Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[LGBT]: Bigots can go eat a bag of [Chick-Fil-A]

19394969899101

Posts

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    I stopped eating anything from CFA when I heard about this whole thing sophomore year of college. Three years later, and I still haven't set foot in one.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Well, only 40-odd years of lobbying and voting democratic before it became politically feasible to support it, sure.

    Outside of the 24 hour news cycle and looking at other social movements. I'd say taking 40 years is pretty quick.

    For serious. Took black people 400 years and we're still only sort of there.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    But then you have white knights going and doing extra to support, overturning any negative impact.

    Well, we've already established that CFA is bad for you, so if people who support it go out of their way to eat it more, wouldn't this be a self-correcting problem?

    I mean, in a coldly crass sort of fashion.

    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • GodfatherGodfather Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Well, only 40-odd years of lobbying and voting democratic before it became politically feasible to support it, sure.

    Outside of the 24 hour news cycle and looking at other social movements. I'd say taking 40 years is pretty quick.

    For serious. Took black people 400 years and we're still only sort of there.

    That's not what The Boondocks told me!

    0WBv0.png
  • AtomikaAtomika technology is your dickfist Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    Well, Truett Cathy is 91 years old.

    We can probably win this one by attrition.

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    Mill wrote: »
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    Well, only 40-odd years of lobbying and voting democratic before it became politically feasible to support it, sure.

    Outside of the 24 hour news cycle and looking at other social movements. I'd say taking 40 years is pretty quick.

    For serious. Took black people 400 years and we're still only sort of there.

    That's not really the same sort of struggle, nor is it really fair to make a comparison to an entirely different era in history. If I were to do the same, I'd have to point out that since the fall of the greco-roman empires homosexuality has been violently policed for the last 1800 or so years, way longer than white europeans started buying black slaves, not "quick" by any stretch of the imagination.

    But again, they're not really good comparisons.

  • XobyteXobyte Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    What's the point of this question? It lasts as long as each individual boycotting wants it to last. And the conditions are going to be different for every person. For some, Dan Cathy no longer donating his money to hate groups will be enough. For others, it will require a complete reversal of corporate policy and leadership.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    It is a good comparison. Look at Women or Blacks and how long their struggles took from "start of X rights movement" to "real national acceptance" and the gay rights movement is making very steady, very speedy progress.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    Forever?

    This ain't Lent. "Not Eating at CFA and telling other people about the horrible shit they support" is not hard to do or keep up.

  • ThejakemanThejakeman Registered User
    shryke wrote: »
    It is a good comparison. Look at Women or Blacks and how long their struggles took from "start of X rights movement" to "real national acceptance" and the gay rights movement is making very steady, very speedy progress.

    No, it's not a good comparison because it ignores all socio-cultural context and the overall scope of each movement. It also assumes there's some sort of endgame for each movement and that lgbt is going to have real national acceptance just because women can marry women.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    CasablancaRenaultRick_sm.jpg

    "I am shocked, shocked!, that a Christian-owned chain of fast food restaurants that closes on Sunday isn't pro-gay!"


    Seriously, though, this isn't very surprising. I've never eaten at a Chick-Fil-A (the one time I drove by one happened to be a Sunday, and, having never heard of the brand before, imagine my surprise to see it not open. A fast food chain that doesn't want my money? Fuck 'em. After that, I never bothered to go to one again.), but these types of actions are par for the course for these groups.

  • TenekTenek Registered User regular
    Fred Clark has an interesting post on the Chik-Fil-A confusion:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/07/30/stance-vs-substance-why-evangelicals-are-confused-about-the-actual-harm-chik-fil-a-is-doing-to-actual-people/
    Thus, for another example, we see ordained minister and Fox commentator Mike Huckabee asserting that LGBT customers are upset with Chik-fil-A “because the CEO, Dan Cathy, made comments recently in which he affirmed his view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.”

    Yes, Dan Cathy recently reaffirmed his views and his stance. That’s old news. The new news — the news that has led to calls for boycotts of Chik-fil-A — is that Cathy and his company are bankrolling political groups in an effort to deny other people the right to marry and to deny them the right not to be fired because of who they are.

    Pretty damn consistent with those Facebook images from a page or two back, too, all of which missed the point about funding FRC & friends.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Thejakeman wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    It is a good comparison. Look at Women or Blacks and how long their struggles took from "start of X rights movement" to "real national acceptance" and the gay rights movement is making very steady, very speedy progress.

