So, there's this chicken place...

Tanglebones wrote:

In short, it's the behavior of Chick-Fil-A that's being attacked, not its beliefs.

Well said.

I also love seeing all the hate thrown at Rahm Emmanuel about "not letting CFA into a Chicago neighborhood". He simply stated his support of one of the Aldermen-- the mayor never created any policy denying CFA's access to the city. Hell-- there's one downtown already. While I agree that Emmanuel shouldn't have used his position as a soapbox to espouse his opinion, he is a politician. And a Chicago politician, at that. For instance, he spoke recently at my company's grand opening of our new facilities. You know what he talked about extensively? His extension of the school year for Chicago Public Schools. At the opening ceremony of a slot machine company's new building. Politician's gonna politik.

Aside from that, the Alderman for Bucktown/Wicker Park, I think, wasn't totally in the wrong. He is a representative of the people of his district, and felt that the people wouldn't want a Chik-Fil-A in their neighborhood. That's kind of his job (from my limited understanding of Chicago Aldermen). Perhaps he should have petitioned the residents, first, yeah-- but I don't see this as any different than San Francisco not allowing certain Big Box Stores within city limits (Wal-Mart, Target); the people didn't want them three, so the city denied them the rights to open their stores there.

Tanglebones wrote:

using their belief as a cudgel to attack the rights of other Americans, so there isn't a backlash against them.

In short, it's the behavior of Chick-Fil-A that's being attacked, not its beliefs.

Hum.... I looked at the CNN article where they talked about WinShape (I suppose this is what you referenced) and I am still kinda scratching my head on this one.

Its kinda like saying its evil if company X gives to the Democrats and they promote an lifestyle or finanical ideal I disagree with. From what I read they are giving to organizations who beileve as they do and promote that way of thinking. How is that a cudgel ? Are these charities going out and commiting hate crimes and beating folks up....I kinda think not.

If I say I am right and you are wrong and oh by the way any attempts at speaking your beliefs or funding others who so is hate and thus illiegal is very very scary. I dont like what lots of organizations do, but they still have a right to say what they believe, and have a right to exist as an organization.

mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

using their belief as a cudgel to attack the rights of other Americans, so there isn't a backlash against them.

In short, it's the behavior of Chick-Fil-A that's being attacked, not its beliefs.

Hum.... I looked at the CNN article where they talked about WinShape (I suppose this is what you referenced) and I am still kinda scratching my head on this one.

Its kinda like saying its evil if company X gives to the Democrats and they promote an lifestyle or finanical ideal I disagree with. From what I read they are giving to organizations who beileve as they do and promote that way of thinking. How is that a cudgel ? Are these charities going out and commiting hate crimes and beating folks up....I kinda think not.

If I say I am right and you are wrong and oh by the way any attempts at speaking your beliefs or funding others who so is hate and thus illiegal is very very scary. I dont like what lots of organizations do, but they still have a right to say what they believe, and have a right to exist as an organization.

The blog I linked to on the previous page[/url]]- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

It's also unclear whether or not Chick-Fil-A has given money to groups that supported Uganda's death penalty for homosexuals.

Tanglebones wrote:

By comparison, In and Out Burger has bible verses printed on all its wrappers, and is owned by a conservative christian family - but they're not using their belief as a cudgel to attack the rights of other Americans, so there isn't a backlash against them.

This is totally off topic, but REALLY?!? I've never been to an In and Out Burger. Now I know never to go.

I'd also heard that Chik-Fil-A's money went to groups that promoted that whole "ungayifying" brainwashing camps movement that's going on, but I don't know how much truth there is to that. I wouldn't be surprised, honestly, if their money went to groups that support it, but I kind of doubt they'd send money directly to such camps.

mcdonis wrote:

They have a right to open a business and run it, for me to proclaim "they shall not pass" is just silly.

