The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Chick-Fil-A (restaurant chain) Controversy (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=285311)

Bluerang1 July 26th, 2012 7:53 PM

Chick-Fil-A (restaurant chain) Controversy
 
Quote:

Chick-fil-A's gay marriage stance causing a social storm

The fact that Chick-fil-A is a company that espouses Christian values is no secret. The fact that its 1,600 fast-food chicken restaurants across the country are closed on Sundays has long been testament to that.
But the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social media wildfire.
"Guilty as charged," Cathy said when asked about his company's support of the traditional family unit as opposed to gay marriage.
"We are very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that," Cathy is quoted as saying.
Strong feelings of support and disagreement have followed, making Chick-fil-A the top Google trend on Thursday morning as the company's Facebook and Twitter pages were burning up with arguments.
"Hate mongers! Never again! Not another $ from me," Duke Richards wrote on Facebook.
"Goodbye Chikkk-fil-a! your food was delicious, but I can no longer eat nuggets filled with hate!" read a post by Blake Brown.
Eatocracy: Fast food with a side of faith
"I am truly ashamed of the recent admittance from Mr Cathy about your bigoted company practices. I hate the fact that my money was used for this. I will never support your company (and) will make sure anyone I know does not either," Mikell Kirbis wrote on Facebook. "While I'm not a Christian I know that hate is not in God's plan nor (is) ignorantly picking sections of the Bible to brandish. Good bye and I hope either you change your ways or close down."
But the support for the company was just as vehement.
"Just wanted to say I'm proud that you stand firm in your beliefs. You knew the risks, and still took the plunge. May God bless this company with abundance. Never back down!" said a Facebook post from David Jones.
"Thank you for standing up for what you believe. The truth is not hate. It's just the truth," wrote Sharon R Boyd.
"I love the values that this restaurant stands for and will support it every dang chance I get! Pay no attention to the morons spewing hate!" read a post from Raymond Joy.
Does religion influence what you buy? Share your view on CNN iReport.

Twitter comments were also divided.

https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2344470328/image_normal.jpg Miss 'Merica @MissMerica
I personally admire Chick-fil-A for really backing their beliefs. It's so rare that you find people in the business world that will do that.

19 Jul 12


https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2091404751/d4th_twitter_normal.jpg Danforth France @danforthfrance
Chick-fil-A has tarnished the fried chicken industry's once-sterling reputation for never being bigoted, historically, in any way.

19 Jul 12


https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/2433430393/heniw03madep7aq4sjto_normal.jpeg Wesley Vinson @TheEvilWesley
It's Chick-Fil-A not Adam-Fil-Steve. #rejectedchikfilAsloagans

18 Jul 12


https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/1266952460/image_normal.jpg Chucky McDaniel @ChuckyMcDaniel
People who are bashing Chick-fil-a for their Christian stances need to find more important things to complain about.

19 Jul 12


In a statement to CNN on Wednesday, the company said it would stick by its principles, but it tried to withdraw from the heated social media debate over them.
"The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena," said a statement from Don Perry, the company's vice president of corporate public relations.
The Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group, said Wednesday that Cathy's comments gave consumers a clear choice.
“It's strange to say, but it's good to see Chick-fil-A finally admit to their anti-LGBT policies," Michael Cole-Schwartz, the organization's director of communications, told CNN. "Now fair-minded consumers can make up their own minds whether they want to support an openly discriminatory company or take their business elsewhere. As the country moves toward inclusion, Chick-fil-A has staked out a decidedly stuck-in-the-past mentality.”
Polling shows increasing support for gay marriage in the United States. A CNN/ORC Poll conducted in late May found 54% of respondents favoring the legal recognition of gay marriage with 42% opposed. The poll had a sampling error of 3%.

Source

tl;dr Owner of fast food chain, as a Christian, doesn't support gay marriage.

I mean really? They do not discriminate against anyone so I don't see why this was blown up. Especially in Chicago where a restaurant was not allowed to operate.

Now I know why they don't open on Sundays.

NarutoActor July 26th, 2012 8:15 PM

I say good for the owner, he should be allowed to say and serve who ever he wants.

Chicago on the other hand, should not have banned said business, that is an infringement on their 1st amendment freedom of speech.

droomph July 26th, 2012 8:19 PM

I'm fine with him not supporting gay marriage as long as he doesn't force his beliefs on someone else. I'm actually glad that he stood up for his beliefs like the LGBT community does to their side.

If we tell him being gay is right, and force it on him, we're just as guilty as the Christians who did force their beliefs on the Prop 8 law and so on.

Starsprite July 26th, 2012 8:44 PM

The family's beliefs are the family's beliefs. Saying that it's the stance of the company is a bit off-putting, I must admit, but they have every right to make that decision (I assume they decided on this, just from the titles of most of the articles. correct me if I'm wrong) and also to live with any backlash that may come from it. I don't think the company needs to be run out of town, but they also don't deserve any special protection. Give them the same exact treatment they got before.

Seriously though, if they treat everybody fairly and equally then I see no problem. I don't agree with their stance either, but boycotting them will probably do nothing to change their opinions. If anything, it would probably harden them.

Whatever. I'm a vegetarian anyways.

Sydian July 26th, 2012 8:48 PM

tbqh, I am TIIIIIREEEEEDDDDDDDD of seeing all this crap on Facebook. You get on, and you see "Chic-Fil-A are gay hating poops" "I'm so proud of Chic-Fil-A standing up for what they believe in" "I'm not eating at Chic-Fil-A" SHUT. UP. I am just tired of seeing it anywhere. You believe what you believe, and that's fine if he doesn't agree with gay marriage. You can't win them all.

The real controversy is that the money they make apparently goes to anti-gay programs and organizations that contribute to gay teen suicides? First things first, I would think most of their money would go into maintaining their locations, keeping food and drink in stock, as well as dishes, bags, etc and other cookings supplies. The last thing they should worry about is donating to something like that. Second, how does an organization cause suicide? Do they pay gay teens to kill themselves? I don't mean to sound ignorant about this part of the deal, but I'm having a hard time believing it or making sense out of it, honestly. So if someone would like to explain this to me, it would be very appreciated, cause it's just not something I'm understanding.

But yeah, back to the company leader not believing in gay marriage...who really cares? The fact that the place already had established religious ways about it should have implied that it was a high possibility, if not a given. Though saying that it is the company's belief isn't right, unless he polled everyone that works in Chic-Fil-A in some way about their beliefs on the matter. Unless he did that, then he cannot speak on behalf of that many people.

Livewire July 26th, 2012 10:09 PM

Don't like Chick-fil-A being bigoted homophobes? Don't eat there. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

Nihilego July 27th, 2012 3:14 AM

Am I missing something here? While I think gay marriage is perfectly ok, I understand that not everyone agrees and I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that people will refuse to eat there because the owner simply holds a different belief. If this is really all it is, then honestly the people protesting are just making themselves look bad in my eyes. I mean, "nuggets full of hate"? "I hope you change your ways or close down"? Really? What's so hard about accepting that some people think differently? The owner wasn't imposing his views on anyone - he was giving a statement about his stance on gay marriage - and this is what it gets him? Surely there's something more controversial than just... "this person disagrees with gay marriage" going on here.

I'm certain at this point that I've misread the article tbh. Someone help?

Zoachu July 27th, 2012 5:11 AM

I think it's wrong to be against gay marriage, one of my best friends is gay and has a boyfriend. I mean but seriously who cares what Chick-Fil-A thinks... It's a CHRISTIAN family. While I am a LaVeyan Satanist but it's not like I believe in all Satanist values, I just don't understand what's up with all this... I think it's just wrong to blow this up.
WHO
THE
FORK
CARES
IF
YOU'RE
AGAINST
GAY MARRIAGE???
-______________________________-

Charicific July 27th, 2012 7:17 AM

So...? People are actually dumb enough to hate and bash a restaurant for their religious stand? This means that the offenders are indirectly criticizing the owner's religion, not stand. Since when do people have the sense to boycott someone with an opinion? I don't remember the owner to claim force on his belief did he? All they claimed is they don't find same-sex marriage right...which is their Christian faith. So what went wrong here? It's the same, Christians not supporting same-sex marriage as they did before. What's wrong!

It really pissed me off how people state that the owners are the one's who are discriminant and offensive...while it's obvious it's the exact opposite.

This whole same-sex marriage issue is getting sick honestly, I'm no Christian, but yet, same-sex marriage seems not right to me. Never did I prevent it though and never did I offend gays....I just socialize perfectly normal with them as civilized human beings....

People are taking it too far, for an excuse they claim to be "freedom" or "love", I find that to be hypocritical. Just end this issue by either letting these gays live as they want or banish their acts...

NarutoActor July 27th, 2012 8:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 7272487)
Don't like Chick-fil-A being bigoted homophobes? Don't eat there. Don't like gay marriage? Don't get gay married.

I don't think homophobes is the correct word to use. Phobes, meaning fear, and I do not think the owner is scared of them.

