So, there's this chicken place...

Kraint wrote:

As a side note: while you may disagree, many people do see a valid comparison between Focus on the Family and well-known hate groups. The scale and active methods may be different, but the underlying motivations are arguably very comparable.

The KKK murdered people and engaged in a decades long process of violent intimidation against minorities. The difference in scale and methods is pretty big.

mcdonis wrote:
WipEout wrote:

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Again my beef isnt with those who are boycotting, I am cool with that. But there was a clear effort by some to try to hurt the company and step on their rights BECAUSE of their beliefs that I find offensive. When I say hurt I mean prevent them from building a new store in a city or proclaim they will never be allowed here. My going out there was me saying "While I disagree with their stance on marriage, I respect their right to have that belief and to be in business"

Lets turn this around and ask this question, would it be just of say Boston or Chicago to prevent my employment or my ability to build a business in town because I am a Christian. I think the clear answer we all know here is that it would be illegal because they are doing that based on my belief. Just like if Chick Fil A would be guity of the same if they refuse to hire someone who is gay, or refuse to serve someone who is gay.

mcdonis wrote:

Cities saying publicly that they will refuse to allow Chick Fil A into their city.

If I may, I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding on what is happening on that front. As I understand it(I'll cite as needed if there are any questions), the letters from city mayors have no legal content. They are purely use of the bully pulpit to express an opinion and are not actually policy-related in any way. Now, there is something going on in Chicago (IIRC) where one of the city's aldermen is questioning Chick-Fil-A on their refusal to codify some/all of their non-discrimination policy re: employees, and the mayor issued a statement supporting that. However, there is already a CFA location in Chicago.

So, to reiterate: I've read of no actions being taken by government officials to impede/harm CFA. Open letters covering statements that CFA is not welcome culturally in cities, but nothing like the legal/zoning challenges that Wal-Mart faces in some places.

Thanks for the clarification, mcdonis. And to be fair, as I stated previously, the Alderman (representative of the people of the neighborhood) claimed that his neighborhood would not want a restaurant or store that supports anti-gay lobbying in their neighborhood, and thus denied the permit to open such a store in his neighborhood. Meanwhile, there's a CFA downtown that's probably doing just fine.

The fact of that particular matter, though, is that the people in that neighborhood voted for an individual to represent their interests, and he did so. Should the people disagree with that decision, they have the ability to call up said representative directly and voice their concerns.

So to answer your question: no, that wouldn't be okay. And no, that is not what happened already. CFA is allowed in Chicago, despite their CEO's or whoever's beliefs, and is already in Chicago, despite their CEO's or whoever's beliefs. Rahm Emanuel (Chicago Mayor) had nothing to do with Wicker Park's denial of a request to build CFA in their neighborhood, he simply said that he supported Joe Moreno's decision, and that CFA's values don't mesh with Chicago's. Again-- politicking, and probably would have been better not to say anything, but he never made any decision one way or the other-- only expressed his own support of one of the Alderman's decisions.

SixteenBlue wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
WipEout wrote:

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Again my beef isnt with those who are boycotting, I am cool with that. But there was a clear effort by some to try to hurt the company and step on their rights BECAUSE of their beliefs that I find offensive. When I say hurt I mean prevent them from building a new store in a city or proclaim they will never be allowed here. My going out there was me saying "While I disagree with their stance on marriage, I respect their right to have that belief and to be in business"

Lets turn this around and ask this question, would it be just of say Boston or Chicago to prevent my employment or my ability to build a business in town because I am a Christian. I think the clear answer we all know here is that it would be illegal because they are doing that based on my belief. Just like if Chick Fil A would be guity of the same if they refuse to hire someone who is gay, or refuse to serve someone who is gay.

A politician made some stupid comments in a speech. When that's actually a real issue and Chick-Fil-A can no longer do business, then maybe they'll need your support.

But, for discussion's sake, let's say Chick-Fil-A's rights ARE being stepped on. So are gay people's rights when they're not allowed to marry. Do you really think Chick-Fil-A is the bigger victim here? So much that you had to go out of your way to show your support for them which is standing directly against gay people?

Ok I will answer this way.....

An atheist has the right to build a business thats purpose was to deliver Christians from their misguided beliefs by de-programing them. Or running a club where they distribute messages that say Christans are holding down the greater evolution of society. As an American I believe atheists have the right to open a business like that. Also as an American I believe I do not have the right to say because of those beliefs I wont hire them or allow them to open a store in my city.

