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

You know, marriage has traditionally been between two people with the same skin color. I'm not a bigot, I just think interracial marriage is just wrong.

You know, this neighborhood has always been full of white people. I mean, I don't hate black people, I think they're fine and all, I think they should just live somewhere else.

You know, the back of the bus is just as comfy as the front of the bus. Why can't they just keep sitting there?

Refusing to do business with people you disagree with is how we, as consumers exercise our sovereignty. I am against the idiotic politicians trying to score political points by saying the restaurant isn't "welcome" in their city. That is wrong. But, if I as a consumer do not want to buy from this company and give my business to KFC that is how I vote with my feet. I also don't see this as the owners private crusade. But, they are using their company to donate as well.

One thing I am against is looking into peoples private lives/donations/views as some sort of litmus test on if we're going to do business with them. I don't want to live in a day that we have these lists of politician contributions that I need to check before deciding where to buy something. It's when the company itself gets into the political arena that you have to deal with the blowback of those choices. If the owner would have been "As a company we stay out of politics." done. No big deal what he does as a private citizen. As long as someone isn't promoting violence and hate, which I don't think this guy is doing. I think his views are backwards and wrong but he isn't hateful. I view the gay marriage debate just like the whole anti-miscegenation movement/laws from a few decades ago.

I actually think the best way to change the guys mind is for gay people to become CFA BEST customers. Fill out those comment cards and tell him how his actions are personally hurting gay people. Show him that we shouldn't be keeping loving people away from each other and someones gay relationship in no way harms, hurts, or affects someone's straight relationship. The whole idea that Rubb getting married would hurt someones straight marriage is laughably stupid.

My big problem is that there are adulterers who actually do harm the institution of marriage but these anti equality folks don't spend nearly the effort trying to change them as they do trying to change gay people. I'm okay with religious folks fighting against pornography (but I think it should be legal), violence, drug use, adultery, and other things that actually harm society and people not directly involved. But, gay people getting married doesn't hurt the institution of marriage. Marriage is strengthened when more people choose to get married.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

You know, marriage has traditionally been between two people with the same skin color. I'm not a bigot, I just think interracial marriage is just wrong.

You know, this neighborhood has always been full of white people. I mean, I don't hate black people, I think they're fine and all, I think they should just live somewhere else.

You know, the back of the bus is just as comfy as the front of the bus. Why can't they just keep sitting there?

I don't agree with you but I respect your opinions and I have no reason to counter your opinion if you attempt to present your opinions to others, even on a mass scale.

Ulairi wrote:

Marriage is strengthened when more people choose to get married.

Can I add "and stay married" to that? Barring various abusive situations, of course!

NormanTheIntern wrote:

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.

Some opinions deserve mocking.

Farscry wrote:

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.

Except, as the OP shows, there are folks for whom the government deciding to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening restaurants in their jurisdiction isn't the primary issue.

For what it's worth, I agree (very strongly) that the actions local governments are taking to block Chick-Fil-A are inappropriate and quite possibly illegal. If Chick-Fil-A is engaging in discrimination either in hiring or in refusing service to customers based on perceived sexual orientation, there are already mechanisms in place to address that problem via the judiciary. Those should be used, rather than imposing an ideological test for local business permits.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Farscry wrote:

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.

Except, as the OP shows, there are folks for whom the government deciding to prevent Chick-Fil-A from opening restaurants in their jurisdiction isn't the primary issue.

Yup. Not that I'm trying to be a dick here, but the opening post of the thread falls under the "stupid shouting match" portion.

LobsterMobster wrote:

It's a fast food chain. People go there because they like to eat chicken. Why does anyone care what they think about social issues?

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case the specific reason I don't want to spend money there is because of their known practice of donating to organizations I don't want to support.

It's a fast food chain. People go there because they like to eat chicken. Why does anyone care what they think about social issues? And more importantly, when will it be OK to start making jokes about this whole situation? When it comes to inappropriate puns, you can't ask for a better food than chicken.