    No, it's not a good comparison because it ignores all socio-cultural context and the overall scope of each movement. It also assumes there's some sort of endgame for each movement and that lgbt is going to have real national acceptance just because women can marry women.

    What, pray tell, does it ignore?

    The whole point is 40 odd years from start of equal rights movement to large scale acceptance is pretty damn good.

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »

    I don't think there's confusion. At least no more than those people who think Mitt Romney and his ilk won't do what they say they want to do because "No one really acts that way." I think it's more some form of cognitive dissonance combine with a hugely gross lack of empathy.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »

    I don't think there's confusion. At least no more than those people who think Mitt Romney and his ilk won't do what they say they want to do because "No one really acts that way." I think it's more some form of cognitive dissonance combine with a hugely gross lack of empathy.

    There's confusion. At least, anecdotally, I can say there's a lot of confusion in my local congregation on this point.

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »

    I don't think there's confusion. At least no more than those people who think Mitt Romney and his ilk won't do what they say they want to do because "No one really acts that way." I think it's more some form of cognitive dissonance combine with a hugely gross lack of empathy.

    There's confusion. At least, anecdotally, I can say there's a lot of confusion in my local congregation on this point.

    Then color me scratching my head. People confused over a group that hates gays and pulls Muppets toys over it and the concept of that group putting its money where its mouth is is like being confused over going to the manure factory and it smelling like shit.

  • Gandalf_the_CrazedGandalf_the_Crazed Vigilo ConfidoRegistered User regular
    Tenek wrote: »

    I don't think there's confusion. At least no more than those people who think Mitt Romney and his ilk won't do what they say they want to do because "No one really acts that way." I think it's more some form of cognitive dissonance combine with a hugely gross lack of empathy.

    There's confusion. At least, anecdotally, I can say there's a lot of confusion in my local congregation on this point.

    Then color me scratching my head. People confused over a group that hates gays and pulls Muppets toys over it and the concept of that group putting its money where its mouth is is like being confused over going to the manure factory and it smelling like shit.

    Well the media seems to be pushing the narrative that it's about his comments (instead of his donations), so their confusion is at least understandable -- it would be ridiculous to boycott a business over something the owner said, and that's what they're being told is happening.

    I can only explain it to so many people at once. :P

    PEUsig_zps56da03ec.jpg
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Sadly the media narrative is winning. My mom who is reasonably intelligent and despises the GOP has been incensed by the story and I've tried explaining to her that his comments aren't the issue, it's who he's donating money to.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    I still think trying to control where every dollar you own goes is a futile effort. I don't believe that bank owners and speculators should be rewarded for their abominable behavior in the last decade, but I still have a savings account.

    Look into Credit Unions.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    My parents were both under the impression it was over his comments. I informed them otherwise. At that point, the boycott made much more rational sense to them, even though they're still on Chik-fil-a's side (they're both very conservative). Before, they thought the boycotters were ridiculous and inflammatory to boycott over some remarks. Now they understand for the most part (my Dad's still a little "How dumb is it to boycott someone who disagrees" while still being very "I'm not shopping at Target now that they've got gay wedding cards." *Sigh*) since it's not about the founder's comments, but about where corporate money is being donated. So the framing that the boycott is over Cathy's comments is very effective and is, indeed, causing confusion and making the boycotters look slightly unhinged.

  • HallowedFaithHallowedFaith Call me Cloud. Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    You realize none of that matters to them, right? They're pissed that they don't get to have everything all the time forever anymore. Suddenly American Christians aren't the full-stop arbiters of all that is good and just in our society, and like any majority group that has to deal with falling from the grace of moral and political supremacy they are losing their shit.

    Semi-religious rant.
    Jesus predicted the hypocrites would come. That they would prophesy in his name and that they would abuse the teachings to fill their own life with treasures - abusing the natural trust and humility of men who trust in good and righteousness. By the fruits of their work you will know them he said. It is unfortunate that they take on the title of "christian" so that anyone who believes in the teachings is suddenly crammed into the same box with them. Not for matters of the ego mind you, but because they are constantly called on to defend their own faith due to the terrible choices of those who invoke his name for their own plans.

    Sadly, I find that few read what they are reading, in fact many - if not most, are told how to read or simply read to. You'll find men who have the entire book memorized but struggle to find meaning. Such a shame. They know the words written in the book but they have no idea what they mean. I surely don't claim to have all the answers, but when you consider the message of "Do everything in love" shines brighter than anything from its pages, I am just astonished at the power of a mans ego, and the power of greed that motivates them - enough to blind them to the very truth right in front of their eyes.