This statement assumes that a persons actions only affects the person who makes that action. But as we all know a persons actions effect more then just themselves, it effects society, and everyone around them.

Take for instance the owner of Chick-fil-A, he made an action, stating his belief on an interview, and it effected other people whether it be emotionally, mentally, or economically he effected someone. He could have easily just declined the question.

Livewire July 27th, 2012 8:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7273058)
I don't think homophobes is the correct word to use. Phobes, meaning fear, and I do not think the owner is scared of them.

This statement assumes that a persons actions only affects the person who makes that action. But as we all know a persons actions effect more then just themselves, it effects society, and everyone around them.

Take for instance the owner of Chick-fil-A, he made an action, stating his belief on an interview, and it effected other people whether it be emotionally, mentally, or economically he effected someone. He could have easily just declined the question.

"Homophobe" in the context of this story is the correct term. Please don't try to lecture other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 7272762)

I'm certain at this point that I've misread the article tbh. Someone help?

I was hoping we could avoid making this thread because it's all over the news and Twitter, Facebook and I knew it wouldn't be made correctly.

Chick-Fil-A's CEO said this:

Quote:

I think we‘re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know? “We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.”

And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation, that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about.”
Then:

Part of the controversy has to do with the disagreement and disillusion of a Toy deal Chick-Fil-A had with the Jim Henson Company.

Following the comments, the Henson Co. (The company of the creator of the Muppets) severed their partnership.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7oi71yXqG1r0l6mao1_500.jpg

To which Chick-Fil-A responded with:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7oi71yXqG1r0l6mao2_500.jpg


Not to mention, Chick-Fil-A donates a large amount of their money to politicians & causes that keep Gay marriage illegal.

NarutoActor July 27th, 2012 9:38 AM

Chick-fil-A, can find a different toy distributor, one that isn't so closed minded.

Sounds perfectly fine, people donate to lobbyist, and congressman all the time, to have their beliefs pushed for.

Bela July 27th, 2012 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7273157)
Chick-fil-A, can find a different toy distributor, one that isn't so closed minded.

Sounds perfectly fine, people donate to lobbyist, and congressman all the time, to have their beliefs pushed for.

If a toy distributor ends its collaboration with a company that is close minded and has its CEO state his disdain for those with a different lifestyle, that makes the toy distributor close minded? wtf?

The mental gymnastics you have to do to argue that people who disavow public displays of bigotry are committing bigotry themselves--the Muppets creators are ending their collaborative efforts with a company whose CEO has made it clear in public what his views are--a company that spends tons of money in lobbying efforts to pass anti-gay legislation.

You can believe whatever you wish. When you take the next step and try to foist your beliefs onto others, that's when you've gone too far. I and others would leave you alone with your Christian beliefs if you weren't so set on making gay marriage illegal. Your religion has no place in government. This isn't an issue of my political beliefs vs. yours, this is you blatantly ignoring the establishment clause of the Constitution. And it's funny, because so many Christians would lose their minds if it were a different religion trying to impose its beliefs onto others through the government. Imagine if Islam were to do the same thing, and have women forced to wear the hijab in the US. Well it's their beliefs and you've decided the establishment clause doesn't mean dick right? The hypocrisy is astounding.

And lastly, let's not forget that the Bible has much more to say about other 'abominations.' How about the parts of the Bible that say you can't eat shellfish? Why is gay marriage the thing you focus on? This cherry-picking demonstrates the hate and ignorance Christians display toward their fellow man--how very Christlike! Yes, you ignore the parts that talk about shellfish because that's just ridiculous. We shouldn't determine what is right and wrong from some Bronze Age mythology, something you're able to easily see if it is on any other issue besides gay marriage.

bigots.

NarutoActor July 27th, 2012 10:18 AM

There are closed minded, because they never considered the fact that they might be wrong, they can not accept any different view points, which is close mindedness.

I never once said I was christian, there can be made secular arguments against gay marriage. Homosexuality falls under rational court classifications, and as such it is perfectly legal to treat them differently, and for good reason. In this economy giving a tax break to people, who seek to obtain a unorthodox marriage is not beneficial.

I could give you more arguments but I would rather just make a thread with a long list of my arguments with proof, and statistics.

Bela July 27th, 2012 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7273198)
There are closed minded, because they never considered the fact that they might be wrong, they can not accept any different view points, which is close mindedness.

I agree, that's why Dan Cathy said what he did! Oh you meant Jim Henson Co. again... wtf. I'm not gonna be able to penetrate the ignorance here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor
I never once said I was christian, there can be made secular arguments against gay marriage. Homosexuality falls under rational court classifications, and as such it is perfectly legal to treat them differently, and for good reason. In this economy giving a tax break to people, who seek to obtain a unorthodox marriage is not beneficial.

So too does gender. Should we extrapolate that this means we should treat men and woman differently, or give one a tax break but not the other? Throwing legal classifications my way isn't going to justify your position--you're just telling me what the law is, as if this is not subject to change.

'Not beneficial' in what sense? You're starting to sound really sketchy.

And LOL we cannot give tax breaks to gay couples because that would hurt the economy? Give me a (tax) break. How about the tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy? I'm pretty sure their tax relief is what is truly putting a strain on the economy. There is nothing materially different about gay couples that would justify this. They are two individuals who enter into an agreement to share property--the sex of the individuals in this agreement should not matter.

If you're just going to generate a bunch of spurious economic arguments for why discriminating against one kind of marriage over another is valid, you're not going to succeed. The increase in marriage license fees because more people are entering into legally recognized marriages serves as a counter-example of how homosexuals getting married would be beneficial to the state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor
I could give you more arguments but I would rather just make a thread with a long list of my arguments with proof, and statistics.

You could post them here, but I have a feeling you won't because it's probably a bunch of nonsense. =)

One last thing on the Chik Fil A discussion: Corporations getting into the business of bringing attention to themselves for their stance on societal issues is something I don't really like--whether you're for or against something. That's why I really didn't like it when Oreo did that pride promo--if Nabisco really cared about gay marriage, it should go lobby Congress to make it legal. It was just a clever marketing ploy to sell more oreos.

Esper July 27th, 2012 10:57 AM

This is why it's okay to be upset with Chick-Fil-A:

Businesses give money to politicians at all levels of government. That's a fact of life. Anti-gay politicians are what is keeping same-sex marriage from being legal in the U.S. If a business is giving money to anti-gay politicians it is helping to keep same-sex marriage illegal. Because same-sex marriage should, as a right, be legal a business that helps to support keeping it illegal is infringing on people's rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7273198)
Homosexuality falls under rational court classifications, and as such it is perfectly legal to treat them differently, and for good reason. In this economy giving a tax break to people, who seek to obtain a unorthodox marriage is not beneficial.

You're saying it's legal to discriminate against gay people? While that might be true to various degrees in some parts of the US, you can't possibly believe that's enough of an excuse? It seems like your argument is that by letting gay people marry we're not going to get as much tax money from them because they can file their taxes jointly or something. Am I reading you correct? Because if you're saying it's "beneficial" to keep gay people from getting married so the government can get more money from them than they would if they could marry that is a very problematic justification that could easily slip into a really bad place.

Bluerang1 July 27th, 2012 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bela (Post 7273182)
And lastly, let's not forget that the Bible has much more to say about other 'abominations.' How about the parts of the Bible that say you can't eat shellfish? Why is gay marriage the thing you focus on? This cherry-picking demonstrates the hate and ignorance Christians display toward their fellow man--how very Christlike! Yes, you ignore the parts that talk about shellfish because that's just ridiculous. We shouldn't determine what is right and wrong from some Bronze Age mythology, something you're able to easily see if it is on any other issue besides gay marriage.

bigots.

People love using this argument. Jesus said disregard the laws of the past, ie Old Testament, which include shellfish, pork, circumcision etc. He said, repent, be baptized and live a good life by loving others. Jesus also said that homosexuality is a sin. I checked to make sure. By not discriminating, the CEO Cathy is not hating so can show love to homosexuals as people, but not support the lifestyle according to his belief.

I still think the Chicago is still completely wrong to ban Chick-Fil-A. he should be sued.

PokéSwimmer July 27th, 2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7273333)
People love using this argument. Jesus said disregard the laws of the past, ie Old Testament, which include shellfish, pork, circumcision etc. He said, repent, be baptized and live a good life by loving others. Jesus also said that homosexuality is a sin. I checked to make sure. By not discriminating, the CEO Cathy is not hating so can show love to homosexuals as people, but not support the lifestyle according to his belief.

I still think the Chicago is still completely wrong to ban Chick-Fil-A. he should be sued.

The statement in bold is blatantly wrong. Jesus never said such a thing in the bible. Still, some christians try to make the argument that he implied it, though they twist the rhetoric a bit.

Personally, I believe people are right to be ticked off at Chick-Fil-A. By donating money to the continued discrimination of homosexuals, they are trying to impose their own religious beliefs on others. Regardless of your own religious beliefs, this is simply an Un-American thing to do.

