So, there's this chicken place...

Funkenpants wrote:
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.

I think that's a fair assessment, Funkenpants

Tanglebones wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
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.

I think that's a fair assessment, Funkenpants

I don't. I think comparing groups based off their intentions is just as important as their methods. The lack of violence doesn't make it any less despicable to me, honestly. Given how many other methods do overlap I don't think you can throw the whole comparison out just because that part doesn't fit either.

Kraint wrote:
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).

Bold. Think about it. That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

I really want to understand the thinking here. Be gentle with me...

So, the actual speech that got people all worked up was this:

"We are very much supportive of the family, the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Apparently, before he said this, it was "ok" to go to Chik-fil-a and buy a tasty sandwich but if you go to Chik-fil-a now, you are supporting an anti-gay company. If you bought a sandwich or paid any money to them before this speech was made, you are forgiven for your ignorance of where they donate their money to. But now that its all over the news, if you do buy from there, there is absolutely no doubt you support their donation of anti-gay groups.

Am I correct in this?

Ok, so what I want to know is, why is there no mention of the OTHER hate filled stuff in that speech? Nobody has said a PEEP about the other blatant hate filled point he deliberately crafted in his wording.

I'll even help you out here: "and we are married to our first wives.". This I take to mean that anyone who has EVER been divorced (for whatever reason) is also below their "standard" of humanity.

Would this not also be an important thing to talk about? There's an awful lot of divorced people in the word, gays among them. Being excommunicated from certain churches due to being divorced is standard practice (along w/ not being allowed to fulfill your religious beliefs such as communion etc). To many non-anti-gay Christians this is a big deal as well is it not?

PAR

par wrote:

I really want to understand the thinking here. Be gentle with me...

So, the actual speech that got people all worked up was this:

"We are very much supportive of the family, the biblical definition of the family unit," he said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."


Apparently, before he said this, it was "ok" to go to Chik-fil-a and buy a tasty sandwich but if you go to Chik-fil-a now, you are supporting an anti-gay company.
If you bought a sandwich or paid any money to them before this speech was made, you are forgiven for your ignorance of where they donate their money to. But now that its all over the news, if you do buy from there, there is absolutely no doubt you support their donation of anti-gay groups.

Am I correct in this?

Ok, so what I want to know is, why is there no mention of the OTHER hate filled stuff in that speech? Nobody has said a PEEP about the other blatant hate filled point he deliberately crafted in his wording.

I'll even help you out here: "and we are married to our first wives.". This I take to mean that anyone who has EVER been divorced (for whatever reason) is also below their "standard" of humanity.

Would this not also be an important thing to talk about? There's an awful lot of divorced people in the word, gays among them. Being excommunicated from certain churches due to being divorced is standard practice (along w/ not being allowed to fulfill your religious beliefs such as communion etc). To many non-anti-gay Christians this is a big deal as well is it not?

PAR

It's actually been known for years that they donate the money to these charities. It wasn't until this speech that the public at large really learned that though.

Personally I don't care at all about the speech, purely the dollars.

Let me help you out a bit Par, because it's a pretty fundamental issue in communication in these forums and the rest of the planet. You're drawing perfectly rational conclusions. You're asking for rational reasoning for what is an emotionally charged issue. Why is the anti-gay thing stirring people up when there's also a shot against divorced people? Because divorce is common and largely rationalized at this point. It's old hat.

I'm making this point now because the way you're framing the question makes it essentially impossible to arrive at a conclusion that would satisfy you. This is an incredibly emotional and personal issue for people on both sides of the fence. You're basically asking in a roundabout way, "What's the big deal? Why this and not that?"

That's it. Emotions, man. Feelings. There's plenty of rational points to be made and lots to discuss, but asking why someone feels strongly about one thing but not others is a non-starter.

SixteenBlue wrote:

It's actually been known for years that they donate the money to these charities. It wasn't until this speech that the public at large really learned that though.

Personally I don't care at all about the speech, purely the dollars.

That doesn't answer my question though. Do you label people who buy from them as anti-gay supporters? Did you before this all got out in the media and do you now?

