Chick-Fil-A (restaurant chain) Controversy

[Dakotah]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
https://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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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. :(

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

"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]

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]

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:

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]

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.