Bluerang1 July 27th, 2012 2:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PokéSwimmer (Post 7273358)
The statement in bold is blatantly wrong. Jesus never said such a thing in the bible. Still, some christians try to make the argument that he implied it, though they twist the rhetoric a bit.

Personally, I believe people are right to be ticked off at Chick-Fil-A. By donating money to the continued discrimination of homosexuals, they are trying to impose their own religious beliefs on others. Regardless of your own religious beliefs, this is simply an Un-American thing to do.

Perhaps it wasn't Jesus then.

Quote:

"God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men." (Romans 1:26-27)
But really this is an argument for another day.

If you don't like the copmany don't go there, but do not stop them from making more franchises. It's people pleasing at its best.

Livewire July 27th, 2012 3:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7273333)
People love using this argument. Jesus said disregard the laws of the past, ie Old Testament, which include shellfish, pork, circumcision etc. He said, repent, be baptized and live a good life by loving others. Jesus also said that homosexuality is a sin. I checked to make sure. By not discriminating, the CEO Cathy is not hating so can show love to homosexuals as people, but not support the lifestyle according to his belief.

I still think the Chicago is still completely wrong to ban Chick-Fil-A. he should be sued.

No, Jesus said love your neighbor and treat others as you would like to be treated. Nice try.

droomph July 27th, 2012 4:24 PM

Aight, being a gay Christian myself, I can say that Paul never said that you can't have gay marriage. He said that "God gave them up to degrading passions." Do you also remember the other stuff, like partying and swearing? Yeah, homosexuality is not one of the big issues, and the whole deal is that nobody should have their liberty and freedom stolen. Being "immoral" isn't something you, the Christians, should try to change. You're just as immoral as them (or maybe even worse) but by the grace of God you're perfect.

There was a gay pastor with AIDS once at a retreat (Christopher Yuan y'all). He said that he was gay and fully gay, never gonna turn back, but he said once he saw the light he started working on controlling his feelings. But before? He was the Almighty Gay Meth Lord who regularly went into "bath houses" for hours at a time. Now he's one of the nicest guys I've certainly seen, and that was all a guy who used to be a meth selling, dude banging piece of lowly crap who spent years in prison and hated Christians.

tl;dr God has a plan for everyone. When you intrude on things like these what you're doing is pretty much mini-modding. Be glad Heaven doesn't have the same infraction system as PC.

Bluerang1 July 27th, 2012 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livewire (Post 7273530)


No, Jesus said love your neighbor and treat others as you would like to be treated. Nice try.

Right, loving others if good. However, if I am sinning according to my beliefs, I'd want to be stopped hence being saved.

Are the claims of Chick-Fil-A funding those organizations true?

droomph July 27th, 2012 4:39 PM

You alone, as a mere human, can't turn around another human. Only God can save you, hence "Jesus saves" as they say.

You simply need to tell them what's wrong or right, but not push them. And tbh I think they've been told many times already.

I thought every Christian knew that. :c

And why would they waste money on that? Not only would that be a waste of money, it would keep away sales...

Keiran July 27th, 2012 9:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7273463)
Perhaps it wasn't Jesus then.



But really this is an argument for another day.

If you don't like the copmany don't go there, but do not stop them from making more franchises. It's people pleasing at its best.

Ah, that Romans passage is misquoted once again. Paul was saying that homosexuality was a PUNISHMENT for sin, not sin itself. Those that were wicked and sinful fell to sexual immorality which included incest and adultery, not homosexuality. Sexual immortality back then was more of a property thing, not sinful. The one exception was committing adultery while married, which Jesus explains in Matthew. The reason why men did not marry other men was because marriage just meant you owned that woman. You could not own another man, he was your equal. God punished the wicked by making them do indecent acts with other sinners, and it was a punishment because it was not "beneficial"- says Paul in Corinithians, and not something they enjoy. Like if we made straight people have gay sex instead of going to prison.

In that Romans passage you quoted, it says that same-sex relations are unnatural and shameless, which is nothing. Many things are unnatural, and just about everything related to sex is shameless.

Also in 1st Corinthians Paul states nothing about homosexuality in his section about sexual immortality nor in his section about love. He literally just states that love is love, basically.

I mean he wrote the book of ROMANS and loved/lived in ROME, homosexuality was quite popular and accepted in Rome. Do you really think he was against it? Jesus wasn't either.

Really dislike how rampant misunderstandings of the bible are, and I'm not even Christian!

Anyways, on topic. Yes, people are entitled to freedom of speech, but a company promoting hate groups with it's profits isn't free speech. Companies aren't people. Businesses influence politics which influences the lives of everyone.

Esper July 28th, 2012 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7274662)
It's just a restaurant chain. The owners can believe whatever they want, and nobody should attempt to force their beliefs on them. It doesn't matter what the owners believe, as it's not like they're trying to force their beliefs on anyone. There's no reason for the LGBT supporters to be tearing their hair out, boycotting, and protesting over this.

But they are trying to force their beliefs. Through their political contributions. That alone is enough of a reason. Even if they didn't do that, there would still be a reason to boycott if you didn't want to support someone who was anti-gay. I know I don't like to associate myself with people who are anti-gay so it's perfectly reasonably for me to not patronize a restaurant that's run by anti-gay people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7274662)
I find it so funny that you atheists think you're so accepting of everyone, yet you hate anyone who dares have a religion.

Please don't generalize all atheists like this. I am an atheist and just yesterday I was enjoying the company of my Catholic friend, never once feeling hatred for her.

Keiran July 28th, 2012 8:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elgyem (Post 7274662)
It's just a restaurant chain. The owners can believe whatever they want, and nobody should attempt to force their beliefs on them. It doesn't matter what the owners believe, as it's not like they're trying to force their beliefs on anyone. There's no reason for the LGBT supporters to be tearing their hair out, boycotting, and protesting over this.


Family values groups are not hate groups. It's not like Chick-Fil-A is donating to actual hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, or the Westboro Baptist Church. Seriously, calm down. Freedom of Religion means freedom to have a religion. I find it so funny that you atheists think you're so accepting of everyone, yet you hate anyone who dares have a religion.

I never said I was athiest, but you assumed correctly. You are wrong, though, I don't hate religion. I admire and respect Buddhism quite a lot. Christianity has a lot to learn from it.

Donating to and supporting anti-gay groups which stifle our rights is forcing a belief on us. Like I said, they influence politics which has a direct influence on the lives of everyone. They are psuedo-indirectly, albeit completely directly, forcing their beliefs on the world.

Also, the core of the KKK (the ACTUAL Knights) has never been racist or hateful, and are more accepting of different people than most Conservatives. Your view of them has been twisted by media and misfits of previous generations, just like how you assume every Athiest views you.

TRIFORCE89 July 28th, 2012 8:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7272378)
tl;dr Owner of fast food chain, as a Christian, doesn't support gay marriage.

I mean really? They do not discriminate against anyone so I don't see why this was blown up. Especially in Chicago where a restaurant was not allowed to operate.

Now I know why they don't open on Sundays.

Yeah, what you said.

I'm not really up the story. Are they discriminating at all? Not serving or not hiring people as a result? If so, then they're clearly in the wrong. Are they contributing to organization to halt gay rights legislation? If so, again I can see why people would be upset. But I don't know if either is true, so I'm not upset.

Also, I don't think we have Chick-Fil-A here. So, I really don't care XD

At the same time though, if they're not doing something illegal and its just the opinion the owner/founder/president/whatever, what's the big deal? If it doesn't influence the restaurant or the public, it doesn't seem like a big deal to. If it is to you though, then boycott them. Don't buy their food or go to their restaurant. That's capitalism. But, the restaurant should not be banned anywhere because of it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7274723)
Even if they didn't do that, there would still be a reason to boycott if you didn't want to support someone who was anti-gay. I know I don't like to associate myself with people who are anti-gay so it's perfectly reasonably for me to not patronize a restaurant that's run by anti-gay people.

If it's run by someone "anti-gay", you're not just hurting them (if at all really, they already have the most money). What about all the other employees? Front-line people. Middle managers. Service folks. What if it wasn't takeout and there were people who rely on tips? They're not necessarily against gay marriage, but you're taking it out on them

Mana July 29th, 2012 3:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7275386)

If it's run by someone "anti-gay", you're not just hurting them (if at all really, they already have the most money). What about all the other employees? Front-line people. Middle managers. Service folks. What if it wasn't takeout and there were people who rely on tips? They're not necessarily against gay marriage, but you're taking it out on them

Bit of a weak argument, as (for example) if a restaurant made awful food it would be the chefs fault - but apparently would be mean to not go there and continue spending money, as the waiters need it?