    If anything, I have pity for them. I am sad for them, for anyone really, who believes that enforcing your own understanding of God on people as if they SPEAK for him is something that is actually going to warrant them an eternal kingdom. They are no different than the very pharisees that were around when Yeshua walked the earth. I welcome a time when they are no longer able to enforce their misguided beliefs onto people, and people will find their own way, but I would die having completed nothing on this planet if I waited for that day to come.

    People think it is so hard to "find ways to help people." Some think they have to go out and do it on purpose but yet that takes away from living your own life and experiencing the greatness of the world while you can. So focused on their goal, they don't see the suffering of the man right next door and they are so loud that they can't hear the cries of the children around them. They claim to wish greatness for the world and believe they are speaking on behalf of a divinity they have never faced, but they are so inwardly focused they fail to see the abilities they have and those who are in need of them right inside their own home and right outside their door. Such a sad waste. Can't see the forest for the trees.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that there are lot of people out there taking a very wonderful and simple idea and turning into fuel for their own gains, and that is not what it is about. Please do not assume we are all like that, although I can understand a persons position to assume so.

    The fact that there is even an argument of whether or not two people can love each other is beyond the scope of my frustrations. There is no excuse to deny anyone their right to love. Ever.
    My door is forever open to any living being which seeks comfort and when the day finally arrives that this nation has made the right choice, I will celebrate with you in the streets. I will welcome you home to America. A place that should represent the ideals of equal favor with or without religious coloring.

    We need some more love here... ;)

    HallowedFaith on
    I'm making video games. DesignBy.Cloud
  • maximumzeromaximumzero I...wait, what? New Orleans, LARegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    I disagree with CFA's stance on Gay Marriage, but I don't think Boston or Chicago should have right to stop them from doing business in their towns.

    Free speech exists for a reason. Let the customers decide that they don't want to give the business to CFA and the locations in those areas won't last long anyway.

    maximumzero on
    FU7kFbw.png
    Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
    N1tSt4lker
  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    I'm sorry, but why is it ridiculous to boycott CFA just because of the comments of the owner? He said some very horribly bigoted things about homosexuals. That's not cool, right?

    i mean, what if he said that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry or that women shouldn't be able to vote. Would that be bad enough that it is okay to say, "fuck that guy and his company?" I get that there are still a ton of anti-homosexual bigots in this country, but that doesn't mean we should send in the rhetorical white flag when we are fundamentally right.

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    I disagree with CFA's stance on Gay Marriage, but I don't think Boston or Chicago should have right to stop them from doing business in their towns.

    Free speech exists for a reason. Let the customers decide that they don't want to give the business to CFA and the locations in those areas won't last long anyway.

    You might be surprised, but city governments actually have quite a lot of legal ways to restrict what types of businesses are allowed to setup up shop (see zoning laws). Now we can discuss whether zoning laws are a breach of free speech and/or whether they apply in this situation, but they are currently legal and show that a Mayor/City council do have means to block undesirable businesses. For me, as long as the mayors don't do something illegal to achieve their goal, they are perfectly welcome to say that they don't want X business to enter their community. Or does the First Amendment only apply to CFA? Mayor's aren't allowed to voice their opinions?

    Bandable on
  • HallowedFaithHallowedFaith Call me Cloud. Registered User regular
    Freedom is a double-edge sword with the sharpest of blades.

    We honestly can't expect everyone to have the same opinion and you can't honestly expect everyone who shares the same opinion to share the same way of handling their grievance with that opinion. This argument would never come to an end because what is right/wrong to someone is not the same to someone else, even though both parties may be defending the very same thing.

    He has a right to say what he said. People will view it as either one mans opinion, or the opinion of an entire company or even an entire religion!
    CFA has every right to place their business where they want.
    People have the right not to shop there.
    People have the right to gather in protest either against or for it.
    People have the right to kick their ass out.
    Elected officials have the right to speak out against targeted entities that may cause disruption or problems within their community.

    The subject matter doesn't really come into play when you consider that "everyone" is exercising their rights. And yes, it gets ugly. Look at all the diverse opinions here. Choosing to recognize the struggles we deal with a free nation/society is not so much sending in the white flag, it's about humility and grace in even the most absurd denials of human liberty. We can't cast off any and all issues just because the one we feel is such an atrocity that the world should stop and focus solely on it.

