How dare you spend your money at the hate spewing bigot Chick-Fil-a!

This whole controversy just epitomizes why I have an issue with the whole gay rights thing. Don’t get me wrong I could care less if people are gay but I don’t get the whole, “You must accept me”, mentality. By protesting any person or thing that has a different opinion than them they are becoming intolerant themselves. I don’t care who you are or what you believe you are not going to be accepted by everyone. Get over yourself!

Perhaps you can educate me on what the "gay rights thing" is exactly.

I have never asked anyone to accept me.

What I have asked is that the hurdles that keep me from enjoying the same aspects of American life as heterosexuals be removed.

Protesting Chick-Fil-a's opinion doesn't get the activists closer to that goal, it makes them intolerant.

I kind of understand wanting the government to accept a gay marriage, I guess that's the only part of it I get.

IMAGE(http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/chick-fil-a-protestors__oPt.jpg)
This, I don't get.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

Protesting Chick-Fil-a's opinion doesn't get the activists closer to that goal, it makes them intolerant.

I kind of understand wanting the government to accept a gay marriage, I guess that's the only part of it I get.

IMAGE(http://img.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/chick-fil-a-protestors__oPt.jpg)
This, I don't get.

You don't get that people don't want companies to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation? Or that they want to complain when companies do?
They're not so much protesting the fact that the owner doesn't like gays, they're protesting the fact that he's donating heavily to anti-gay marriage campaigns. Buying food at Chick-fil-a gives him more money to donate, and they're hoping that the average person will take this into account and opt not to give him more.

Stengah wrote:

You don't get that people don't want companies to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation? Or that they want to complain when companies do?
They're not so much protesting the fact that the owner doesn't like gays, they're protesting the fact that he's donating heavily to anti-gay marriage campaigns. Buying food at Chick-fil-a gives him more money to donate, and they're hoping that the average person will take this into account and opt not to give him more.

He has also given to groups like Exodus International that promote gay reparative therapy, a practice that has been denounced by just about every medical and psychological association as harmful and damaging.

He has also donated to hate groups like the Family Research Council.

I don't understand why people think that having an opinion is hate. If people are going to refuse to support companies that have differing ideals that them then they should become self sufficient. All large companies are going to have an ideal or give money to something you don't agree with.

Phoenix Rev wrote:
Stengah wrote:

You don't get that people don't want companies to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation? Or that they want to complain when companies do?
They're not so much protesting the fact that the owner doesn't like gays, they're protesting the fact that he's donating heavily to anti-gay marriage campaigns. Buying food at Chick-fil-a gives him more money to donate, and they're hoping that the average person will take this into account and opt not to give him more.

He has also given to groups like Exodus International that promote gay reparative therapy, a practice that has been denounced by just about every medical and psychological association as harmful and damaging.

He has also donated to hate groups like the Family Research Council.

I really don't get the "how dare you be intolerant of my bigotry" argument people are making. It's like arguing (hyperbole alert!) that wanting to put murderers or rapists in jail is being intolerant of the lifestyle choices of the criminals. Somethings are okay to be intolerant of, bigotry is one of them. Also keep in mind that calling for a boycott or protesting a restaurant isn't even close to being the same level of intolerance that Dan Cathy displays towards gay people.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I don't understand why people think that having an opinion is hate. If people are going to refuse to support companies that have differing ideals that them then they should become self sufficient. All large companies are going to have an ideal or give money to something you don't agree with.

It's not that he has that opinion, it's that he's donated large sums of money to group trying to either "fix" gay people or make/keep it legal to discriminate against them. His opinion that gay people are somehow "broken" or not worthy of the same rights as everyone else may may not stem from a hatred of gay people, but it sure is insulting to them. What's worse is that he's trying to make his opinion law.

While many large companies will indeed have ideals or give money to things you don't agree with, it's up to each person whether that they're opposed to that ideal/thing enough to boycott over it. Just because you don't think that this instance is worth getting riled up about doesn't mean no one else can, or that those who do are stupid. To keep it in perspective, you think it's dumb to get riled up about a business owner discriminating against gays; I think it's dumb to get riled up about people being riled up that a business is discriminating against gays. I mean, they're not protesting you, so why do you care? Your complaint about the whole "you must accept me" argument can easily be turned around on Chick-fil-a. Their views on gay people won't be accepted by everyone, so why don't they get over themselves?

We can all find something about someone we don't accept. Therefore we are all bigots.