Zoachu July 29th, 2012 5:39 AM

I am not going to eat there anymore. I am completely FOR gay marriage. And the owner is spending his money on anti-gay stuff. People are ridiculous.

zenlor July 29th, 2012 6:08 AM

What if Chick-Fil-A released a statement against homosexual marriage? I think it is their right to do so. What if Starbucks is in favor of homosexual marriage? I think it is their right to be in favor of it. What if Oreo released a "gay cookie?" I think it is their right to do so. Now, here are four other related points I want to raise:
  1. What if homosexuals campaigned to boycott companies that released anti-homosexual statements? I think it is their right to do so.
  2. What if Christian fundamentalists campaigned to boycott companies that released pro-homosexual statements? I think it is their right to do so.
  3. What if homosexuals campaigned to promote companies that are pro-homosexual? I think it is their right to do so.
  4. What is Christian fundamentalists campaigned to promote companies that are anti-homosexual? I think it is their right to do so.
But here's another point, dear friends, which, I think, we need to remember always:
  1. What if one side enforced its views on others? That's not good and it violates human rights.
Summarization of my stand on the issue: Well, it is definitely O.K. to make a stand on an issue as long as you are aware that other people might react on it and might do different actions whether in support of or against your stand. I am a member of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) and we are openly against homosexual marriage but we don't enforce our stand on others and we don't discriminate homosexuals since they are humans too, like us. By the way, we don't boycott pro-homosexual companies. In fact, I just bought Oreo. :)

AxeyWaxyWoo July 29th, 2012 7:40 AM

Sure, I don't agree with their opinion (I'm a gay FTM Transgender), but it is their opinion nonetheless and everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs as long as they don't force them on other people.

And eitherway, I'm vegan, so I wouldn't have ate there anyways. ;P

Esper July 29th, 2012 9:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7275386)
If it's run by someone "anti-gay", you're not just hurting them (if at all really, they already have the most money). What about all the other employees? Front-line people. Middle managers. Service folks. What if it wasn't takeout and there were people who rely on tips? They're not necessarily against gay marriage, but you're taking it out on them

My feelings is that anti-gay attitudes are on the same level as open racism. (I'm not making the argument that they're equal, just saying that's how it is for me. I don't want to derail the discussion.) I simply can't knowingly support something like that. I can feel for the people working there. They may not be hateful or anything, but I know that if I were in a job and learned that my boss did something like that I would want to leave that job. Or I'd speak out, or something.

If I was actively hurting these employees that would be a different thing, but I'm just taking my business elsewhere. Well, I say all that but I've never even been to one of these restaurants. lol

Mihael August 1st, 2012 9:56 PM

Chick-fil-a contributes to organizations that further anti-gay agendas and do things like support pray the gay away camps, which hurt LGBT youth.
I feel that as someone capable of empathy, it kind of makes sense to want to avoid giving money to a business like that

Dakotah August 2nd, 2012 6:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7272400)
I say good for the owner, he should be allowed to say and serve who ever he wants.

Yes, he should be able to say whatever he wants. However, that really isn't the issue at all. The issue is that he is using your money (if you frequent his establishments) to fund designated hate groups which actively work to remove anti-discrimination protections for gays and lesbians, and also seek to once again make homosexuality illegal in the U.S. If you don't mind your money funding these groups, then carry on.

You are wrong, however, that he should be permitted to serve whoever he wants. There are laws prohibiting businesses serving the public from discriminating against people because of their age, their sex, their religion, their ethnic background, their disability, and in some places their sexual orientation. If you deny service to someone because they are black for instance, you would be in violation of the law and would be subject to appropriate penalties (which could include the loss of license to operate).

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7272400)
Chicago on the other hand, should not have banned said business, that is an infringement on their 1st amendment freedom of speech.

The alderman in this case is not seeking to ban the company from the city, rather he is trying to make sure that the company is going to comply with all the laws in the state and in the city, including anti-discrimination laws which protects gay and lesbian and bisexual citizens in the workforce. If you're going to start a business some place, it's pretty much a given that you would be expected to comply with all laws and ordinances in that area. If you're unwilling to do so, it's best if you start a business elsewhere.

NarutoActor August 2nd, 2012 8:40 AM

I went to Chick-fil-A the other day, just to try it out, and if anything this is media attention is actually helping the business. I saw so many people there it was packed, and it wasn't even there busy hours.

Sydian August 2nd, 2012 8:51 AM

Yesterday was their Chick-Fil-A appreciation day and it was packed. I'm sure some people were there to support free speech and their marriage beliefs and all, and my uncle even posted a picture of all the people inside and said, "Look at all the tolerant individuals here today." which sadly isn't sarcasm.

If you want a good read, because I'm sure if you signed on Facebook yesterday and you live in the south, you only heard the "Christian" side of things and how "Christians are the tolerant ones," then I suggest this. The other side. http://www.theopinionatednation.com/2012/08/02/the-other-side-of-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-it-really-shook-me/

Bluerang1 August 2nd, 2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7282549)

Yes, he should be able to say whatever he wants. However, that really isn't the issue at all. The issue is that he is using your money (if you frequent his establishments) to fund designated hate groups which actively work to remove anti-discrimination protections for gays and lesbians, and also seek to once again make homosexuality illegal in the U.S. If you don't mind your money funding these groups, then carry on.

No, that was the issue. Then it escalated to what you said to make the owner and company look even worse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7282549)

The alderman in this case is not seeking to ban the company from the city, rather he is trying to make sure that the company is going to comply with all the laws in the state and in the city, including anti-discrimination laws which protects gay and lesbian and bisexual citizens in the workforce. If you're going to start a business some place, it's pretty much a given that you would be expected to comply with all laws and ordinances in that area. If you're unwilling to do so, it's best if you start a business elsewhere.

And they don't discriminate against customers or employees so what's the alderman's point? Clearly attention seeking.

Dakotah August 2nd, 2012 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7282871)
No, that was the issue. Then it escalated to what you said to make the owner and company look even worse.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Dan Cathy has a history of donating money to anti-gay hate groups. We've known this for years. Recently, Equality Matter compiled a report on Chick-fil-A's charitable work which found that the fast food chain donated nearly $2 million to anti-gay groups over the course of 2010. Among those to reportedly receive donations through Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation were the Marriage & Family Foundation ($1,188,380), Exodus International ($1,000) and the Family Research Council (also $1,000).

So, as you can see, this controversy began long before Dan Cathy gave his interview which has sparked all this activity both for and against the company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7282871)
And they don't discriminate against customers or employees so what's the alderman's point? Clearly attention seeking.

Again, I'm afraid you're mistaken. As an example, Chick-Fil-A is currently facing a gender discrimination lawsuit in Duluth, Georgia. In one former employee's claim, she states she was fired so she could be a "stay home mother."

From her complaint:

Quote:

19. During the Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant Howard routinely made comments to the Plaintiff suggesting that as a mother she should stay home with her children.

20. In April of 2011, Defendant Howard hired Bill Green (male) as a General Manager.

21. In April of 2011, Defendant Howard began having management meetings with Jonathan Jurardo (male), Jimmy Guerrero (male), and Green (male), and not including the Plaintiff.

23. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Connie Gravitt that he terminated the Plaintiff so she could be a stay home mother.

24. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Honeycutt that she was being terminated so she could be a stay home mother.

25. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Lord that he terminated the Plaintiff so she could be a stay home mother.

26. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Wendy Blankenship that he terminated the Plaintiff so she could be a stay home mother.

27. After the Plaintiff was terminated, the Defendants replaced the Plaintiff in her position as General Manager with Green, who is not a caregiver to any children.
Clearly, contrary to your assertion, Chick-Fil-A has, and is, engaged in discrimination. It's because of these reports and these stories that the Alderman has been seeking clarification from the company on their anti-discrimination policies. He has, to this date, not received a clear answer to his inquiries.

Here is a link to the complete claim:

http://www.glaad.org/files/101150536-Lawsuit_1.pdf

Sydian August 2nd, 2012 3:02 PM

It's funny that every time I sign on Facebook, people are talking about this and don't even know what the deal is. People think that everyone's up in arms because the guy doesn't believe in same-sex marriage. Like it's been said, the guy is entitled to his own opinion. But the money we pay at his Chick-Fil-A (tired of typing, seeing, and hearing that name btw) restaurants are going to anti-gay organizations. THAT is the problem that most people aren't understanding. If the money were out of his own pocket, then that's another story. It's his money, do what you want with it. But it's not his money in this case. It's ours. And one might argue that it's not our money anymore once we hand it to that cashier, but we're contributing. Isn't that just as bad? So if you want to contribute to that and all, I won't stop you, though I will wonder how you can give your money to an establishment that will turn right back around and give it to a group that will use it to go against basic human rights. It is some damn good chicken though, sadly. But there are other places I can get food from.

Something else funny? In 40 years, these people are going to look so dumb. We look at our history books now and think "omg white only places?! that's not right!" and in the future, kids will look in their books and think "omg two men couldn't get married back then?! that's not right!" I hope to be around by then.

TRIFORCE89 August 2nd, 2012 5:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 7283015)
But the money we pay at his Chick-Fil-A (tired of typing, seeing, and hearing that name btw) restaurants are going to anti-gay organizations. THAT is the problem that most people aren't understanding. If the money were out of his own pocket, then that's another story. It's his money, do what you want with it. But it's not his money in this case. It's ours. And one might argue that it's not our money anymore once we hand it to that cashier, but we're contributing. Isn't that just as bad?