Farscry wrote:

Yup. Not that I'm trying to be a dick here, but the opening post of the thread falls under the "stupid shouting match" portion.

I usually always agree w/ you Farscry (cuz I have loved your avatar since the beginning) but I don't think so. I really DONT want to open a can of worms here but if those shouting actually really believe in what they are shouting about and they do NOT look at EVERY COMPANY and PARENT COMPANY of every product they buy and boycott based on that company's donation and money spending habits, then I think its a little bit hypocritical.

It seems to me that Chik-fil-a is being hit here simply because they are vocal about their company beliefs that tie directly in with who owns the company's religious beliefs. In today's world, that is probably a very bad business decision.

If Chik-fil-a really is discriminating in any way in their normal business practices then they should be subject to the laws already put in place for those actions. But if its their opinions and beliefs that are being shouted at simply because they have beliefs and opinions that are not liked, then all companies that have those same opinions and beliefs should be shouted at.

But like others have said, any governmental policy created on opinions and beliefs of company owners should never be made unless those opinions and beliefs are actively discriminating in normal business practices... and we already have policies in place for those.

I go to Chik-fil-a rarely but I do go when I want to eat their chicken. I kind of like it

I also buy Apple mobile products (iPhone and iPad) cuz I like them not because I think its ok for them to have sweat shops in China to create these products (like many other company's) but because the products themselves are what I personally like.

I also love run-on sentences...

PAR

Farscry wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

It's a fast food chain. People go there because they like to eat chicken. Why does anyone care what they think about social issues?

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case the specific reason I don't want to spend money there is because of their known practice of donating to organizations I don't want to support.

This is why I don't go. I stopped going once I learned about the company's donation practices. It was long before the big flap about what the CEO or owner or whoever he is said about his opinions. If it was just the one knob opening his mouth, I might still eat there. But knowing that the money I give them is going to support things like Prop 8 and maybe even my own state's amendment? I can get a chicken sandwich just about anywhere else around here.

LobsterMobster wrote:

It's a fast food chain. People go there because they like to eat chicken. Why does anyone care what they think about social issues? And more importantly, when will it be OK to start making jokes about this whole situation? When it comes to inappropriate puns, you can't ask for a better food than chicken.

There's a distinct difference between 'what they think' and 'what they donate millions of dollars to support'.

Apples to apples example:
In-N-Out Burger is a family-owned, conservative, Christian business. They print bible verses on their burger wrappers. Rage level they induce? Near zero.

Chik-Fil-A is a family-owned, conservative, Christian business. They close on Sundays and *might* prohibit gay employees. They also donate millions of dollars to groups that are actively attacking the civil rights and direct, personal wellbeing of a class of Americans that they disapprove of. Rage level they induce? Atomic.

Tanglebones wrote:
LobsterMobster wrote:

It's a fast food chain. People go there because they like to eat chicken. Why does anyone care what they think about social issues? And more importantly, when will it be OK to start making jokes about this whole situation? When it comes to inappropriate puns, you can't ask for a better food than chicken.

There's a distinct difference between 'what they think' and 'what they donate millions of dollars to support'.

Apples to apples example:
In-N-Out Burger is a family-owned, conservative, Christian business. They print bible verses on their burger wrappers. Rage level they induce? Near zero.

Chik-Fil-A is a family-owned, conservative, Christian business. They close on Sundays and *might* prohibit gay employees. They also donate millions of dollars to groups that are actively attacking the civil rights and direct, personal wellbeing of a class of Americans that they disapprove of. Rage level they induce? Atomic.

Now, now, if you claim your views are "religious", you can't be a bigot. We all know that. Telling someone they shouldn't discriminate against other people because you think God is telling you to, well, that's discrimination.

par wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Yup. Not that I'm trying to be a dick here, but the opening post of the thread falls under the "stupid shouting match" portion.

I usually always agree w/ you Farscry (cuz I have loved your avatar since the beginning) but I don't think so. I really DONT want to open a can of worms here but if those shouting actually really believe in what they are shouting about and they do NOT look at EVERY COMPANY and PARENT COMPANY of every product they buy and boycott based on that company's donation and money spending habits, then I think its a little bit hypocritical.

