Chick-Fil-A (restaurant chain) Controversy

[droomph]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Mana1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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. https://www.theopinionatednation.co...ck-fil-a-appreciation-day-it-really-shook-me/

 

[Bluerang1]

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.

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]

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.

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:

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:

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

 

[Sydian]

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]

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?