They're a private company. Once you had over your cash, you have no claim over it. You make it sound like government and paying taxes where it still is technically the public's money. That is not the case here at all. It is not your money, you have no say on how it is spent.

You can boycott and whatever, but that just doesn't give them more money. The money they've already made is still their's to use as they please because it's their's and not your's.

Still, I'm not super familiar with all this. Is Chick-Fil-A anti gay marriage, anti gay rights in general, or entirely homophobic in general?

Dakotah August 2nd, 2012 6:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7283177)

They're a private company. Once you had over your cash, you have no claim over it. You make it sound like government and paying taxes where it still is technically the public's money. That is not the case here at all. It is not your money, you have no say on how it is spent.

You can boycott and whatever, but that just doesn't give them more money. The money they've already made is still their's to use as they please because it's their's and not your's.



True, it's no longer our money, and as you correctly point out, we can refuse to give them our business if we don't like what they do with it. So then, why all the stories about this company? Simple. To provide information to people who might frequent these establishments so that they might better understand where the money they give to them goes and let them decide if they want to indirectly fund these anti-gay organizations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7283177)
Still, I'm not super familiar with all this. Is Chick-Fil-A anti gay marriage, anti gay rights in general, or entirely homophobic in general?

Chick-fil-A is anti gay marriage, and anti gay rights. Through their contributions to various organizations they:
  • Support the re-criminalization of homosexuality (make homosexual acts illegal)
  • Support conversion therapy (a dangerous therapy that attempts to turn gays straight, which is known to cause depression and has been directly linked to a number of suicides).
  • Support nullifying the marriages of all gays and lesbians in the country who are married by making same-sex marriage illegal.
  • Support the removal of anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians in public accommodation, housing, and employment.

Something to think about whenever you buy a chicken sandwich from that place. What effect might doing so have later on on a gay relative, or neighbour, or friend?

TRIFORCE89 August 2nd, 2012 6:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7283209)


True, it's no longer our money, and as you correctly point out, we can refuse to give them our business if we don't like what they do with it. So then, why all the stories about this company? Simple. To provide information to people who might frequent these establishments so that they might better understand where the money they give to them goes and let them decide if they want to indirectly fund these anti-gay organizations.



Chick-fil-A is anti gay marriage, and anti gay rights. Through their contributions to various organizations they:
  • Support the re-criminalization of homosexuality (make homosexual acts illegal)
  • Support conversion therapy (a dangerous therapy that attempts to turn gays straight, which is known to cause depression and has been directly linked to a number of suicides).
  • Support nullifying the marriages of all gays and lesbians in the country who are married by making same-sex marriage illegal.
  • Support the removal of anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians in public accommodation, housing, and employment.

Something to think about whenever you buy a chicken sandwich from that place. What effect might doing so have later on on a gay relative, or neighbour, or friend?

I don't think they have these eateries here? If they do I've never seen one XD Regardless, first bullet point alone makes them sound plenty homophobic so I probably wouldn't go if they did exist here.

Oryx August 2nd, 2012 6:40 PM

In addition, they donate to a group who spent money in support of the bill in Uganda that wants to make being gay punishable by death. That's what really pushed me over the edge on their policies to be honest.

Sydian August 2nd, 2012 7:56 PM

Quote:

They're a private company. Once you had over your cash, you have no claim over it. You make it sound like government and paying taxes where it still is technically the public's money. That is not the case here at all. It is not your money, you have no say on how it is spent.
The difference with taxes though is that you have to pay those, even if it goes somewhere you don't want it to go. OR WELL. You don't have to but lol you probably don't wanna get arrested. But you don't have to give your money to a chain that will give it to something you're not in support of. And I already said it's not our money once we paid for our meal, but the point is you still gave money to them, so in a sense, you're funding their anti-gay spending money. It's sad they made so much money yesterday for it from people that are intolerant and unaware of what's really going on. It's sad these organizations exist. It's more than anti-gay in my eyes. It's just...anti-people. Or anti-human. Something.

NarutoActor August 3rd, 2012 7:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 7283015)
It's funny that every time I sign on Facebook, people are talking about this and don't even know what the deal is. People think that everyone's up in arms because the guy doesn't believe in same-sex marriage. Like it's been said, the guy is entitled to his own opinion. But the money we pay at his Chick-Fil-A (tired of typing, seeing, and hearing that name btw) restaurants are going to anti-gay organizations. THAT is the problem that most people aren't understanding. If the money were out of his own pocket, then that's another story. It's his money, do what you want with it. But it's not his money in this case. It's ours. And one might argue that it's not our money anymore once we hand it to that cashier, but we're contributing. Isn't that just as bad? So if you want to contribute to that and all, I won't stop you, though I will wonder how you can give your money to an establishment that will turn right back around and give it to a group that will use it to go against basic human rights. It is some damn good chicken though, sadly. But there are other places I can get food from.

Something else funny? In 40 years, these people are going to look so dumb. We look at our history books now and think "omg white only places?! that's not right!" and in the future, kids will look in their books and think "omg two men couldn't get married back then?! that's not right!" I hope to be around by then.

This argument breaks apart from the fabics of free economics that what makes this country great. If you use that logic for everything, then you are the cause of every economic and social problem that was caused by someone rich. It is not the customers place to know where the money is going or care. If you want their chicken, then buy it, if not then don't. But you really shouldn't base your business on politics.

How is it a "Basic Human Right", if it was a basic human right then everyone should be able to get married, even children. To say it is a basic human right is even more obscure then even calling it a right, which marriage isn't. People are not entitled to marriage, it is a privilege, and quite frankly I wished it was more heavy regulated even between heterosexuals; maybe that would lower the divorce rate.

Race and sexuality are not the same, there are big diferences, socially, and legally. (Court Classification)

In this thread people keep saying "as long as they don't force there opinion" But what is wrong with forcing your opnion if you belive that is the right opinion. It happens all the time, if a state was to allow for gay marriage that would be forcing there opinion on the people of that state, it would be that, gay marriage is right. Teachers force their opinions on their students all the time. Depending on which subject it is, it is easier to get away with it. A debate is just one big struggle to force one opinion unto another one using logic, and truth. You can not even say that no opinion is right, or that this opinion is wrong, beaucse that would be your opinion and you would be forcing it. Even saing things like "as long as they don't force there opinion" is forcing your opnion on people who want to force there opinion; How ironic!

Mr. X August 3rd, 2012 7:48 AM

It's not forcing a opinion. It's giving these people the rights that they, as human beings, deserve.

Then again, this is the US. The entire country was based upon a double standard from the start, so it's no surprise that we are disregarding the words 'all men are created equal' again. We've done it in the past, we're doing it now, and we'll do it in the future too.

Anyway, as history shows, gays will eventually get the rights that they deserve, no, are entitled to.

NarutoActor August 3rd, 2012 8:05 AM

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?

Zet August 3rd, 2012 9:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284104)
This argument breaks apart from the fabics of free economics that what makes this country great. If you use that logic for everything, then you are the cause of every economic and social problem that was caused by someone rich. It is not the customers place to know where the money is going or care. If you want their chicken, then buy it, if not then don't. But you really shouldn't base your business on politics.

How is it a "Basic Human Right", if it was a basic human right then everyone should be able to get married, even children. To say it is a basic human right is even more obscure then even calling it a right, which marriage isn't. People are not entitled to marriage, it is a privilege, and quite frankly I wished it was more heavy regulated even between heterosexuals; maybe that would lower the divorce rate.

Race and sexuality are not the same, there are big diferences, socially, and legally. (Court Classification)

In this thread people keep saying "as long as they don't force there opinion" But what is wrong with forcing your opnion if you belive that is the right opinion. It happens all the time, if a state was to allow for gay marriage that would be forcing there opinion on the people of that state, it would be that, gay marriage is right. Teachers force their opinions on their students all the time. Depending on which subject it is, it is easier to get away with it. A debate is just one big struggle to force one opinion unto another one using logic, and truth. You can not even say that no opinion is right, or that this opinion is wrong, beaucse that would be your opinion and you would be forcing it. Even saing things like "as long as they don't force there opinion" is forcing your opnion on people who want to force there opinion; How ironic!

I'm not sure if I should describe the pain of one thousand brain cells dying from this post(and many of your other posts) or be on topic.

Claiming that people have studied the "subject" of homosexuality and is still against same-sex marriage is a joke. They can only quote old testament scripture, which is a huge riot because in the new testament we're told to love one another.
Marriage is in fact a right, people have the right to get married. When saying marriage is a privilege, you might as well be saying: breathing oxygen is a privilege. You are entitled to an opinion, you have a right to free speech and you have the privilege of being ignorant.

Oh, and instead of funding anti-gay organizations, don't you think all the money would be better off helping America's debt?