I'm honestly not trying to start a fight here or an argument. I'm just really trying to figure out what implications are between:

  1. Has never purchased from them
  2. Has purchased from them and found out that they donate to anti-gay groups and stopped
  3. Has purchased from them and found out what they do and continued to purchase from them

What does it say about those people and what impact (if any) does it cause to them, to you and to the public in general?

PAR

Stele wrote:
Kraint wrote:
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).

Bold. Think about it. That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

Absolutely. There were plenty of "good Christian people" 50-60 years ago who believed God was against interracial marriage and race mixing. They went to church, smiled and were pleasant, and simply explained that their religion said black and white people were different and shouldn't mix together. Their views were accepted by huge chunks of the population. It's not hard to look up the history and see all the Biblical justifications of prohibitions of interracial marriage, or even racist legal codes or slavery. They were all "good Christian people" by the standards of the day, and we now look back at those people as sadly and tragically racist, mistaken morons.

20 years from now, people will be stunned that same-sex marriage was ever an issue. I mean, it's not hard to check the demographics on this; the so-called "millenials" support it in pretty overwhelming numbers. Everybody knows that same-marriage is going to be legal at some point, and the only thing that passing laws banning it does today is provide a few more mean-spirited and petty years of denying gays and lesbians a chance at being treated equally.

So, simply put, every single one of you who went to Chik-Fil-A to "support the company"? Your children are going to be ashamed of you. ASHAMED. They will look on you like I look at those people in the 50s and 60s yelling at those first students walking into Ole Miss or other freshly-integrated schools. Check the demographics. The next generation doesn't care, and they will be as utterly and completely disgusted by this whole issue as I am.

Certis wrote:

Let me help you out a bit Par, because it's a pretty fundamental issue in communication in these forums and the rest of the planet. You're drawing perfectly rational conclusions. You're asking for rational reasoning for what is an emotionally charged issue. Why is the anti-gay thing stirring people up when there's also a shot against divorced people? Because divorce is common and largely rationalized at this point. It's old hat.

I'm making this point now because the way you're framing the question makes it essentially impossible to arrive at a conclusion that would satisfy you. This is an incredibly emotional and personal issue for people on both sides of the fence. You're basically asking in a roundabout way, "What's the big deal? Why this and not that?"

That's it. Emotions, man. Feelings. There's plenty of rational points to be made and lots to discuss, but asking why someone feels strongly about one thing but not others is a non-starter.

I understand that. In my above question I am literally asking, what do people think of those who do what I mentioned in my bullets.

I agree its an emotionally charged issue and I agree with the statements in this forum. I am just honestly asking what you all would think of me if I knew my wife went to lunch at Chik-fil-a today or if my best friend did. What if my kid did at summer school cuz it was the closest restaurant to him?

PAR

I was boycotting them before this speech for their corporate donation practices. This speech just brought it to the public eye and those who hadn't been aware of those donations are now acting on that knowledge. It's not about the speech.

par wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

It's actually been known for years that they donate the money to these charities. It wasn't until this speech that the public at large really learned that though.

Personally I don't care at all about the speech, purely the dollars.

That doesn't answer my question though. Do you label people who buy from them as anti-gay supporters? Did you before this all got out in the media and do you now?

I'm honestly not trying to start a fight here or an argument. I'm just really trying to figure out what implications are between:

  1. Has never purchased from them
  2. Has purchased from them and found out that they donate to anti-gay groups and stopped
  3. Has purchased from them and found out what they do and continued to purchase from them

What does it say about those people and what impact (if any) does it cause to them, to you and to the public in general?

PAR

Oh ok I see what you're saying.

Group #3 does bother me, yes, but really that's more of a fact that convenience is more important than civil rights and that's just kind of sad. The people that get me actually angry are the people that feel the need to go out of their way to support Chick-Fil-A. The people that are making the decision that Chick-Fil-A > civil rights, as opposed to the people that are just too lazy to find a new chicken sandwich. Similarly, I'm angered by the people that act like there are any other victims here and somehow CFA and Christianity are being oppressed.