This is totally fair, and is something I struggle with at times, honestly.

par wrote:

It seems to me that Chik-fil-a is being hit here simply because they are vocal about their company beliefs that tie directly in with who owns the company's religious beliefs. In today's world, that is probably a very bad business decision.

This is partly true. The more vocal shouting match examples definitely fit this point (I pointed at the OP as part of this, and in full disclosure I extend this to the equivalent voices on the boycott/protest side as well), but there are also others like myself who simply weren't that aware of the issue until the company president decided to get vocal. If a company-runner is going to be outspoken about an issue, they're inviting further examination of their practices just because of human nature.

Part of the yelling escalation match is that I see this particular circular logic -

"Why is everyone ganging up on CFA and Dan Cathy! This boycott is dumb and unfair. All he did was express an opinion, is that so wrong!!!!"

"He directed millions of dollars to organizations that work directly against gay marriage and gay rights. This is more than just expressing an opinion."

"Fine, but it's his company to run and move the money how he likes. Boycotting him is just infringing on his first amendment rights!"

"Actually, no, boycotting has nothing to do with revoking a person's right to express themselves. It's just a consequence of free speech."

(go back to step one)

To be fair, not everyone who is mad at Chik-Fil-A is being even mildly reasonable. I've seen people toss around misinformation and flat out hatred without any pause or consideration for being rational about it. I have a lot of friends who have turned this argument into the same thing that they do with most other arguments - we're not talking about the issue anymore, but the people. The Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh's Comments, Health Care, the bailout, Occupy Wall Street - folks don't want to discuss the issue at hand, they simply want to get in someone's face and tell them why they're irrational, stupid, and just being crybabies/bullies.

Nickson, I'm going to link to an article that, to a point, covers why this whole thing isn't directly about the chicken: Huffington Post article.

Now, my stake on this: as has been mentioned above, and in case you weren't aware, I'm gay. Phoenix Rev (PR from here on in) is my husband (we're one of the 18,000-ish couples who got married in California in 2008), and beyond the fact that we're both big guys and that we don't currently live in the same state, we're pretty much like any other married couple.

The reason we fight against Chick-Fil-A is because Dan Cathy straight-up said that our marriage isn't legitimate, because PR and I are both male. On top of that, Chick-Fil-A has formed the WinShape Foundation, through which they have donated millions of dollars to groups like Exodus International (who until recently had been involved in gay reparative therapy), the Family Research Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated as a hate group, and other groups who fight to keep people like PR and myself from being able to form a family.

Here on GWJ, there are lots of people who are in "traditional" families (mom, dad, kids), but also many who aren't (married couples who neither have nor want kids, non-married couples living together with children from past relationships, married couples with boyfriends/girlfriends on the side, open relationships, etc.). Yet of that whole bunch, the only ones who are legally discriminated against are those of us who are LGBT. Beyond what is said in the article on that topic, there's a whole host of issues that PR and I have to consider when we take vacations, look at jobs, think about where we'd like to live, etc.

For example, on top of our marriage license, we've had to go get separate Powers of Attorney, Powers of Medical Attorney, and other legal documents to show that we're responsible for one another. Why? Because PR lives in a state where our marriage isn't recognized. If he were to get sick, I'd have to find my copies of the documentation and bring it with me to even have a chance at seeing him in the hospital there, and there's always a chance that the hospital still might prevent it from happening. Even in California, I'd have to get my marriage license just in case the hospital wanted to argue that we weren't married (I live in one of the more conservative counties).

Additionally, while I can't speak for the younger gay folks on here, I still feel self-conscious when I exhibit some form of PDA, even as innocuous as holding hands with my husband. It's not as bad now, but when we first started dating, we got some nasty looks from people when we held hands, or God forbid, kissed or hugged in public. One time when we were having a nice meal at a restaurant, a patron actually asked that we be kicked out because we were holding hands. Fortunately, the restaurant manager told them that if they were offended they should be the ones to leave, but still...