    In my humble opinion, there are a lot more people that made that company what it is by hard and honest work that it seems unfair to loop them all into one opinion voiced by a single man. He should be directly held accountable for his words, not the thousands of people under him who are living paycheck to paycheck to feed their kids. It's no ideal, I know - but we should try and remain humble, graceful, and open-minded before lighting the torches and grabbing the pitch forks, staying focused on the issue. But then again, that is just my thoughts on the matter and I am only one man myself.

    I'm making video games. DesignBy.Cloud
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    The Onion has more hilarity on the Sandwich front.

    Wendy's Wants Consumers To Know It's Fine With Gays, Disapproves Of Interracial Marriage
    DUBLIN, OH—Responding to Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy's recent controversial admission of the company's donations to antigay groups, a statement from competing fast food chain Wendy’s let consumers know Monday that it has long supported same-sex couples and only harbors strong objections to interracial marriage. "It's important that Wendy’s customers know our restaurant proudly stands by the right of all Americans to marry whomever they choose, so long as it isn't someone of a different race,” said spokeswoman Jenna Knox, adding that while Wendy’s has always backed pro-gay legislation, it found miscegenation "an abominable offense to God’s will." "Just like our founder Dave Thomas, we dream of living in an America where two loving people of the same sex can freely wed, provided of course that both people are also of the same race, and that no black, Asian, Latin American, or other non-European heritage is allowed to de-purify the white racial bloodline." Following the Wendy’s statement, executives from Jack in the Box confirmed that they too had always supported gay rights and the Holocaust never happened.

    The concept that each fast food chain has one terrible thing they believe in, and that they are all different, makes me giggle so damn much.

    steam_sig.png
  • SmoogySmoogy Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    Forever?

    This ain't Lent. "Not Eating at CFA and telling other people about the horrible shit they support" is not hard to do or keep up.

    If you've ever actually eaten there, I doubt you'd be singing this tune ;)
    Bandable wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but why is it ridiculous to boycott CFA just because of the comments of the owner? He said some very horribly bigoted things about homosexuals. That's not cool, right?

    i mean, what if he said that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry or that women shouldn't be able to vote. Would that be bad enough that it is okay to say, "fuck that guy and his company?" I get that there are still a ton of anti-homosexual bigots in this country, but that doesn't mean we should send in the rhetorical white flag when we are fundamentally right.

    I would say that I don't give a crap about what he/she says as long as the product they put out is good.

    In the grand scheme of things, this whole Chick-fil-a brouhaha is really not very important, but people are latching on to it instead of confronting real issues. This goes for fanatic LGBT-rights people, mayors, the media, etc. I think there are more important things people could be spending their time on than a CEO who has made no secret that he believes in traditional Christian values (Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays, duh) and donated $1,000 to an SLPC-defined hate group (The Family Research Council). Ya'll are making a huge stink over $1,000.

    Smoogy-1689
    3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
    PAD ID: 376,540,262

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Ah yes, the old "this isn't really important, there are serious problems in the world" card. Also, I have eaten Chik-Fil-A, and I have no problem with not eating their food until this policy changes, so that part of your post is also stupid.

  • SmoogySmoogy Registered User regular
    Not serious problems in the world generally; I was directly referring to serious problems related to the gay community. If you show me one person who was denied service from Chick-fil-a or discriminated against in any way for being homosexual, then I'd say this is an issue worth discussing. However, you can't so it isn't.

    Smoogy-1689
    3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
    PAD ID: 376,540,262

  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    Bandable wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but why is it ridiculous to boycott CFA just because of the comments of the owner? He said some very horribly bigoted things about homosexuals. That's not cool, right?

    i mean, what if he said that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry or that women shouldn't be able to vote. Would that be bad enough that it is okay to say, "fuck that guy and his company?" I get that there are still a ton of anti-homosexual bigots in this country, but that doesn't mean we should send in the rhetorical white flag when we are fundamentally right.