I don't really object to the CEO as a person stating an opinion - whatever, I opine about stuff all the time! I strenuously disagree with him and based on his position wouldn't want to have a beer with him, but he has every right to think what he wants when he wants it.

What I personally object to is the use of the CEO position as spokesperson, and most importantly, the use of the Chik-fil-a money to influence and support an anti-gay agenda that ultimately seeks to prevent rights. My little brother is gay - always has been. The CEO is using his soapbox/money to try and make it so that lil'bro can't get married to his boyfriend. Ultimately, an opinion is influencing my family's reality. That is tough to swallow.

par wrote:
Certis wrote:

Let me help you out a bit Par, because it's a pretty fundamental issue in communication in these forums and the rest of the planet. You're drawing perfectly rational conclusions. You're asking for rational reasoning for what is an emotionally charged issue. Why is the anti-gay thing stirring people up when there's also a shot against divorced people? Because divorce is common and largely rationalized at this point. It's old hat.

I'm making this point now because the way you're framing the question makes it essentially impossible to arrive at a conclusion that would satisfy you. This is an incredibly emotional and personal issue for people on both sides of the fence. You're basically asking in a roundabout way, "What's the big deal? Why this and not that?"

That's it. Emotions, man. Feelings. There's plenty of rational points to be made and lots to discuss, but asking why someone feels strongly about one thing but not others is a non-starter.

I understand that. In my above question I am literally asking, what do people think of those who do what I mentioned in my bullets.

I agree its an emotionally charged issue and I agree with the statements in this forum. I am just honestly asking what you all would think of me if I knew my wife went to lunch at Chik-fil-a today or if my best friend did. What if my kid did at summer school cuz it was the closest restaurant to him?

PAR

I'd rather know what you thought about those points rather than what other people thought of you hypothetically. Talk about what you think. In the past it's been a lot of questions and then picking apart the answers. That's not a equal conversation. Have some skin in the game!

Funkenpants wrote:
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.

Please don't disregard the fact that we, here on this forum, able to discuss things with nuance. There are a lot of valid parallels to be found between KKK and anti-homosexual groups in their underlying motivations the non-violent methods employed. Those can be discussed here without the automatic inclusions/assumptions you've outlined because we have the freedom to employee nuance, to clarify our statements, and to provide definitions of terms. Please don't conflate this discussion with the consistent and endemic foolishness of our media. I(and many others here) may well avoid any statement of comparison between the groups in a less-responsive environment for the reasons you list. This isn't about trying to conflate FotF with burning crosses, but it is about recognizing bigotry and hate as such.

par: Partly it's a big deal because Mike Huckabee made it that way. It could have just been news about their donations coming more in the public eye. But Huckabee kind of turned it into a crusade.

“I ask you to join me in speaking out on Wednesday, August 1 “Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day. No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple.” The former GOP presidential contender writes on his Facebook invitation, “Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1.”

Also this comes on the heels of Sesame Street pulling their partnership with CFA in the wake of the comments, and pulling their toys from the kids meals that CFA was serving last month.

And so you have a Christian leader like Huckabee calling for people to go out and support CFA. Some people might not even know the part about CFA's stance on gay marriage or donation to groups that support it. A lot of Christians, and others, have always appreciated the way CFA is closed on Sundays to affirm their beliefs. The Sabbath being more important than making extra money seems like a refreshing choice in today's 24/7 global economy where oil companies gouge customers for $10 billion in profit a quarter.

But as has been pointed out, whether people realized it or not, the mass exodus to CFA feels like a big symbol of hate to those people that are being discriminated against by the groups CFA supports.

Kraint wrote:

This isn't about trying to conflate FotF with burning crosses, but it is about recognizing bigotry and hate as such.

This.

par wrote:

I'm just really trying to figure out what implications are between:

  1. Has never purchased from them
  2. Has purchased from them and found out that they donate to anti-gay groups and stopped
  3. Has purchased from them and found out what they do and continued to purchase from them

What does it say about those people and what impact (if any) does it cause to them, to you and to the public in general?