Its not choosing sides, its choosing to support the right of them to feel the way we do. Otherwise we arent being tollerant, we are just saying we want everyone to live the way we want them to live. To be truly tollerant you have to believe that those whom hate and dispise you have a right to exist. Otherwise how are we any better?

Thats the difference

Its the same reason I dont agree with bans on same sex marriage, I dont agree with the practice but I feel folks have the right to belive otherwise.

mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

Where do you see this happening?

Cities saying publicly that they will refuse to allow Chick Fil A into their city.

mcdonis, I see what you're saying, but I think the reasoning is a little off base here, at least from what I've perceived. These mayors are not having their ridiculous tantrums (yeah, I think what they're doing is stupid, in spite of not liking the company for their actions and words) based on their religion, but their intolerance for a group's equal rights and giving money to people who are working to try and make sure that these people do not have equal rights. There is a difference. Many Christians have no issue with gay rights and I doubt many of these political officials would have the same tantrums if a Christian company wanted to move in that was not making such noise about this issue.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kraint wrote:

As a side note: while you may disagree, many people do see a valid comparison between Focus on the Family and well-known hate groups. The scale and active methods may be different, but the underlying motivations are arguably very comparable.

The KKK murdered people and engaged in a decades long process of violent intimidation against minorities. The difference in scale and methods is pretty big.

To be fair the KKK didn't have an operating budget of more than $100 million a year, a dedicated political action group it funnels tens of millions of dollars through each year to lobby politicians, and a media arm to spread their hate.

mcdonis wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
WipEout wrote:

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Again my beef isnt with those who are boycotting, I am cool with that. But there was a clear effort by some to try to hurt the company and step on their rights BECAUSE of their beliefs that I find offensive. When I say hurt I mean prevent them from building a new store in a city or proclaim they will never be allowed here. My going out there was me saying "While I disagree with their stance on marriage, I respect their right to have that belief and to be in business"

Lets turn this around and ask this question, would it be just of say Boston or Chicago to prevent my employment or my ability to build a business in town because I am a Christian. I think the clear answer we all know here is that it would be illegal because they are doing that based on my belief. Just like if Chick Fil A would be guity of the same if they refuse to hire someone who is gay, or refuse to serve someone who is gay.

A politician made some stupid comments in a speech. When that's actually a real issue and Chick-Fil-A can no longer do business, then maybe they'll need your support.

But, for discussion's sake, let's say Chick-Fil-A's rights ARE being stepped on. So are gay people's rights when they're not allowed to marry. Do you really think Chick-Fil-A is the bigger victim here? So much that you had to go out of your way to show your support for them which is standing directly against gay people?

Ok I will answer this way.....

An atheist has the right to build a business thats purpose was to deliver Christians from their misguided beliefs by de-programing them. Or running a club where they distribute messages that say Christans are holding down the greater evolution of society. As an American I believe atheists have the right to open a business like that. Also as an American I believe I do not have the right to say because of those beliefs I wont hire them or allow them to open a store in my city.

Its not choosing sides, its choosing to support the right of them to feel the way we do. Otherwise we arent being tollerant, we are just saying we want everyone to live the way we want them to live. To be truly tollerant you have to believe that those whom hate and dispise you have a right to exist. Otherwise how are we any better?

Thats the difference

Its the same reason I dont agree with bans on same sex marriage, I dont agree with the practice but I feel folks have the right to belive otherwise.

By standing in solidarity with Chick-Fil-A you are saying otherwise. In fact you are donating money to the prevention of same-sex marriage equality. That's what I was getting at before. By standing with them you had to make a choice. It is absolutely choosing sides.

mcdonis wrote:
Gravey wrote:
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/

A real takeaway message in there for me is this:

Not only did supporting CFA Appreciation Day declare that Christians believe that an issue is more important than people, that declaration was made by the mass consumption of junk food. That fact doesn’t need a punch line. It is a punch line.

That is spot on. The CFA crap doesn't just reflect poorly on Christians, it reflects poorly on the US. Granted it's a fraction of Christians that are hopefully misrepresenting Christianity as a whole, but they are likewise a fraction of Americans misrepresenting their country.

The world already believes the US is nothing but ignorant Bible-thumping lard-asses. As a Canadian, my national identity is founded on harbouring that belief. Now to see the issue, proclaimed by a former Republican presidential candidate, that seemingly galvanizes a nation is the one built on buying a fast food sandwich...?