Sure, but what if Ian McKellen stood outside a Chick-Fil-A, shouting "You shall not pass"? Also silly and misguided, but don't tell me you'd try to stop him.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:

By comparison, In and Out Burger has bible verses printed on all its wrappers, and is owned by a conservative christian family - but they're not using their belief as a cudgel to attack the rights of other Americans, so there isn't a backlash against them.

This is totally off topic, but REALLY?!? I've never been to an In and Out Burger. Now I know never to go.

It's not as bad as you might think-- they're not shoving it in your face, or plastering it all over their containers or walls (neither does Chik-Fil-A, for that matter)-- it's just little tag lines written on the bottom of their cups. You wouldn't even notice it was there unless you were looking for it or told about it. Hell, as far as I know, it's only on the cups-- the wrappers are generally too greasy to really make out anything other than the logo.

Gravey wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

They have a right to open a business and run it, for me to proclaim "they shall not pass" is just silly.

Sure, but what if Ian McKellen stood outside a Chick-Fil-A, shouting "You shall not pass"? Also silly and misguided, but don't tell me you'd try to stop him.

You're denying my first amendment rights as a Balrog?

RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Even if gay rights is your top issue, this one's a head-scratcher. Like, I assume many people at the kiss-in or whatever voted for Obama. Who ran as a "one man, one woman" candidate who would not support gay marriage at the federal level.

So like, a President is no big deal, but a $3 chicken sandwich is like, feeding an engine of HATE and INEQUALITY or whatever?

I guess I get the appeal of doing something like chanigng your facebook pic to you kissing another dude in front of a chick fil a, but it just smacks of... well, slacktivism if not outright hypocrisy.

I missed the part where Obama donated millions of dollars to organizations the SPLC has identified as hate groups.

I guess that counter makes sense if you accept that dropping $2 million on a single issue lobbying group will be more effective than actually... being the President.

Tanglebones wrote:
Gravey wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

They have a right to open a business and run it, for me to proclaim "they shall not pass" is just silly.

Sure, but what if Ian McKellen stood outside a Chick-Fil-A, shouting "You shall not pass"? Also silly and misguided, but don't tell me you'd try to stop him.

You're denying my first amendment rights as a Balrog?

As a Maia, Gandalf technically works for the government, so I suppose he might be denying your First Amendment rights? On the other hand, he doesn't work for the US government, so does it still apply? I'm not that familiar with the US Constitution, or how it applies to the Ainur.

WipEout wrote:

I'd also heard that Chik-Fil-A's money went to groups that promoted that whole "ungayifying" brainwashing camps movement that's going on, but I don't know how much truth there is to that. I wouldn't be surprised, honestly, if their money went to groups that support it, but I kind of doubt they'd send money directly to such camps.

Exodus International is one of the groups WinShape has donated to. In addition to the harmful ex-gay therapy they peddle, several executives attended the conference in Uganda that birthed the "Kill the Gays" bill as spokesmen for the organization.

If the Balrog hadn't been able to puchase a three-headed fiery whip conversion kit off the internet, this whole thing wouldn't have happened.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Even if gay rights is your top issue, this one's a head-scratcher. Like, I assume many people at the kiss-in or whatever voted for Obama. Who ran as a "one man, one woman" candidate who would not support gay marriage at the federal level.

So like, a President is no big deal, but a $3 chicken sandwich is like, feeding an engine of HATE and INEQUALITY or whatever?

I guess I get the appeal of doing something like chanigng your facebook pic to you kissing another dude in front of a chick fil a, but it just smacks of... well, slacktivism if not outright hypocrisy.

I missed the part where Obama donated millions of dollars to organizations the SPLC has identified as hate groups.

I guess that counter makes sense if you accept that dropping $2 million on a single issue lobbying group will be more effective than actually... being the President.

It makes about as much sense as the original argument that I voted for Obama instead of the other guy on the ballet whose platform was one of marriage equality. Oh wait.

KingGorilla wrote:

That is my issue. Why would you do anything that opens your employees up to scorn, anger, these kinds of scenes? This is an institution OPEN to the PUBLIC welcoming this kind of scorn.