NarutoActor August 3rd, 2012 9:23 AM

Quote:

Marriage is a right:
This statement is not true, people assume that marriage is a right, and that if marriage is a right then gay marriage becomes a civil rights problem. However marriage is limited to hetersexuals as well. Roughly half of all states do not allow first cousins from marrying, and all do not allow marriage of closer blood relatives, even if said individuals are sterile. In all states, it is ileagal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more then one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphillis, or other veneral deieses. Therefore, homosexuality is not the only group to be excluded form marriage.
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.

Sydian August 3rd, 2012 9:37 AM

Quote:

This argument breaks apart from the fabics of free economics that what makes this country great. If you use that logic for everything, then you are the cause of every economic and social problem that was caused by someone rich. It is not the customers place to know where the money is going or care. If you want their chicken, then buy it, if not then don't. But you really shouldn't base your business on politics.

How is it a "Basic Human Right", if it was a basic human right then everyone should be able to get married, even children. To say it is a basic human right is even more obscure then even calling it a right, which marriage isn't. People are not entitled to marriage, it is a privilege, and quite frankly I wished it was more heavy regulated even between heterosexuals; maybe that would lower the divorce rate.

Race and sexuality are not the same, there are big diferences, socially, and legally. (Court Classification)

In this thread people keep saying "as long as they don't force there opinion" But what is wrong with forcing your opnion if you belive that is the right opinion. It happens all the time, if a state was to allow for gay marriage that would be forcing there opinion on the people of that state, it would be that, gay marriage is right. Teachers force their opinions on their students all the time. Depending on which subject it is, it is easier to get away with it. A debate is just one big struggle to force one opinion unto another one using logic, and truth. You can not even say that no opinion is right, or that this opinion is wrong, beaucse that would be your opinion and you would be forcing it. Even saing things like "as long as they don't force there opinion" is forcing your opnion on people who want to force there opinion; How ironic!
Way to make a great holier than thou speech and take everything I said the wrong way! Just wow. For one thing, I wasn't telling people in this thread, or anywhere, to not spend their money there. That's their own business and I won't stop them. I even said that in my post. I don't know HOW that leads you to think about the economy when I'm talking about my own money and not everyone else's. I, personally, will not be spending my money there because I don't like where it's going. If you want to spend it there, that is your money. I'm not gonna stop you. You go on ahead. But to call me out and say I'm the reason for economic and social problems? Just...what. What in the world.

Who said I meant marriage when I said human right? This place donates to other organizations that are against homosexual behavior in general. Places that believe in gay camps or gay counseling. They even donate to organizations that promote the execution of homosexuals. So before you even bring marriage into this, tell me. How is the right to live happily not a human right? Why should they have to be killed? Or have someone teach them how to "un-gay" themselves? These types of things are infringing on human rights. Zet already went into the marriage thing for me, so I'm not going to be redundant.

Where did race come from? From my comparison of the 40 years ago thing? How are they not different? You don't choose your skin color, and you don't choose your sexuality. For a long time, an African American couldn't marry a caucasian, or at least the places they could marry were not plentiful. During this time, the places a man can marry a man are very limited. I will acknowledge that race and sexuality are very different, yes, but they are still very similar, especially in that it's not something you choose.

I can't wrap my mind around "teachers are forcing their opinions on students." I just...I can't. What am I reading? So, when I start teaching, I'm going to be forcing my opinion on my students that 2 + 2 = 4? That's an opinion? The way the letter A sounds. That's an opinion? The history in my state of Alabama. That didn't happen? It's only my opinion? Well shoot, I better not get in this major. The teacher example makes no sense. At all.

But you know, I'm done with this thread. I've had all I can take really. So this is it from me.

Oryx August 3rd, 2012 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284104)
This argument breaks apart from the fabics of free economics that what makes this country great. If you use that logic for everything, then you are the cause of every economic and social problem that was caused by someone rich. It is not the customers place to know where the money is going or care. If you want their chicken, then buy it, if not then don't. But you really shouldn't base your business on politics.

It's not your place to tell anyone how they should decide where to spend their money. If someone doesn't want to spend money at a place because the roof is red and they hate the color red that's their right and there's nothing wrong with that. In this case, people have a reasonable argument that they do not want their money going towards that organization. Just as I wouldn't buy food off of someone if I knew they were going to turn around and use it to hire a hitman, I wouldn't buy chicken off of someone who I know is going to turn around and use it to try to kill gay people.

Quote:

How is it a "Basic Human Right", if it was a basic human right then everyone should be able to get married, even children. To say it is a basic human right is even more obscure then even calling it a right, which marriage isn't. People are not entitled to marriage, it is a privilege, and quite frankly I wished it was more heavy regulated even between heterosexuals; maybe that would lower the divorce rate.
It's a civil right.

Quote:

Race and sexuality are not the same, there are big diferences, socially, and legally. (Court Classification)

In this thread people keep saying "as long as they don't force there opinion" But what is wrong with forcing your opnion if you belive that is the right opinion. It happens all the time, if a state was to allow for gay marriage that would be forcing there opinion on the people of that state, it would be that, gay marriage is right. Teachers force their opinions on their students all the time. Depending on which subject it is, it is easier to get away with it. A debate is just one big struggle to force one opinion unto another one using logic, and truth. You can not even say that no opinion is right, or that this opinion is wrong, beaucse that would be your opinion and you would be forcing it. Even saing things like "as long as they don't force there opinion" is forcing your opnion on people who want to force there opinion; How ironic!
Allowing a right isn't forcing their opinion. You can believe gay people are sinful and going to hell and still believe in gay marriage; it's about the freedom for others to do as they please as long as they're not harming anyone else. They're not harming you by getting married. You don't lose anything by the marriage of two men or two women. So logically they should have that freedom.

Quote:

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?
This is ridiculous circular logic. "It's not a right because it's not given to gay people, so it shouldn't be given to gay people because it's not a right because it's not given to gay people". In addition, the same thing can be asked of straight people. Why are straight people more entitled to marriage than gay people? Straight people that are infertile, or don't intend to have children? Straight people that only get married to get a friend into the country? The foundation of our country rests on "if it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, you should have the freedom to do it". It's ludicrous that the government has become so active in becoming the moral police that they feel they need to outlaw things that do not hurt anyone or infringe on anyone's rights.

Esper August 3rd, 2012 10:27 AM

Hey, it looks like some store manager in New Hampshire wants to support a local gay pride parade. It's causing some mixed reactions since people like that he's pro-gay rights, but his franchise still sends its earnings to the people at the top.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7283230)
In addition, they donate to a group who spent money in support of the bill in Uganda that wants to make being gay punishable by death. That's what really pushed me over the edge on their policies to be honest.

I was gonna say I'm glad that kill-the-gays bill in Uganda never went through and became law, but as I was looking it up I see that it's been reintroduced and still not dead. :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284104)
This argument breaks apart from the fabics of free economics that what makes this country great. If you use that logic for everything, then you are the cause of every economic and social problem that was caused by someone rich. It is not the customers place to know where the money is going or care. If you want their chicken, then buy it, if not then don't. But you really shouldn't base your business on politics.

Well, yeah. We are kinda to blame for a lot of the bad things rich people do. That's why you get people who care about where they shop and what they buy so they don't end up supporting child labor overseas (or domestically) and other bad stuff. It is (or, rather, should be) a customer's place to know where their money is going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284189)
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're saying because not everyone has this right it's not a right? Was voting not a right before women could vote? I think you have this a little twisted around. Rights exist even if people don't have them. That's the case here since heterosexuals have this right and gay folks don't.

Bluerang1 August 3rd, 2012 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284104)
This argument breaks apart from the fabics of free economics that what makes this country great. If you use that logic for everything, then you are the cause of every economic and social problem that was caused by someone rich. It is not the customers place to know where the money is going or care. If you want their chicken, then buy it, if not then don't. But you really shouldn't base your business on politics.

How is it a "Basic Human Right", if it was a basic human right then everyone should be able to get married, even children. To say it is a basic human right is even more obscure then even calling it a right, which marriage isn't. People are not entitled to marriage, it is a privilege, and quite frankly I wished it was more heavy regulated even between heterosexuals; maybe that would lower the divorce rate.

Race and sexuality are not the same, there are big diferences, socially, and legally. (Court Classification)

In this thread people keep saying "as long as they don't force there opinion" But what is wrong with forcing your opnion if you belive that is the right opinion. It happens all the time, if a state was to allow for gay marriage that would be forcing there opinion on the people of that state, it would be that, gay marriage is right. Teachers force their opinions on their students all the time. Depending on which subject it is, it is easier to get away with it. A debate is just one big struggle to force one opinion unto another one using logic, and truth. You can not even say that no opinion is right, or that this opinion is wrong, beaucse that would be your opinion and you would be forcing it. Even saing things like "as long as they don't force there opinion" is forcing your opnion on people who want to force there opinion; How ironic!

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 7284341)

Where did race come from? From my comparison of the 40 years ago thing? How are they not different? You don't choose your skin color, and you don't choose your sexuality. For a long time, an African American couldn't marry a caucasian, or at least the places they could marry were not plentiful. During this time, the places a man can marry a man are very limited. I will acknowledge that race and sexuality are very different, yes, but they are still very similar, especially in that it's not something you choose.

