deal out of it. Same with gays in general- I agree with them, but you won't see me making a big deal out of it. I wouldnt want to offend someone else that way. D:

Its such a sticky topic that way. And truly, if I offended anyone, I really didnt mean to.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

So.... what is the resolution being sought?

Should the company (or the owner) apologize? Should the donations to whatever causes he donates too cease? Should the company just absolve?

 

[Dakotah]

So.... what is the resolution being sought?

Should the company (or the owner) apologize? Should the donations to whatever causes he donates too cease? Should the company just absolve?

The solution is for people who do not wish to fund these anti-gay organizations to stop visiting Chick-Fil-A's. That effectively means boycotting the business.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

The solution is for people who do not wish to fund these anti-gay organizations to stop visiting Chick-Fil-A's. That effectively means boycotting the business.

A boycott isn't a solution, that's an action. If that were the case, then it'd be over already.

Is there no end goal? Just going to be weekly kiss-ins on one side and appreciation days on the other side?

 

[Dakotah]

A boycott isn't a solution, that's an action. If that were the case, then it'd be over already.

Is there no end goal? Just going to be weekly kiss-ins on one side and appreciation days on the other side?

The solution, as is always the case in any civil rights struggle, is to educate. Bigotry can only survive in ignorance. With knowledge comes a better understanding of things that we were previously unaware of. This action, as you call it, seeks to educate people about this company's history of donating to organizations dedicated to the persecution and marginalization of gays and lesbians, not just in the U.S. but around the world.

It was noted previously that the "kiss-in" drew in far fewer participants than the event organized to support Chick-Fil-A. And this is because we are a minority. Not only that, we are a suppressed and persecuted minority. We're shunned, beaten, raped, and killed because of who we are. And because of that persecution, only a small number of us dare to come out.

If people would only wake up to realities of the discrimination we face every single day in every village, town, and city in the U.S, there'd be a lot less companies proudly shouting out their prejudice.

 

[Akio123]

Hey hey guys! I have an easy way to settle this! it's really easy, but listen closely
...
...
...
If you hate Chik-a-Fil...don't eat there. Seriously, protest with your dollar. Let illiterate bigots support a hate spewing CEO.

On the Flip side, and I said this as a gay man myself, Dan Cathy is speaking his mind. I don't like him because he's a more disgusting version of Rick Santorum, but this is his opinion. Yes his exact words were "we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.' I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

And is anyone that surprised? Cathy is a super fundamentalist Christian who even makes sure the restaurant is closed on Sunday. Why is everyone so surprised by this?

 

[Bluerang1]

I don't see why people are against him using his money how he pleases. You work, you get wages, does your employer monitor what you buy? Does he say, no, you can't get that Pokemon game because it's lame? He earned his money, he can use it as he pleases.