I'm always aware that being out means being a target. If I was physically gay-bashed, it was when I was a kid and being bullied (kindergarten through 9th grade), but I've most definitely been verbally bashed since then, and I'm always scanning my surroundings when I know that I'm being obvious about my orientation (wearing a shirt for my gay men's chorus, wearing a Pride T-shirt, even wearing something for the AIDS walks I've done is enough). Someone I know just found out that a friend he'd lost touch with had died from a gay-bashing a couple of years back. There were a pair of teen lesbians who were shot in Texas. A kid in New York was beaten to the point of being blinded in one eye because he was perceived as gay. A lesbian was beaten and had the word "dyke" carved into her stomach. All this stuff has happened in the past year.

It's scary for us, and we all live with the nugget of fear in our brains that this might happen to us, or someone we know. From your later posts in this thread, I got the impression that you weren't looking to start a fight about this, but the way you initially asked your question was definitely worded in a way that made me (and a number of others) question if you were trying to see if it was okay to start something.

That's why all of this stuff about Chick-Fil-A is important. It's not about the chicken directly, but it's about where the chicken-buying money's going, and what it's doing.

Farscry wrote:
par wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Yup. Not that I'm trying to be a dick here, but the opening post of the thread falls under the "stupid shouting match" portion.

I usually always agree w/ you Farscry (cuz I have loved your avatar since the beginning) but I don't think so. I really DONT want to open a can of worms here but if those shouting actually really believe in what they are shouting about and they do NOT look at EVERY COMPANY and PARENT COMPANY of every product they buy and boycott based on that company's donation and money spending habits, then I think its a little bit hypocritical.

This is totally fair, and is something I struggle with at times, honestly.

par wrote:

It seems to me that Chik-fil-a is being hit here simply because they are vocal about their company beliefs that tie directly in with who owns the company's religious beliefs. In today's world, that is probably a very bad business decision.

This is partly true. The more vocal shouting match examples definitely fit this point (I pointed at the OP as part of this, and in full disclosure I extend this to the equivalent voices on the boycott/protest side as well), but there are also others like myself who simply weren't that aware of the issue until the company president decided to get vocal. If a company-runner is going to be outspoken about an issue, they're inviting further examination of their practices just because of human nature. :)

You know, in today's "globalization" world, its very very hard to stick by your values and still be able to participate in our 1st world advantages.

I have a buddy of mine who is a bleeding heart liberal. Hates oil, hates Republicans... etc etc. Very vocal about it too. He's also an EXCELLENT web designer and probably the best User Interface designer I have ever met in my life. He was in between work and was having a hard time getting a new job until a company offered a rather quick but VERY lucrative contract. The company was the leader in "Fracking" here in Colorado.

Did he take the job? Yup. He has to put food on the table.

That is an extreme example but its the same thing. He firmly disagrees w/ Fracking and detests their practices but in order to get a paycheck he chose to work for them.

I brought up Apple's production of their devices in my earlier post as another example. Do I HATE it that there are human rights violations going on in factories in China? Hell yea. Do I not buy Apple's products because they are helping further the human rights violations in China? No. Why? Because no matter what device I buy that has equivalent capabilities (or even less capabilities) they are ALL helping further human rights violations in China because its cheap as hell to produce their stuff there and they wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't produce their stuff there.

Am I immoral for making this choice and not boycotting these products? Probably... but I also live where Native Americans used to live and I feel bad about what happened to them but I don't think I'll give all my property back to them because what was done to them was wrong.

Ideals are all fine and good until reality steps in.

PAR

par wrote:

I brought up Apple's production of their devices in my earlier post as another example. Do I HATE it that there are human rights violations going on in factories in China? Hell yea. Do I not buy Apple's products because they are helping further the human rights violations in China? No. Why? Because no matter what device I buy that has equivalent capabilities (or even less capabilities) they are ALL helping further human rights violations in China because its cheap as hell to produce their stuff there and they wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't produce their stuff there.