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.

Mario The World Champion August 3rd, 2012 11:22 AM

Is this guy's comments his alone and do not reflect the individual views of the people who work at Chick-Fil-A?

Please answer this question for me. Do other people who work at that place share his views as well?

Esper August 3rd, 2012 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7284500)
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.

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.

Nihilego August 3rd, 2012 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario The World Champion (Post 7284523)
Is this guy's comments his alone and do not reflect the individual views of the people who work at Chick-Fil-A?

Please answer this question for me. Do other people who work at that place share his views as well?

Probably not. I don't really see how his views could reflect those of the entire company - it's not like they'll only hire people who are against gay marriage or something.

Are there actually sources that show that he gives to this charity supporting the death penalty for gays, by the way?

Oryx August 3rd, 2012 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor Leaf (Post 7284537)


Probably not. I don't really see how his views could reflect those of the entire company - it's not like they'll only hire people who are against gay marriage or something.

Are there actually sources that show that he gives to this charity supporting the death penalty for gays, by the way?

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.

Quote:

"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."

...

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

...

Bureon Ledbetter, Chick-fil-A's general counsel, says the company works hard to select people like Yokum, who "fit." "We want operators who support the values here," Ledbetter says.

Klippy August 3rd, 2012 12:05 PM

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.

Esper August 3rd, 2012 12:27 PM

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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers
prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation.

[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.

Mario The World Champion August 3rd, 2012 12:58 PM

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.

Oryx August 3rd, 2012 1:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario The World Champion (Post 7284613)
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 August 3rd, 2012 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284189)
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):

Quote:

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 August 3rd, 2012 1:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7284526)
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 August 3rd, 2012 2:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7284582)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scarf (Post 7284526)
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 August 3rd, 2012 3:43 PM

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]
Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7284690)
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 August 3rd, 2012 3:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7284751)


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 August 3rd, 2012 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7284310)
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.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Klippy (Post 7284564)
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 August 3rd, 2012 7:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7284562)


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7284641)


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7284751)


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7284500)
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 August 3rd, 2012 7:47 PM

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 August 3rd, 2012 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7285053)
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.

Quote:

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 August 4th, 2012 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7285053)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7285053)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NarutoActor (Post 7285053)
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 August 4th, 2012 7:53 AM

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

Dakotah August 4th, 2012 12:25 PM

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 August 4th, 2012 12:55 PM

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 August 4th, 2012 1:48 PM

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 August 4th, 2012 1:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7286356)
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 August 4th, 2012 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7286357)


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 August 4th, 2012 4:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7286419)

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 August 4th, 2012 6:13 PM

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 August 4th, 2012 6:18 PM

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.

Sydian August 4th, 2012 7:35 PM

Have you read anything in this thread?

Quote:

In addition, they donate to a group who spent money in support of the bill in Uganda that wants to make being gay punishable by death. That's what really pushed me over the edge on their policies to be honest.
It's in another country, but how Christian-like of him to support a bill that punishes people by death! And I could go on and on about the other organizations he donates to that oppress a group of people and why that's bad, but I'd just be beating a dead horse. I know I said I was done with this thread, but I had to say something here.

Oryx August 4th, 2012 7:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akio123 (Post 7286591)
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?

It's not about surprise. I know many, many Christians. Not a single one I know donates their money or time to anti-gay organizations. They may believe that gay marriage should remain illegal, but they don't do anything like that to support it. That's where the difference lies; if Cathy just believed it and voted for it, those are things that wouldn't change no matter what you did with Chick-Fil-A. You don't support them, they still vote how they feel. However, with donating money, if you don't support them, they have less money to donate. This is why people who claim it's about free speech are seeing the situation entirely wrong; it's about something that the public can actually make a difference in with their choice of not supporting CFA anymore.

Dakotah August 5th, 2012 5:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7286600)
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.

If he was using his money, no, no one would really care. But it's not HIS money that's being used. The money is coming from Chick-Fil-A's account. Not his own. The money is being given to these organizations on his company's behalf, not his own. That's the difference.

TRIFORCE89 August 5th, 2012 5:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7286667)


It's not about surprise. I know many, many Christians. Not a single one I know donates their money or time to anti-gay organizations. They may believe that gay marriage should remain illegal

We also may not.

Like sex before marriage or work on Sundays or anything else, not every Christian is stuck in the 1940s. Most I have met aren't. God created the universe and Jesus was a cool guy. Everything else is superfluous.

But if a private citizen or a private company wants to believe whatever they want to believe or support or whatever they want to support, they should be able to... with the obvious repercussions of that, especially if they put it out in the open, as we're seeing.

Like... I will support your right to be a vile hateful idiot, even if I completely disagree with you - which is the case here. Private people and private organization can do whatever they want so long as it isn't illegal. By all means try to change them, but it so isn't going to happen.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7287119)


If he was using his money, no, no one would really care. But it's not HIS money that's being used. The money is coming from Chick-Fil-A's account. Not his own. The money is being given to these organizations on his company's behalf, not his own. That's the difference.

How big is Chick-Fil-A?

Do they have shareholders?

Dakotah August 5th, 2012 8:57 AM

[FONT="Trebuchet MS"]
Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7287175)

How big is Chick-Fil-A?

Do they have shareholders?



Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company and has 1,614 restaurants in 39 states, and the District of Columbia.

TRIFORCE89 August 5th, 2012 9:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7287357)


Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company and has 1,614 restaurants in 39 states, and the District of Columbia.

Hmm...

This would be a much easier battle if there were shareholders. They might pressure a leadership change. That's too bad.

Is the making being gay illegal and the murder in Uganda claims legit? I'm not really following the story because we don't have these eateries here, so I don't care much... but whenever I see it mentioned in the media it's always just "He spoke out against gay marriage. Everyone else is now all huffy". The other stuff (which is horrible and a very valid reason for a boycott and force financial repercussions) I've only seen here. So, I'm somewhat suspicious.

Dakotah August 5th, 2012 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIFORCE89 (Post 7287365)

Hmm...

This would be a much easier battle if there were shareholders. They might pressure a leadership change. That's too bad.

Is the making being gay illegal and the murder in Uganda claims legit?

Yes. Tony Perkins, the president of one of the organizations that Chick-Fil-A donates to, the FRC (Family Research Council), has publicly stated on national TV that one of his organization's goals is to re-criminalize homosexuality. He stated that he believed the 2003 Supreme Court ruling that made anti-sodomy laws in the U.S. unconstitutional was, as he put it, "wrongly decided."

I offer this video (he states this opinion at the very end of the segment):



Bluerang1 August 5th, 2012 2:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 7286647)
Have you read anything in this thread?



It's in another country, but how Christian-like of him to support a bill that punishes people by death! And I could go on and on about the other organizations he donates to that oppress a group of people and why that's bad, but I'd just be beating a dead horse. I know I said I was done with this thread, but I had to say something here.

Yes, I made it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay_37040 (Post 7287119)


If he was using his money, no, no one would really care. But it's not HIS money that's being used. The money is coming from Chick-Fil-A's account. Not his own. The money is being given to these organizations on his company's behalf, not his own. That's the difference.

Which he owns. Of course it's horrid to support the killing of people but it's still his money.

Sydian August 5th, 2012 2:54 PM

Quote:

Yes, I made it.
Just because you made it doesn't mean you've read it.

Quote:

Which he owns. Of course it's horrid to support the killing of people but it's still his money.
I don't understand this logic. It's okay to give money, as long as it's yours, to negative causes? So it's okay for me to donate to Kony? It's okay for me to donate to the KKK? As long as it's my money? Awesome. I'll remember that when I get my paycheck this week. And it's already been pointed out that he's not using his money.

He may own CFA, but if it's coming out of the company's money on the company's behalf, not his own, then it's not him.

Quote:

If he was using his money, no, no one would really care. But it's not HIS money that's being used. The money is coming from Chick-Fil-A's account. Not his own. The money is being given to these organizations on his company's behalf, not his own. That's the difference.

Keiran August 5th, 2012 3:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7287674)
Of course it's horrid to support the killing of people but it's still his money.

So you're saying his actions are okay because he's just another rich white man who believes his money is superior to the welfare of innocent people.

Gotcha. :)

Nihilego August 5th, 2012 3:11 PM

This thread's starting to get ratty. Again. Livewire's left a warning in here already and I'm about to leave another one - please think before posting. This is a bit heated, and I'm ok with that, but things have to stay respectful. I've warned people in this thread already and I won't hesitate to hand out infractions and close the whole thing if necessary. Please be sure to post respectfully or don't post at all before stuff gets out of hand, which would be a real shame since it's provoked some interesting discussion up to now.

Thanks.

droomph August 6th, 2012 6:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7287674)
it's horrid to support the killing of people

He's Christian, am I right? So here is the contradiction:

God is love, Jesus is love, the Holy Spirit is love, the Trinity is love. God is love, among other things. He is contradicting himself when he supports the killing of homosexuality, no, anyone, and when he isn't embracing any group of people. I am ashamed to call myself a Christian in front of the world and the Internet because of people like him.