I don't know what Dan Cathy has done other than whats been in the news recently and I don't see what the big deal is. He has said "guilty as charged (we support) the biblical definition of the family unit." And he has donated money to groups that feel the same way. I can think of worse things to do.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I don't understand why people think that having an opinion is hate.

I don't understand why people think just because it's an opinion, it's not hate. When did this idea come along that calling something your 'opinion' means it's supposed to be free from criticism? Sure people can have their opinions. And other people can have their opinions of those opinions.

Stengah wrote:

I really don't get the "how dare you be intolerant of my bigotry" argument people are making. It's like arguing (hyperbole alert!) that wanting to put murderers or rapists in jail is being intolerant of the lifestyle choices of the criminals.

I like to go with "it's like arguing that putting kidnappers in jail is hypocritical."

Stengah wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

I don't understand why people think that having an opinion is hate. If people are going to refuse to support companies that have differing ideals that them then they should become self sufficient. All large companies are going to have an ideal or give money to something you don't agree with.

It's not that he has that opinion, it's that he's donated large sums of money to group trying to either "fix" gay people or make/keep it legal to discriminate against them. His opinion that gay people are somehow "broken" or not worthy of the same rights as everyone else may may not stem from a hatred of gay people, but it sure is insulting to them. What's worse is that he's trying to make his opinion law.

While many large companies will indeed have ideals or give money to things you don't agree with, it's up to each person whether that they're opposed to that ideal/thing enough to boycott over it. Just because you don't think that this instance is worth getting riled up about doesn't mean no one else can, or that those who do are stupid. To keep it in perspective, you think it's dumb to get riled up about a business owner discriminating against gays; I think it's dumb to get riled up about people being riled up that a business is discriminating against gays. I mean, they're not protesting you, so why do you care? Your complaint about the whole "you must accept me" argument can easily be turned around on Chick-fil-a. Their views on gay people won't be accepted by everyone, so why don't they get over themselves?

Don't put words in my mouth, I never called anyone dumb or stupid. I said I don't understand. Maybe I am ignorant and need enlightenment. I could be the stupid one.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I don't understand why people think that having an opinion is hate.

Unless your opinion is that you dislike some random fast food joint run by backwards homophobes. Then your opinion is intolerant. Glad you've got perspective on who is really getting oppressed here, it takes some courage to bravely stand up for the poor fast food restaurants against the tyranny of people not buying their awful greasy chicken.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

We can all find something about someone we don't accept. Therefore we are all bigots.

I don't know what Dan Cathy has done other than whats been in the news recently and I don't see what the big deal is. He has said "guilty as charged (we support) the biblical definition of the family unit." And he has donated money to groups that feel the same way. I can think of worse things to do.

Yeah, he hasn't killed anyone, but that's a real low bar to clear. Instead he's just donated a lot of money to groups whose stated goals are to prevent gay people from marrying, trying to brainwash them into acting straight, and allow people to discriminate against them freely.

Not all bigotries are equal and acting on one's prejudices is far worse than having them but keeping them to oneself.

CheezePavilion wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

I don't understand why people think that having an opinion is hate.

I don't understand why people think just because it's an opinion, it's not hate. When did this idea come along that calling something your 'opinion' means it's supposed to be free from criticism? Sure people can have their opinions. And other people can have their opinions of those opinions.

I think that drinking alcohol is one of the dumbest thing that a human being can do. It's my opinion, I don't hate you for doing it.

Why does saying, "I support the biblical definition of family" automatically get lumped into, "I hate gay people".

EverythingsTentative wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth, I never called anyone dumb or stupid. I said I don't understand.

True. I assumed that when you said "This whole controversy just epitomizes why I have an issue with the whole gay rights thing" and "Get over yourself!" you were implying that the "gay rights thing" was stupid/dumb. I apologize if I assumed wrong.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I think that drinking alcohol is one of the dumbest thing that a human being can do. It's my opinion, I don't hate you for doing it.

Why does saying, "I support the biblical definition of family" automatically get lumped into, "I hate gay people".

It doesn't, but donating to groups that try to prevent gay people from having equal rights and equal protection under the law does.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

Why does saying, "I support the biblical definition of family" automatically get lumped into, "I hate gay people".

Because frequently it's not just about "supporting the biblical definition of family", it's actively trying to stamp out other definitions of family, as the head of the company has done. You're free not to like other definitions. You're free to disapprove of them. You're even free to say that out loud when people disagree with you. It's when you move to restrict those same freedoms from others that you've crossed a line*.