Am I immoral for making this choice and not boycotting these products? Probably... but I also live where Native Americans used to live and I feel bad about what happened to them but I don't think I'll give all my property back to them because what was done to them was wrong.

Ideals are all fine and good until reality steps in.

PAR

This bit of logic has popped up in nearly every discussion about CFA that I've seen, and by this time I've reduced my response to it down to something simple - "Since you can't do something about everything, don't do anything about anything," is not logic I agree to.

Bloo Driver wrote:

This bit of logic has popped up in nearly every discussion about CFA that I've seen, and by this time I've reduced my response to it down to something simple - "Since you can't do something about everything, don't do anything about anything," is not logic I agree to.

I never suggested to "do nothing". You are twisting my words

But to go down this path, if I am to understand you correctly, you pick and choose who to boycott as well? Why and what makes your decisions for you? And who do you choose to boycott and who do you choose to patronize? Do you have a logical selection depending on the severity of the grievances of one company over another or based on what is good for you at the time?

PAR

Bloo Driver wrote:
par wrote:

I brought up Apple's production of their devices in my earlier post as another example. Do I HATE it that there are human rights violations going on in factories in China? Hell yea. Do I not buy Apple's products because they are helping further the human rights violations in China? No. Why? Because no matter what device I buy that has equivalent capabilities (or even less capabilities) they are ALL helping further human rights violations in China because its cheap as hell to produce their stuff there and they wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't produce their stuff there.

Am I immoral for making this choice and not boycotting these products? Probably... but I also live where Native Americans used to live and I feel bad about what happened to them but I don't think I'll give all my property back to them because what was done to them was wrong.

Ideals are all fine and good until reality steps in.

PAR

This bit of logic has popped up in nearly every discussion about CFA that I've seen, and by this time I've reduced my response to it down to something simple - "Since you can't do something about everything, don't do anything about anything," is not logic I agree to.

Agreed. Considering how many different businesses and products cross paths in our world, you would literally be able to buy NOTHING. I have no trouble calling out only those who are unabashedly bigoted.

par wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:

This bit of logic has popped up in nearly every discussion about CFA that I've seen, and by this time I've reduced my response to it down to something simple - "Since you can't do something about everything, don't do anything about anything," is not logic I agree to.

I never suggested to "do nothing". You are twisting my words ;)

Not really -

par wrote:

Am I immoral for making this choice and not boycotting these products? Probably... but I also live where Native Americans used to live and I feel bad about what happened to them but I don't think I'll give all my property back to them because what was done to them was wrong.

The implication is pretty obvious. I'm not twisting anything.

par wrote:

But to go down this path, if I am to understand you correctly, you pick and choose who to boycott as well? Why and what makes your decisions for you? And who do you choose to boycott and who do you choose to patronize? Do you have a logical selection depending on the severity of the grievances of one company over another or based on what is good for you at the time?

PAR

Is this the general or specific "you"? My point in general is that while you can't consistently boycott everything you don't agree with, there are varying levels as you say. I mean, look at it this way - it's much easier to say "I'm not going to CFA anymore" than it is to say "I'm going to try and not buy anything sweatshop related every again." There are major and minor changes you can make in your behavior to make your logic more internally consistent. If someone is extremely dedicated to the ideals of gay rights and gay marriage, they should definitely not go to CFA. But buying Apple products doesn't mean they're for child labor.

After that step, of course, comes the "you're a hypocrite because you do A but not B" argument, which we can have all day, but then we are once again trying to self-righteously judge and put down people who don't agree with us rather than talk about the issue itself.

NSMike wrote:

Agreed. Considering how many different businesses and products cross paths in our world, you would literally be able to buy NOTHING. I have no trouble calling out only those who are unabashedly bigoted.

And this is totally fair... to a point.

So, I don't want to be the bad guy here. I personally think that the "beliefs" of Chik-fil-a are disgusting. But I also think that there is another side to all of this as well. To live by your values and to pick and choose your fights as best you can is all we can really do. But to absolutely ignore the fact that you are selectively choosing which cause and which entity to advocate against is also being immoral. Its the "jumping on the loudest idiot" bandwagon instead of really believing in what you believe in.