He is the minority - the majority of Christians are disgusted by him and people like him. It is a fact that we are, because whether you are Lutheran or Calvinist, Catholic or Protestant, if you have even read the Bible you should know that God loves the sinners, and that Jesus didn't hang out with the righteous people, but rather the prostitutes and the homeless and the downcasts of society. It's not just horrid, but absolutely confounding, confusing, crazy, outrageous, and wrong to support the killing of any group of people (much less the gays), especially if you're Christian.

(To people who still want to read on:)
Spoiler:


Homosexuality is no more a sin than lying, than any other sin. So if we were
to ban homosexuality, we need to also ban swearing, lying, promiscuous behavior
(like one-night stands, which are legal as far as I know), and every other lie
in the world. Would it be a very fun world? No. Why? Because you are naturally
going to sin. Deal with it, Jesus has saved us for a reason. He has come here to
help us overcome that natural tendency to sin, and so thus becoming holy
and one with God.





There are some homosexual people who love Christ more than some straight
people. It isn't a matter of what you do, but that you accept Christ as your
savior, and through communion with him you shall be cleansed and be more like
God. It isn't the job of Man to cleanse the sinful - our job is to merely be
present for God and be present to where he wants to affect someone. We shouldn't
take the job of God; it's much too powerful and demanding for us to accomplish,
and it wasn't the intent of God anyways, so you will be punished for your pride
unless you repent. We are all the same useless and worthless contaminated water.
We will always fall short of the glory of the Lord, unless we are helped by
him.





So by the same idea, we should embrace each other as if we were all worthless
and sinners and liars and worthy of eternal hell to the ninth power, and accept
everyone to seek God's grace like we have so that they would enjoy
the joyous (though not carefree) life that we look for in Christ.
For Heaven is not an exclusive night-club; it is an open bar, happy hour, free
drinks, and everything you've ever wished for in the back room, and unlimited
space to party and with the best DJ you've ever heard, but twice as better, and
has every song you have ever heard, and more, and will openly accept your
request.





Even that comparison, however, is only dirt compared to the glory of our Lord
and the glory of Heaven. So why should we keep gay people out, simply because
they committed a sin so small Christ would simply brush away when they enter his
Kingdom?





tl;dr Atheists and non-believers and all the most horrible and evil people in the
world, we invite you over to our party.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7287674)
but it's still his money.

He used Chik-Fil-A's account, as was said by Sydian. If he used his own money, it would be marginally more acceptable to me (and most other people) to support the killing (however indirect) of other people. But he hasn't, so it's our money he's spending to kill gay people. And if it's my money, I should have a say on all $5.99 of it. And I'm sure many people (if not all) feel the same.

TRIFORCE89 August 6th, 2012 6:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7289200)
He is the minority - the majority of Christians are disgusted by him and people like him.

Thank you *high fives* Also, I'd add... if you act that way, then you're not a Christian purely out of contradiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7289200)
He used Chik-Fil-A's account, as was said by Sydian. If he used his own money, it would be marginally more acceptable to me (and most other people) to support the killing (however indirect) of other people. But he hasn't, so it's our money he's spending to kill gay people. And if it's my money, I should have a say on all $5.99 of it. And I'm sure many people (if not all) feel the same.

It's not your money. If this was a government or a publicly-funded corporation of some kind, then it would be your money. This is a private company

It also isn't publicly traded. It is a privately held and family owned company. Cathy is CEO. Heck, they don't even franchise in the traditional way. They own most of their locations, which is not the case with McDonald's for example. It is his company and ultimately his money, not your money, or my money, or anyone else's. Once you have exchanged your hard earned cash for the chicken - the chicken is your's, and the money is their's. That is how the transaction works. It is your money until you give it to someone else. So, boycott so that you don't give him more. Makes perfect sense. But you don't really have a say in what they do with it once it is no longer your possession.

Does that justify him? No, probably not. But it isn't your money. I wish people would freak out when their own money is misspent by elected officials rather than focus on what individuals do with their own money.

If you're selling lemonade, and I've bought some from you and I'm a happy customer, you have that money. Then I find out, you're abusive to your dog. I don't come anymore because I don't want to support you further. But if you use the money gave you before to further punish your dog, well tough. I can't ask for my money back.

Bluerang1 August 6th, 2012 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by droomph (Post 7289200)
He's Christian, am I right? So here is the contradiction:

God is love, Jesus is love, the Holy Spirit is love, the Trinity is love. God is love, among other things. He is contradicting himself when he supports the killing of homosexuality, no, anyone, and when he isn't embracing any group of people. I am ashamed to call myself a Christian in front of the world and the Internet because of people like him.

He is the minority - the majority of Christians are disgusted by him and people like him. It is a fact that we are, because whether you are Lutheran or Calvinist, Catholic or Protestant, if you have even read the Bible you should know that God loves the sinners, and that Jesus didn't hang out with the righteous people, but rather the prostitutes and the homeless and the downcasts of society. It's not just horrid, but absolutely confounding, confusing, crazy, outrageous, and wrong to support the killing of any group of people (much less the gays), especially if you're Christian.

Well definitely but that may still be a generalization.

Also, Jesus hung out with sinners so that they could repent. Which is what some of Cathy's money goes to, the reformation of homosexuals as that's what he believes in.

I would like to see evidence that he donates money to causes that kill people.

Sydian August 6th, 2012 8:48 PM

Quote:

I would like to see evidence that he donates money to causes that kill people.
It was a few pages back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toujours (Post 7284562)


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.


Right here.

Shining Raichu August 7th, 2012 3:40 AM

The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is that it works both ways. Legally, everybody has the right to say whatever they want. So yes, this company has every right to publicly oppose gay marriage. Then we, in turn, have every right to publicly lambast them as shameful bigots. That, my friends, is how it should be. It's where the real fun starts :P

Nobody should have their right to free speech legally stripped away. They should deal with the consequences in the public and social spheres; it's so much sweeter that way. I'd rather everything be out on the table so everybody knows exactly where everybody stands. I'd much rather Chick-Fil-A (or any company, for that matter) come forth and state they're against gay marriage rather than have them secretly be against gay marriage and be taking my money and using it to fund their world view.

droomph August 7th, 2012 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluerang1 (Post 7289369)
Well definitely but that may still be a generalization.

Also, Jesus hung out with sinners so that they could repent. Which is what some of Cathy's money goes to, the reformation of homosexuals as that's what he believes in.

I would like to see evidence that he donates money to causes that kill people.

Well maybe you're the minority I'm talking about. It's not a generalization because it is in the core beliefs of Christianity to embrace everyone and show them the power and mercy of Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. So it should be evident that most of us, if not all, should be disgusted by the organization, if not Cathy's, actions against gay marriage.

But Cathy is not Jesus or God, so let the power of Christ compel them on their own. The only duty of the ones in Christ, no matter how rich or poor, sinful or holy, is to spread his word in the way that everyone can hear the joy of the gift of God's grace. There is no need to force them to reform; that is God's job, and tbh He does a much better job than Cathy or the (any, for that matter) organization ever will. You know not to mini-mod on PC, right? That is the same here. Press the "report" button and let whatever wrath you have fall in a fantasy that does not affect them. It seems to be working for me, at least.

Spread the message, don't let it be held back. Tell the gays and pro-abortionists that they're loved on the same level that He loves the Pope, Martin Luther, Paul of Tarsus, and everyone else. No need to reform them; that's a sin in itself, to hurt others.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Shining Raichu (Post 7289738)
The wonderful thing about freedom of speech is that it works both ways. Legally, everybody has the right to say whatever they want. So yes, this company has every right to publicly oppose gay marriage. Then we, in turn, have every right to publicly lambast them as shameful bigots. That, my friends, is how it should be. It's where the real fun starts :P

Nobody should have their right to free speech legally stripped away. They should deal with the consequences in the public and social spheres; it's so much sweeter that way. I'd rather everything be out on the table so everybody knows exactly where everybody stands. I'd much rather Chick-Fil-A (or any company, for that matter) come forth and state they're against gay marriage rather than have them secretly be against gay marriage and be taking my money and using it to fund their world view.

The problem here is not freedom of speech - it's the support of the killing (though indirect) of gay people. And as a Christian who has gone far enough to make his restaurant chain follow the gospel of Christ he should know better.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Sydian (Post 7289374)


It was a few pages back.



Right here.

To deny anyone money, a job, or anything, simply over who they are is the worst thing you can do as a Christian. This is the opposite of the Gospel, and you call yourself a Christian?!

Bluerang1 August 14th, 2012 6:07 PM

Well I see all your points of view. Chick Fil A continue to present a friendly and excellent customer service whenever I go there and I hope they do not discriminate.

I've learned from your posts, the Christian posters anyway, not to judge/discriminate against others even if you do not agree with their lifestyle, which is a given anyway.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:16 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.