This is a PR disaster for everyone in your country. The US may be a superpower, but it's been a laughingstock for years now. The Chick-Fil-A crap (even the name—"Fil-A"—is stereotypically American) is like material from a comedy writer who's lost his passion for the job.

I dont know about everyone else who stood outside but I will tell you why I did.....

I appreciate you sharing your reasons, but in the eyes of the world, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how marginal or fringe are those who went to Chick-Fillet for ill-conceived reasons. I know it buries the lead, but when the headline is AMERICANS FLOCK TO SUPPORT FAST FOOD CHICKEN CHAIN no one else in the world will bother to see past their tears of laughter or, at best, pity.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kraint wrote:

As a side note: while you may disagree, many people do see a valid comparison between Focus on the Family and well-known hate groups. The scale and active methods may be different, but the underlying motivations are arguably very comparable.

The KKK murdered people and engaged in a decades long process of violent intimidation against minorities. The difference in scale and methods is pretty big.

That is part of what the KKK did, and that is a far cry from what FotF does, I agree. But the KKK also spent time and effort on anti-miscegenation laws, ending Catholic influence in the US, (successfully)getting KKK members elected to local and state government, tried to run a university teaching their brand of "Americanism," and spread religious influence in public schools. When you have an organization that is founded and run for the express purpose of limiting the rights and freedoms of a group of people, this type of comparison is, in my opinion, both apt and inevitable.

Kraint wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
WipEout wrote:

So mcdonis, while I don't personally believe you are a typical, stupid American that bastes his shame in salt water (;)), I do think that to claim a peaceful, dissident action against something you do or might support as being intolerant/hateful simply because you disagree is a pretty poorly-thought out decision-- at least in this case.

Again my beef isnt with those who are boycotting, I am cool with that. But there was a clear effort by some to try to hurt the company and step on their rights BECAUSE of their beliefs that I find offensive. When I say hurt I mean prevent them from building a new store in a city or proclaim they will never be allowed here. My going out there was me saying "While I disagree with their stance on marriage, I respect their right to have that belief and to be in business"

Lets turn this around and ask this question, would it be just of say Boston or Chicago to prevent my employment or my ability to build a business in town because I am a Christian. I think the clear answer we all know here is that it would be illegal because they are doing that based on my belief. Just like if Chick Fil A would be guity of the same if they refuse to hire someone who is gay, or refuse to serve someone who is gay.

mcdonis wrote:

Cities saying publicly that they will refuse to allow Chick Fil A into their city.

If I may, I think there might be a bit of a misunderstanding on what is happening on that front. As I understand it(I'll cite as needed if there are any questions), the letters from city mayors have no legal content. They are purely use of the bully pulpit to express an opinion and are not actually policy-related in any way. Now, there is something going on in Chicago (IIRC) where one of the city's aldermen is questioning Chick-Fil-A on their refusal to codify some/all of their non-discrimination policy re: employees, and the mayor issued a statement supporting that. However, there is already a CFA location in Chicago.

So, to reiterate: I've read of no actions being taken by government officials to impede/harm CFA. Open letters covering statements that CFA is not welcome culturally in cities, but nothing like the legal/zoning challenges that Wal-Mart faces in some places.

Yes you are correct and for the record I also understand they are just blowing hot air for the most part. (trying to score easy political points)

The problem is preception is reality to most folks

If folks hadent when out to support chick fil a the blood would have been in the water. Other cities would have (or will still try) to discriminate against them because they are fair game. We only have rights as long as we are willing to defend them. If folks thought no one would support the company we would see much more of a drive to see them destroyed law or no law.

Also I should point out that while they are not taking action per-say if in the future they decide to deny Chick Fil A entry later it will probably be a slam dunk discrimination case against them. Thus they would have broke the law....

Demosthenes wrote:
mcdonis wrote:
Tanglebones wrote:
mcdonis wrote:

Well first of all I would not have any issue with folks protesting them or boycotting them, its trying to put them out of business and steping on their rights where I draw the line. I can dislike a person or their opinions, I can feel that what someone follows and wants is pure evil. I just dont think I have the right to demand that person be disalowed from making a living because of it.

Also I disagee with the correlation with the KKK and Focus on the Family, or some of the other groups sited.

Where do you see this happening?