PAR

You are not immoral for not boycotting, nobody is demanding that you boycott.
On the other hand, you are kind of a jerk if you feel the need to bash people who actually work toward causes.

I'm not going to give you crap for not being an activist, could you please return the same courtesy?

par wrote:
NSMike wrote:

Agreed. Considering how many different businesses and products cross paths in our world, you would literally be able to buy NOTHING. I have no trouble calling out only those who are unabashedly bigoted.

And this is totally fair... to a point.

So, I don't want to be the bad guy here. I personally think that the "beliefs" of Chik-fil-a are disgusting. But I also think that there is another side to all of this as well. To live by your values and to pick and choose your fights as best you can is all we can really do. But to absolutely ignore the fact that you are selectively choosing which cause and which entity to advocate against is also being immoral. Its the "jumping on the loudest idiot" bandwagon instead of really believing in what you believe in.

PAR

I haven't been to a Chik Fil A in more than a decade. I've actively avoided the one in NYC for more than five years, because of their policies. Do I have to present these bona fides every time I speak out against them to get credit, or am I just jumping on the loudest idiot?

CheezePavilion wrote:

I don't understand why people think just because it's an opinion, it's not hate.

This.

There's far too little activism and charity in the world, I find it increasingly tiresome when we continue to jump on those fighting the good fight for doing it for the wrong reasons. Or not being ideologically pure enough.

Bloo Driver wrote:

The implication is pretty obvious. I'm not twisting anything.

This is pretty unfair there Bloo. If you tend to target me w/ this generalization then I must infer that you have, would and actively live by your ideas 100% of the time. You say:

Bloo Driver wrote:

After that step, of course, comes the "you're a hypocrite because you do A but not B" argument, which we can have all day, but then we are once again trying to self-righteously judge and put down people who don't agree with us rather than talk about the issue itself.

FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

You are not immoral for not boycotting, nobody is demanding that you boycott.
On the other hand, you are kind of a jerk if you feel the need to bash people who actually work toward causes.

I'm not going to give you crap for not being an activist, could you please return the same courtesy?

Where am I putting any of you down? Where am I bashing? I am talking about the issue and just bringing up what I think is a possible hypocritical stance. I am not taking this to a personal level whereas people who don't like what Im saying here are. I have yet to judge but am being judged. Isn't this what you guys are fighting for?

I knew I should stay out of P&C.. there just is no room for a debate w/out it getting personal. I am honestly sorry you are all so offended. One of my best friends is a lesbian and actively lives and has lived w/ a partner for 10 years. In no way am I against what you believe in... I am just honestly trying to bring up a debate

PAR

Par: You did call people hypocritical if they boycott one company based on its actions, but don't studiously research every other company that they do business with. That's at least a little insulting.

Truth is, most of us don't have time for that. But when someone else does the research for us and gives us the info, well, then you have to make a choice.

par wrote:

Am I immoral for making this choice and not boycotting these products? Probably... but I also live where Native Americans used to live and I feel bad about what happened to them but I don't think I'll give all my property back to them because what was done to them was wrong.

Ideals are all fine and good until reality steps in.

PAR

Yup, like I said before, totally fair and I struggle with this as well. It really is tough to hold to my idealism in the real world. I try to take a stand when faced with particularly visible or egregrious violations, but even then I don't succeed all the time.

But I have to hope that the efforts I do make result in at least some small pressure to help move toward that utopian world that my idealist nature wishes we could achieve.

This is why I'm not going to call out someone as a hypocrite if they are against something but don't do "enough" to oppose it. Case in point, your friend who strongly opposes fracking but needed a decent job to care for their family. Does that action make them a hypocrite? Well, technically yes, but by that standard we're all hypocrites.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Par: You did call people hypocritical if they boycott one company based on its actions, but don't studiously research every other company that they do business with. That's at least a little insulting.

Truth is, most of us don't have time for that. But when someone else does the research for us and gives us the info, well, then you have to make a choice.

Dammit, Stone, stop making me agree with you!