*You is meant in the generic sense, not necessarily directed at anyone in this thread.

I guess I've learned the big deal is his donating the money. Just stating his opinion wouldn't have caused the uproar?

Maybe my OP needs to be revised. After rereading it, it does sound pretty hateful.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

Why does saying, "I support the biblical definition of family" automatically get lumped into, "I hate gay people".

Because the modern concept of "the biblical definition of family" is an entirely arbitrary thing that has nothing to do with the Bible (go look up Abraham's family for an actual biblical definition of a family unit, it would definitely raise some eyebrows in the non-1800 BC world) and exists only to provide a framework that excludes gay people. Sounds like hate to me.

EverythingsTentative wrote:

I guess I've learned the big deal is his donating the money. Just stating his opinion wouldn't have caused the uproar?

There would still be some noise and protests, because that's not a very nice opinion to have, but it'd probably be quieter if it was just an opinion and his business didn't reflect it. To my knowledge Chick-fil-a has been refusing to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy, which is where the hubbub about Chicago trying to prevent them from opening new stores came from. He made the "guilty as charged" statement when asked about it, I think. Chick-fil-a's Christian roots are somewhat well known, unfortunately it's one of the anti-gay branches.

Stengah wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

I guess I've learned the big deal is his donating the money. Just stating his opinion wouldn't have caused the uproar?

There would still be some noise and protests, because that's not a very nice opinion to have, but it'd probably be quieter if it was just an opinion and his business didn't reflect it. To my knowledge Chick-fil-a has been refusing to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy, which is where the hubbub about Chicago trying to prevent them from opening new stores came from. He made the "guilty as charged" statement when asked about it, I think. Chick-fil-a's Christian roots are somewhat well known, unfortunately it's one of the anti-gay branches.

See there is some enlightenment. I didn't realize they were refusing to hire gay people. How is that just coming to the surface?

EverythingsTentative wrote:
Stengah wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

I guess I've learned the big deal is his donating the money. Just stating his opinion wouldn't have caused the uproar?

There would still be some noise and protests, because that's not a very nice opinion to have, but it'd probably be quieter if it was just an opinion and his business didn't reflect it. To my knowledge Chick-fil-a has been refusing to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy, which is where the hubbub about Chicago trying to prevent them from opening new stores came from. He made the "guilty as charged" statement when asked about it, I think. Chick-fil-a's Christian roots are somewhat well known, unfortunately it's one of the anti-gay branches.

See there is some enlightenment. I didn't realize they were refusing to hire gay people. How is that just coming to the surface?

I would guess because people are too busy complaining about how gay activism is infringing their rights to have the opinion that gays are unholy.

Seriously this whole "why don't gays just shut up, they're only hurting their cause" thing makes me crazy.

Group A: "We think that how Group B lives is wrong, and that their rights should be curtailed at every opportunity".

Group B: "We vehemently disagree and will campaign to ensure your message is opposed"

Group A: "We are merely stating an opinion and your dissenting opinion should not be allowed"

Find me someone who supports equality for LBGT citizens who thinks that the rights of heterosexuals should be curtailed and I'll entertain the "opposing opinions" argument.

More significantly, to my mind: How is refusing to do business with Chick-fil-A even vaguely controversial? Boycotting companies for supporting things that you don't agree with is pretty standard. In fact, if our Libertarian comrades are to be believed, it's the way that you [em]ought[/em] to deal with behavior you consider inappropriate (in preference to trying to pass laws against that behavior).

I don't think that the speech of the owners should be legally interfered with. But I do object to it--and therefore the only reasonable thing for me to do is to refuse to do business with the company. The fact that Chick-fil-A is a private company and that the restaurants are not owned by franchisees but by the parent company makes this an even easier choice in my mind. Unlike Switch, I do kind of like their food. But I don't enjoy it enough to have eaten there since learning of the Cathys' practice of supporting an anti-gay agenda. (I have to admit that I was also always a little wigged out to hear Christian music playing in the restaurants. I'm not Christian myself, and from my point of view a lot of Christian pop is rather creepy. But that factor wasn't enough to make me stop dropping by for a sandwich once in a while.)

I'm rather annoyed at the various mayors suggesting that new Chick-fil-A restaurants not be allowed to open. If there's actually an issue with hiring practices, that's a legal issue and should be pursued appropriately. But honestly, I've only heard Internet Rumors(tm) of that, and that's not what the initial statements from the mayors seemed to be about. I don't think that's a real thing.