Cities saying publicly that they will refuse to allow Chick Fil A into their city.

mcdonis, I see what you're saying, but I think the reasoning is a little off base here, at least from what I've perceived. These mayors are not having their ridiculous tantrums (yeah, I think what they're doing is stupid, in spite of not liking the company for their actions and words) based on their religion, but their intolerance for a group's equal rights and giving money to people who are working to try and make sure that these people do not have equal rights. There is a difference. Many Christians have no issue with gay rights and I doubt many of these political officials would have the same tantrums if a Christian company wanted to move in that was not making such noise about this issue.

As I said before, the direct comparison is with In and Out Burger, and the lack of a backlash against them. The disapproval is for the actions of Chick-Fil-A, not their beliefs.

Kraint wrote:

That is part of what the KKK did, and that is a far cry from what FotF does, I agree. But the KKK also spent time and effort on anti-miscegenation laws, ending Catholic influence in the US, (successfully)getting KKK members elected to local and state government, tried to run a university teaching their brand of "Americanism," and spread religious influence in public schools.

People remember the KKK for the bedsheets hiding their faces, burning crosses on lawns, and murdering people. If you compare the KKK to a group, that's what it being recalled, not the KKK's lobbying or electoral campaigns.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kraint wrote:

That is part of what the KKK did, and that is a far cry from what FotF does, I agree. But the KKK also spent time and effort on anti-miscegenation laws, ending Catholic influence in the US, (successfully)getting KKK members elected to local and state government, tried to run a university teaching their brand of "Americanism," and spread religious influence in public schools.

People remember the KKK for the bedsheets hiding their faces, burning crosses on lawns, and murdering people. If you compare the KKK to a group, that's what it being recalled, not the KKK's lobbying or electoral campaigns.

So what? People shouldn't make accurate comparisons because someone else's ignorance might confuse the message? Are you seriously not backing down here?

mcdonis wrote:

Ok I will answer this way.....

An atheist has the right to build a business thats purpose was to deliver Christians from their misguided beliefs by de-programing them. Or running a club where they distribute messages that say Christans are holding down the greater evolution of society. As an American I believe atheists have the right to open a business like that. Also as an American I believe I do not have the right to say because of those beliefs I wont hire them or allow them to open a store in my city.

Its not choosing sides, its choosing to support the right of them to feel the way we do. Otherwise we arent being tollerant, we are just saying we want everyone to live the way we want them to live. To be truly tollerant you have to believe that those whom hate and dispise you have a right to exist. Otherwise how are we any better?

Thats the difference

Its the same reason I dont agree with bans on same sex marriage, I dont agree with the practice but I feel folks have the right to belive otherwise.

mcdonis, you're fighting for what you state is freedom of speech. In regards to what the mayors are saying, do they not have the freedom of speech to say they're against what Chick-Fil-A stands for?

If so, then until they take action to keep Chick-Fil-A out, they can say whatever they wish.

People who attended the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day had every right to do so, and I'd fight for their right to do so. I really would, even if I disagree wholeheartedly. Their actions, however, speak even louder. By going, every single person stated this:

"My right to a chicken sandwich trumps Rubb Ed's right to be married to the person of his choice."

Substitute in any other gay person's name you wish there. But every single person who went said this with their actions. They value a $4.00 sandwich more than a person's right to their pursuit of happiness.

You may disagree, and that's fine. You have every right to disagree. But guess what? If you lose this battle, you still walk away from it having all the rights a straight person has. If I lose this battle? I don't.

You think I'm being intolerant of your beliefs when I speak out against Chick-Fil-A? Why should I tolerate, on any level, a company's actions (donations to groups, specifically) that are trying to keep me from experiencing my full liberties as a human being?

There's an article that I don't have a link to at the moment that says it a little more eloquently than I am, but basically, if you believe that your attendance at Chick-Fil-A wasn't an act against me and people like me and wasn't homophobic, I state that your words are completely drowned out by what your feet and what your wallet did.

Rubb Ed wrote:

There's an article that I don't have a link to at the moment that says it a little more eloquently than I am, but basically, if you believe that your attendance at Chick-Fil-A wasn't an act against me and people like me and wasn't homophobic, I state that your words are completely drowned out by what your feet and what your wallet did.

I believe this is the link you're looking for: The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw

Gravey wrote:

I know it buries the lead, but when the headline is AMERICANS FLOCK TO SUPPORT FAST FOOD CHICKEN CHAIN no one else in the world will bother to see past their tears of laughter or, at best, pity.

Is global peer-pressure a good reason in and of itself for doing anything though? (I mean, when it comes to mockery and not jihad-inducing anger)

RoughneckGeek wrote:
Rubb Ed wrote:

There's an article that I don't have a link to at the moment that says it a little more eloquently than I am, but basically, if you believe that your attendance at Chick-Fil-A wasn't an act against me and people like me and wasn't homophobic, I state that your words are completely drowned out by what your feet and what your wallet did.