    I would find it a bit over-the-top mainly because what the owner says doesn't represent what managers or franchise owners think, do, and say. It doesn't necessarily represent corporate policy or where corporate money goes. Having corporate money (not just money from the owner's pocket, but money from the corporate budget) go to marginalizing causes becomes a company-wide issue that shows it's not just about saying goosey things, it's about actively funding goosey causes. I should clarify that I'm speaking specifically of vocal, nation-wide boycotts, not just "I heard so-and-so say this thing and that really rubs me the wrong way, so I'm not going there anymore" personal boycotts. Disclaimer: I'm not a big boycotting type person, anyway, which informs my perception of motivations for boycotts, I'm sure. This is largely because a lot of boycotts I've witnessed have seemed permeated with drama-queen attitudes (across the ideological board), and because I get tired of the "Look how dumb they are for boycotting that company I think is doing the right thing--Oh that company is doing a terrible thing: boycott them!" attitudes. I make personal choices to support businesses that do things I agree with when I can and avoid ones that don't when I'm able, but I'm not big on the organized boycott scene, so I will admit to having a more critical view of boycotts over what someone said that over what someone is actively doing.

    Also, CNN's current search result on Google on the issue frames it in light of free speech, adding to ignoring the corporate donations issue.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Just because SPLC doesn't call AFA a hate group doesn't mean I can't consider it a hate group.

    Ya'll are making a huge stink over a fast food chicken sandwich.

    Burtletoy on
  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure Brian Fischer qualifies as a hate group by himself....

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Smoogy wrote: »
    Not serious problems in the world generally; I was directly referring to serious problems related to the gay community. If you show me one person who was denied service from Chick-fil-a or discriminated against in any way for being homosexual, then I'd say this is an issue worth discussing. However, you can't so it isn't.

    Ummmm, 'pray away the gay' is a huge issue in the gay community right now.

    AFA and others that recieved donations from Chick-fil-a perpetuate that idea.

    ergo...

  • SniperGuySniperGuy Also known as Dohaeris Registered User regular
    Smoogy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    Forever?

    This ain't Lent. "Not Eating at CFA and telling other people about the horrible shit they support" is not hard to do or keep up.

    If you've ever actually eaten there, I doubt you'd be singing this tune ;)

    You're silly. I went to Catholic school. We got a break in the morning during which they sold Chik-Fil-A biscuits for 2 bucks. Every day. I probably had one a week or so. This was many years before I knew about their rather firm stance on the whole "can't let dudes get married, no siree" and thus I haven't touched chik-fil-a in years. I even drive by one every day on my way to work. It's literally across the street. I've said "Man, that chicken was good way back when" a few times, but my desire to go there is immediately crushed by my desire for us to not be shitty humans. I'll gladly go get a biscuit again when they change their stance and admit their mistakes.

    Twitch Streaming T/W/TH and more
    Dohaeris210 on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
    Me on Steam
    MalReynolds
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    N1tSt4lker wrote: »
    Bandable wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but why is it ridiculous to boycott CFA just because of the comments of the owner? He said some very horribly bigoted things about homosexuals. That's not cool, right?

    i mean, what if he said that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry or that women shouldn't be able to vote. Would that be bad enough that it is okay to say, "fuck that guy and his company?" I get that there are still a ton of anti-homosexual bigots in this country, but that doesn't mean we should send in the rhetorical white flag when we are fundamentally right.

    I would find it a bit over-the-top mainly because...

    Eating different fast food is an "over the top" reaction? Shit, I've chosen one fast food place over another because I didn't like their damb logo, let alone for actively supporting bigotry. There are roughly a hundred jillion places to buy fast food. The opportunity cost of chosing this one over that one is basically "yeah I like their salt shakers better I guess". Given that there more places to buy fried chicken than there are people called Chan in China, it takes less effort to boycott one particular one than it does to throw the wrapper in the bin after you've eaten.

  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    Freedom is a double-edge sword with the sharpest of blades.

    We honestly can't expect everyone to have the same opinion and you can't honestly expect everyone who shares the same opinion to share the same way of handling their grievance with that opinion. This argument would never come to an end because what is right/wrong to someone is not the same to someone else, even though both parties may be defending the very same thing.

    He has a right to say what he said. People will view it as either one mans opinion, or the opinion of an entire company or even an entire religion!
    CFA has every right to place their business where they want.
    People have the right not to shop there.
    People have the right to gather in protest either against or for it.
    People have the right to kick their ass out.
    Elected officials have the right to speak out against targeted entities that may cause disruption or problems within their community.

    The subject matter doesn't really come into play when you consider that "everyone" is exercising their rights. And yes, it gets ugly. Look at all the diverse opinions here. Choosing to recognize the struggles we deal with a free nation/society is not so much sending in the white flag, it's about humility and grace in even the most absurd denials of human liberty. We can't cast off any and all issues just because the one we feel is such an atrocity that the world should stop and focus solely on it.