In short: I think the Cathys have every right to spend their money supporting whatever agenda they desire. However, I also have every right to spend my money based on my own opinions, and to encourage others to do the same.

Suggestions of legal action against behavior that is not illegal is eye-rollingly ridiculous. But it's also completely irrelevant to the question of whether boycotting is a free speech issue. Hint: If it's free speech to give your money to organizations who support a certain idea, it's also free speech to refuse to give your money to organizations that support that idea.

EverythingsTentative wrote:
Stengah wrote:
EverythingsTentative wrote:

I guess I've learned the big deal is his donating the money. Just stating his opinion wouldn't have caused the uproar?

There would still be some noise and protests, because that's not a very nice opinion to have, but it'd probably be quieter if it was just an opinion and his business didn't reflect it. To my knowledge Chick-fil-a has been refusing to include sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination policy, which is where the hubbub about Chicago trying to prevent them from opening new stores came from. He made the "guilty as charged" statement when asked about it, I think. Chick-fil-a's Christian roots are somewhat well known, unfortunately it's one of the anti-gay branches.

See there is some enlightenment. I didn't realize they were refusing to hire gay people. How is that just coming to the surface?

They're not refusing to hire gay people so far as I know, but I do know that an alderman in Chicago is citing their lack of a written anti-discrimination policy as his reason for blocking them from opening a new store there. Source.

In other thread this issue popped up in there's an article about a NH Chick-fil-a hosting a gay pride event to voice his disagreement w/ his corporate overlords, and the owner is quoted as saying, "Chick-fil-a at Pheasant Lane Mall has gay employees and serves gay customers with honor, dignity and respect." So there's at least one Chick-fil-a store that has no issue hiring gay people.

I still don't buy the argument that money and speech are synonyms, but did want to point out that "Free Speech" != "Consequence-Free Speech".

Dan Cathy appears to be a bigot. That's his prerogative, and though I find his opinions loathsome, he's well within his rights to have (and espouse) those beliefs.

It's superficially a nice piece of rhetorical jujitsu to suggest that people who have a moral issue with bigotry are being intolerant by drawing attention to Dan Cathy's bigotry and refusing to patronize his business, but I think that argument doesn't hold up - especially given the successful history of using boycotts to facilitate change during the Civil Rights movement (like the Montgomery Bus Boycott, for example).

I'm fine with groups boycotting Chik-Fil-A and speaking out against the views of the company-runners. That's fine, that's free speech. Just like the company-runners have the freedom to speak their own political views. Personally, I vehemently oppose their views and the groups they donate money to, and no longer choose to spend money at their eateries as a result.

That's all good and fine.

The problem is that I don't think it's appropriate for government bodies to step in and deny business licenses just because they dislike the views and donations of the company-runners. If the company itself is conducting discriminatory practices, we have laws to deal with that.

If we were talking about, for example, a predominantly evangelical Christian city that was denying a business license to a company because the company-runners were supportive of gays having equal rights, and sent donations to groups that worked to help promote those rights, I would find that equally objectionable.

That's what bugs me about this whole issue; it's been turned into a stupid shouting match between supporters and opponents of gays being granted equal rights, when it's really a simple matter of whether the government should be allowed to discriminate against companies and individuals based on their political views.

Yeah, god, isn't it just such a pain in the ass when those gays exercise their right to freedom of expression?

I mean seriously, they're never going to get EVERYONE to accept them, so they should just shut up and not stand up for their rights at all.

They should definitely not subject major corporations' donations to scrutiny, or hold them accountable for the public statements of their leaders. Why can't they just be quiet and stop reminding me that they exist?

Yes, I am squeamish at the prospect of allowing a government to say, "You can't build here," as well. If a private property owner doesn't want to sell to a Chik-fil-A, that's fine, but government should not be blocking them for every reason Fars stated.

GWJ mobile Site loves to make me DP.

lol or it could be the reverse like the ones around here. There's so many people going there to support them on this decision we've had a couple crashes due to the lines stretching out to the main roads. Its on the scary side.

Hypatian wrote:

In short: I think the Cathys have every right to spend their money supporting whatever agenda they desire. However, I also have every right to spend my money based on my own opinions, and to encourage others to do the same.

Seems like a pretty reasonable opinion - I find it ironic that the "boycott Oreo" thing in the gay marriage thread was mocked and pooh-poohed and no one made that point.