I believe this is the link you're looking for: The Chick Fellatio: stuck in the craw

Yup, that's the one. Thank you!

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Gravey wrote:

I know it buries the lead, but when the headline is AMERICANS FLOCK TO SUPPORT FAST FOOD CHICKEN CHAIN no one else in the world will bother to see past their tears of laughter or, at best, pity.

Is global peer-pressure a good reason in and of itself for doing anything though? (I mean, when it comes to mockery and not jihad-inducing anger)

No one said that was a motivation at all.

Oh. Then why is it worth mentioning at all?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Then why is it worth mentioning at all?

Because Gravey is a non-American and brought up his view. Why does it bother you that it was mentioned?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Then why is it worth mentioning at all?

Because we're supposed to be a first-world country, that all the other countries "look up to", that we may set the example of, and the proof that we are in fact, the best and the brightest and most forward-thinking nation. And then we turn around and support junk food over human rights.

Funkenpants wrote:
Kraint wrote:

That is part of what the KKK did, and that is a far cry from what FotF does, I agree. But the KKK also spent time and effort on anti-miscegenation laws, ending Catholic influence in the US, (successfully)getting KKK members elected to local and state government, tried to run a university teaching their brand of "Americanism," and spread religious influence in public schools.

People remember the KKK for the bedsheets hiding their faces, burning crosses on lawns, and murdering people. If you compare the KKK to a group, that's what it being recalled, not the KKK's lobbying or electoral campaigns.

I don't really share that view. Perhaps it is because I am more aware of the history on it than the average person, but we may have to agree to disagree. That said, I still stand by my original comparison. I may be taking FotF and the KKK differently than you do, since my marriage would be illegal if the KKK and their peer groups had gotten what they wanted. But I do not see any factual errors on my part(if they exist, please enlighten me - I have no formal education in history).

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Oh. Then why is it worth mentioning at all?

Because a not insignificant number of Americans believed it was their religious or civic duty to line-up for a chicken sandwich in the fight against equality. Because members of a nation that believes itself, quite vocally, to be the greatest and most free nation in the world has, at the behest of a man who would have led that nation, behaved in a way that's as insulting as it is laughable. And because the rest of the world already has such dim view of the US that it reflects on the whole nation.

Peer pressure shouldn't be needed to dissuade anyone from making an issue of a fast food chain; pure and simple self-respect should have.

Why's McDonis getting picked on here guys? As far as I've read so far he never said he went and ate at chick-fil-a, nor has he said that he's against same sex marriage. All he's said so far is that free speech goes both ways (which is correct). Isn't that what your country is founded on: free speech for everyone?

I may not like what Chick-Fil-A does with their money, I may not like what their CEO has to say, but he's got every right to say what he wants, just as his company has every right to donate to who they want. Yes, what Chick-Fil-A does directly harms people I care about, BUT I think in the long run it'll bite them in the ass. Hell, I think it's already biting them in the ass; I've read a few blog posts from angry Christians who are SUPER pissed at these so-called "christians" for showing up at Chick-Fil-A day and making them look bad.

Trachalio wrote:

Why's McDonis getting picked on here guys? As far as I've read so far he never said he went and ate at chick-fil-a, nor has he said that he's against same sex marriage. All he's said so far is that free speech goes both ways (which is correct). Isn't that what your country is founded on: free speech for everyone?

I may not like what Chick-Fil-A does with their money, I may not like what their CEO has to say, but he's got every right to say what he wants, just as his company has every right to donate to who they want. Yes, what Chick-Fil-A does directly harms people I care about, BUT I think in the long run it'll bite them in the ass. Hell, I think it's already biting them in the ass; I've read a few blog posts from angry Christians who are SUPER pissed at these so-called "christians" for showing up at Chick-Fil-A day and making them look bad.

He did say that he went and had a chicken sandwich to support the company, actually:)

SallyNasty wrote:
Trachalio wrote:

Why's McDonis getting picked on here guys? As far as I've read so far he never said he went and ate at chick-fil-a, nor has he said that he's against same sex marriage. All he's said so far is that free speech goes both ways (which is correct). Isn't that what your country is founded on: free speech for everyone?