Wouldn't the same be said of a company, like Starbucks, that openly supports gay rights?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
RoughneckGeek wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Even if gay rights is your top issue, this one's a head-scratcher. Like, I assume many people at the kiss-in or whatever voted for Obama. Who ran as a "one man, one woman" candidate who would not support gay marriage at the federal level.

So like, a President is no big deal, but a $3 chicken sandwich is like, feeding an engine of HATE and INEQUALITY or whatever?

I guess I get the appeal of doing something like chanigng your facebook pic to you kissing another dude in front of a chick fil a, but it just smacks of... well, slacktivism if not outright hypocrisy.

I missed the part where Obama donated millions of dollars to organizations the SPLC has identified as hate groups.

I guess that counter makes sense if you accept that dropping $2 million on a single issue lobbying group will be more effective than actually... being the President.

Except Obama was not a single issue presidenting person running on his promise to not support gay marriage at the federal level. I also don't get how you're seeing an equivalence between "will not support" and "will lobby against."

I don't see how voting for Obama 4 years ago is even relevant to my actions today.

WipEout wrote:

Here's an interesting argument for the boycott. Makes you wonder what kind of people are crowding together at the restaurants. That is: not the kind with whom I wish to be acquainted.

Good read. I really wish some people on my Facebook feed would take the time to read it. Especially the "do unto others" part, and the imagine if another restaurant did this.

Seriously. Just imagine you are (or I'm sure some of us are) an African-American, and some restaurant donated money to the KKK. And all your friends posted pictures of lines at that restaurant and how great it was to support it. But they said "hey I'm not a racist, they just have good food." Or "I'm not a racist, but my pastor/priest/whatever and/or church friends all wanted to go."

Going there to support them en mass just reeks of, at best, not really thinking through your actions, and at worst, outright hate, discrimination or bigotry.

Really I had to unfriend some people on Facebook who were so proud of their great accomplishments this week of making huge lines at Chick-Fil-A.

Statement 1: Boycotting CFA(or Oreo cookies and Amazon) is legally and morally a-okay. Doing something illegal(harassment, trespassing, etc.) is neither. People are free to be stupid, loud, bigoted, etc., and others are free to not associate with them.

Statement 2: The Huckabee fan club's field trip will not last, and CFA is going to reap what it has sown. Let them have their record week, then deal with the ramifications of cultural ADD when the next Attack On Values happens and the organized trips stop. People remember their disgust far longer than they do artificial support.

SixteenBlue wrote:

I don't see how voting for Obama 4 years ago is even relevant to my actions today.

Because we have to line everyone up into one of two camps so that this becomes not just a part of the culture war, but a political issue.

Also, it's all Obama's fault in the end. That's just a rule.

My Christian brother-in-law posted this on Facebook yesterday. I was amazed by this in a good way.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

Of course it goes to hell in the comments, but that's to be expected.

DSGamer wrote:

My Christian brother-in-law posted this on Facebook yesterday. I was amazed by this in a good way.

http://matthewpaulturner.net/f1/5-reasons-why-the-church-failed-yesterday/

Of course it goes to hell in the comments, but that's to be expected.

Minarchist posted this in IRC as well. Great read.

This is a good one, too.

http://j2t2.wordpress.com/2012/08/03...

RoughneckGeek wrote:
WipEout wrote:

I'd also heard that Chik-Fil-A's money went to groups that promoted that whole "ungayifying" brainwashing camps movement that's going on, but I don't know how much truth there is to that. I wouldn't be surprised, honestly, if their money went to groups that support it, but I kind of doubt they'd send money directly to such camps.

Exodus International is one of the groups WinShape has donated to. In addition to the harmful ex-gay therapy they peddle, several executives attended the conference in Uganda that birthed the "Kill the Gays" bill as spokesmen for the organization.