    In my humble opinion, there are a lot more people that made that company what it is by hard and honest work that it seems unfair to loop them all into one opinion voiced by a single man. He should be directly held accountable for his words, not the thousands of people under him who are living paycheck to paycheck to feed their kids. It's no ideal, I know - but we should try and remain humble, graceful, and open-minded before lighting the torches and grabbing the pitch forks, staying focused on the issue. But then again, that is just my thoughts on the matter and I am only one man myself.

    No they don't. For example, no matter how much they may want to put a franchise in my kitchen, they in fact don't have a right to do that. Nit-picking? Sure, but I am pointing out the people who keep saying this are also missing the point that communities have plenty of legal avenues regarding what type of businesses they allow in their community. Voicing their displeasure is the cheapest and easiest, but far from the only.

    And I'm sorry, but Cathy doesn't get to hold his company hostage to his bigotry. You are basically saying that by boycotting CFA I am starving all the poor people who work for him. That's nonsense, and puts me in the dilemma of having to either hurt poor people or give my business to a bigot. That's a false choice.

    Bottom line, Cathy is a bigot, and you fight bigotry through soft pressure of making said bigotry socially and financially unacceptable.

  • SmoogySmoogy Registered User regular
    Chick-fil-a didn't donate to AFA, unless you have different information than this, which is of course plausible as I didn't exhaustively search what groups Chick-fil-a supposedly donated to:

    Equality Matters

    Smoogy-1689
    3DS Friend Code: 1821-8991-4141
    PAD ID: 376,540,262

  • N1tSt4lkerN1tSt4lker Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    No, I said I was specifically talking about an organized, vocal, national boycott, not just a person choosing one over another.

    I also gave a disclaimer as to why my opinion is admittedly cynical about boycotts anyway.

    N1tSt4lker on
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Smoogy wrote: »
    Chick-fil-a didn't donate to AFA, unless you have different information than this, which is of course plausible as I didn't exhaustively search what groups Chick-fil-a supposedly donated to:

    Equality Matters

    You're right. These guys are so much better than AFA.
    Opposing Homosexual Behavior as a Protected Class | Every year there are efforts in Virginia to add homosexuality to the list of protected classes in non-discrimination laws. This is not only unnecessary, as no evidence of discrimination exists, but has potential negative ramifications on religious liberty.

    Yup that totally isn't a big issue for gay rights. Better buys me a fucking chicken sandwich filled with copious levels of salt fat and msg.

    Edit: Oh yeah, and also filled with bigotry. Can't forget that one.

    Burtletoy on
  • BandableBandable Registered User regular
    Smoogy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Boycotting isn't just about you not going, it's about being part of a movement of people not going in order to send a public message about what is and is not acceptable.

    And it can be quite effective.

    How long is your boycott of CFA going to last? A month? Until a new owner comes along?

    Forever?

    This ain't Lent. "Not Eating at CFA and telling other people about the horrible shit they support" is not hard to do or keep up.

    If you've ever actually eaten there, I doubt you'd be singing this tune ;)
    Bandable wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but why is it ridiculous to boycott CFA just because of the comments of the owner? He said some very horribly bigoted things about homosexuals. That's not cool, right?

    i mean, what if he said that blacks and whites shouldn't be allowed to marry or that women shouldn't be able to vote. Would that be bad enough that it is okay to say, "fuck that guy and his company?" I get that there are still a ton of anti-homosexual bigots in this country, but that doesn't mean we should send in the rhetorical white flag when we are fundamentally right.

    I would say that I don't give a crap about what he/she says as long as the product they put out is good.

    In the grand scheme of things, this whole Chick-fil-a brouhaha is really not very important, but people are latching on to it instead of confronting real issues. This goes for fanatic LGBT-rights people, mayors, the media, etc. I think there are more important things people could be spending their time on than a CEO who has made no secret that he believes in traditional Christian values (Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays, duh) and donated $1,000 to an SLPC-defined hate group (The Family Research Council). Ya'll are making a huge stink over $1,000.

    Well, I would say you are pretty ignorant of the harm people making bigoted statements like this does to the targeted minority. But go on, please tell me how much of a crybaby I am for finding Cathy's opinion on who I can and can't marry disgusting. Fanatic gay people indeed, as if letting people call you sub-human should be to default position, and showing any outrage at all makes you nuts.

This discussion has been closed.