I may not like what Chick-Fil-A does with their money, I may not like what their CEO has to say, but he's got every right to say what he wants, just as his company has every right to donate to who they want. Yes, what Chick-Fil-A does directly harms people I care about, BUT I think in the long run it'll bite them in the ass. Hell, I think it's already biting them in the ass; I've read a few blog posts from angry Christians who are SUPER pissed at these so-called "christians" for showing up at Chick-Fil-A day and making them look bad.

He did say that he went and had a chicken sandwich to support the company, actually:)

He also said that people who are against Chick-Fil-A are being intolerant and hateful.

Trachalio wrote:

Why's McDonis getting picked on here guys? As far as I've read so far he never said he went and ate at chick-fil-a, nor has he said that he's against same sex marriage. All he's said so far is that free speech goes both ways (which is correct). Isn't that what your country is founded on: free speech for everyone?

I may not like what Chick-Fil-A does with their money, I may not like what their CEO has to say, but he's got every right to say what he wants, just as his company has every right to donate to who they want. Yes, what Chick-Fil-A does directly harms people I care about, BUT I think in the long run it'll bite them in the ass. Hell, I think it's already biting them in the ass; I've read a few blog posts from angry Christians who are SUPER pissed at these so-called "christians" for showing up at Chick-Fil-A day and making them look bad.

mcdonis wrote:

I dont know about everyone else who stood outside but I will tell you why I did.....

Free speech includes the right for (non-governmental actors) to censure speech and actions they disagree with. If the boycott/protest reaction wasn't there, it would be business as usual for CFA, for better or worse.

mcdonis wrote:

If folks hadent when out to support chick fil a the blood would have been in the water. Other cities would have (or will still try) to discriminate against them because they are fair game. We only have rights as long as we are willing to defend them. If folks thought no one would support the company we would see much more of a drive to see them destroyed law or no law.

Also I should point out that while they are not taking action per-say if in the future they decide to deny Chick Fil A entry later it will probably be a slam dunk discrimination case against them. Thus they would have broke the law....

You do understand that those cities would have absolutely no legal leg to stand on, don't you? It's a freedom of speech issue. Any ban that a city might manage to pass would immediately be declared unconstitutional once it hit the courts (which it would).

That doesn't change the fact that the CEO of Chick Fil A had the constitutional right to say ignorant, bigoted things and the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco had the constitutional right to say they don't like his ignorant, bigoted beliefs.

But don't try to claim that the whole Chick Fil A thing was about defending constitutional rights because I certainly didn't see millions Christians going to Falafels 'R Us in support of Muslims who wanted to build mosques in NYC, Murfreesboro, TN, and many other places. In fact, the exact opposite happened. Christian groups successfully pressured those city governments to try to find creative ways to violate the First Amendment rights of those Americans. Thankfully, we have the courts to defend every American's rights, not just the Christian ones.

SallyNasty wrote:

He did say that he went and had a chicken sandwich to support the company, actually:)

Whelp, that's what I get for skimming the thread super fast!

OG_slinger wrote:

To be fair the KKK didn't have an operating budget of more than $100 million a year, a dedicated political action group it funnels tens of millions of dollars through each year to lobby politicians, and a media arm to spread their hate.

Well, to be fair, Chik Fil A hasn't sent out groups in the night to murder gay people.

SixteenBlue wrote:

So what? People shouldn't make accurate comparisons because someone else's ignorance might confuse the message? Are you seriously not backing down here?

Let's look at this in a different context. The Nazi party built autobahns and put people to work in government programs to reduce unemployment in the 1930s and engaged in a variety of activities unrelated to their final solution for the jewish problem. If I say, "the democrats are no different than Nazis" or "the democrats and the Nazis have a lot in common", am I making a fair comparison? I mean, if I explain that both Nazis and Democrats believed that low employment was a threat to the health of the nation and required government intervention- should I tell someone that they're just ignorant when they think I'm talking about death camps?

In making historical comparisons, it's fair to compare the ideas expressed by different leaders or groups. But to say the one group is identical or similar to another group implies that they are the same in all significant qualities. The KKK's ideas weren't unique in America. There were large numbers of people around the country who felt the same way. What separates the KKK from other racists was that they went out into the night and physically intimidated people or killed them outright. That's a pretty significant difference between the KKK and Chik Fil A.

I get the idea that people don't like their political opponents and think they're evil. But invoking the KKK when we're not talking about mass terrorist activity is like comparing a foreign group that peacefully opposes U.S. intervention in the Arab world with Osama Bin Ladin. Tactics and violence matter.