I'm only risking entry into this forum to contribute some facts, nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International

Ugandan conference
In 2009, several Exodus International executives, traveling in their capacity as Exodus International spokesmen, attended a conference in Uganda that promoted what critics describe as promoting "shocking abuses of basic human rights".[41] Close to a year later, Chambers expressed regret for the organization's involvement, and spoke out against the nation's "Kill the Gays" bill.
In January 2012 the current president of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, during his address to a Gay Christian Network conference, stated that 99.9% of conversion therapy participants do not experience any change to their sexuality and apologized for the previous Exodus slogan "Change Is Possible". On October 6, 2010, it was reported by CNN and Ex-Gay Watch that Exodus International would not support the 2011 annual Day of Truth (a counter protest to the LGBT community's Day of Silence) originated by the Alliance Defense Fund, as the organization had done in 2010. President Alan Chambers was quoted as saying "All the recent attention to bullying helped us realize that we need to equip kids to live out biblical tolerance and grace while treating their neighbors as they'd like to be treated, whether they agree with them or not."[7][8] In another apparent shift in the organization's previous positions, Chambers stated in June 2012, "I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included." While he believes that "any sexual activity outside a heterosexual, monogamous marriage is sinful according to the bible", he is attempting to disassociate the group from "reparative therapy" and also step back from contentious political engagement. Speaking to the New York Times in July 2012, Chambers talked about how he believes gay people can have gay sex and still go to heaven. “But we’ve been asking people with same-sex attractions to overcome something in a way that we don’t ask of anyone else [with other sins].”[9][10]
Chambers, stated that conversion therapy is potentially harmful to those participating and it does not work

That's a good article. I want to print these out and keep them in my pocket for when people ask how I found my way to atheism. This particularly struck me.

I keep seeing what happened at Chick Fil A through the eyes of someone who wasn’t raised to love Jesus the way I was. Someone who struggles with faith or religion or feeling accepted. Someone who needs proof that Christianity is worthwhile, and that proof comes from the way Christians act. The way we treat each other. Whether people lined up at Chick Fil A to show support for the traditional family, or whether they lined up to protect their right to free speech, they were not doing the work of Jesus. Jesus wouldn’t have been standing in that line, and he wouldn’t have been holding a protest sign.

I've often said that on my journey to atheism initially I was given a shove by Christians. They made me feel like it was impossible that I was one of them when they behaved like this. I felt much like the people who wrote those blog posts. Except in my case I internalized that and allowed myself to do some serious soul-searching, eventually leaving religion entirely.

In other words actions like flaunting your support for a billionaire possible homophobe aren't exactly going to drive up membership. In fact, they're going to turn away people at the margins.

Thanks, MattDaddy - I wasn't aware that they had denounced the Ugandan bill.

DSGamer wrote:

I've often said that on my journey to atheism initially I was given a shove by Christians. They made me feel like it was impossible that I was one of them when they behaved like this.

Christians are a very diverse group of people. There are a ton of Christians who actively support gay rights, or are at least ambivalent about the issue, so it's not fair to argue that the behavior of people at Chick Fil A is a good reason for atheism.

Funkenpants wrote:

Christians are a very diverse group of people. There are a ton of Christians who actively support gay rights, so it's not fair to argue that the behavior of people at Chick Fil A is a good reason for atheism.

He said he Christians pushed him away, not all Christians.

You're right though, they are diverse and it would be nice to see more articles like the one linked earlier to remind people of that.

Funkenpants wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I've often said that on my journey to atheism initially I was given a shove by Christians. They made me feel like it was impossible that I was one of them when they behaved like this.

Christians are a very diverse group of people. There are a ton of Christians who actively support gay rights, or are at least ambivalent about the issue, so it's not fair to argue that the behavior of people at Chick Fil A is a good reason for atheism.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if you're on the margins, as I was and if you're doubting your faith, as I was something like this can shove you in that direction. I was already wavering because of having issues with theology in general. But as the Religious Right took prominence in the 90s it caused me to really question what I was doing.

In other words Chick Fil A style protests didn't lead to atheism. But they did prompt me to begin questioning if I "belonged" in this community. I might not have questioned my beliefs so strongly if there had been voices, like these, who stood up to the larger community on issues like this.