PAR

1. Impetus: insufficient data. Effect: negligible.
2. Impetus: likely made principled choice. Effect: positive for boycott.
3. Impetus: 87% likelihood asshole; 6% likelihood confused First Amendment supporter; 6% likelihood contrarian; 1% likelihood really, really likes Chik-fil-A. Effect: negative for boycott & people affected by policies of Chik-fil-A-supported groups.

As mcdonis may have glossed over, there is a disconnect between the speech and action of the mayors vs. Chik-fil-A. Both said some things (GTFO out of our cities; Jesus hates teh gays) which fall under free speech. However, Chik-fil-A has backed its sentiments with action — the funding. The mayors are unable to do so, short of using eminent domain to flatten Chik-fil-A franchises to build public Homodromes.

par wrote:

That doesn't answer my question though. Do you label people who buy from them as anti-gay supporters? Did you before this all got out in the media and do you now?

Personally, I stopped patronizing Chick-Fil-A years ago when I learned they channel money to groups I consider hateful. I didn't view people who bought from them back then and up to recently as anti-gay supporters because that knowledge wasn't well known and they make some tasty chicken sandwiches.

However, I have a pretty dim view of anyone who purposefully went to Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday because, unless they lived in a cave, they almost certainly went there to make a negative public statement about gays.

par wrote:

What does it say about those people and what impact (if any) does it cause to them, to you and to the public in general?

This whole thing was just a quick stop at a scenic lookout on the road to gay marriage.

I'm sure the people who went to Chick-Fil-A feel they struck a blow for traditional values, but all they really did was make Chick-Fil-A's quarter. What it did for me was once again confirm my unflattering view of most Christians in this country. What it did for the public in general is too soon to tell. The only thing we do know is that the demographics are against the Chick-Fil-A'ers. They are fighting a losing battle.

SixteenBlue wrote:

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

NO I didn't.... Go ahead and ignore what I said if it makes you feel better however.

I support others in disagreeing with them and I support the right of those to protest. I do not support the idea that people should use their position illegally to cause harm to others. period...

Illegally = Using their position in government to proclaim they will discriminate against someone else because of their beliefs

Rubb Ed wrote:
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.

Yep the mayors have a right to free speech until they proclaim they are going to discriminate in carrying out their elected tasks.

Actually I support not just your right to marry but your right to protest them and boycott them. This is America you should be able to do that, the core of what I fear is in an effort to right a wrong we are actually doing the thing we are all mad at in the first place.

What scares me in your statement is "Why should I tolerate on any level". I don't like what a lot of organizations are trying to do, yet I don't demand those whom believe the way they do not be allowed to make money or exist. That is hate

mcdonis wrote:

What scares me in your statement is "Why should I tolerate on any level". I don't like what a lot of organizations are trying to do, yet I don't demand those whom believe the way they do not be allowed to make money or exist. That is hate

Which is why when the KKK comes by selling Klan Kookies, I'm going to buy five boxes. Not doing so would be hate.

Gravey wrote:
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

So without completely derailing by getting into the meat of your statements, some people in the US hold opinions you don't agree with and you're attempting to slut-shame the entire country.

Noted, I guess.

Certis wrote:

I'd rather know what you thought about those points rather than what other people thought of you hypothetically. Talk about what you think. In the past it's been a lot of questions and then picking apart the answers. That's not a equal conversation. Have some skin in the game!

Valid and understood. Here goes and I'm really trying not to be banned with what I'm going to say... I already gave my answers in another thread that was locked because of emotionally driven responses to what I said.

For me, I will most likely go to Chik-fil-a again sometime because I like their sandwiches and I think their chicken is probably the best fast-food chicken you can get (but that's my opinion). My wife likes their food and so does my son.

I do not agree with the anti-gay messages of the company's "owners" but I personally believe that if I didn't boycott every other major company that I know does immoral things I would consider myself a hypocrite. I believe there are other ways to fight such behavior that will actually make an impact instead of just withholding my infinitesimal patronage of their establishment.

With that stance (in the other thread), I was accused of "not taking any action is worse than taking small action" or some such along with "insulting others" because I thought it might be a little hypocritical to take a huge stance against one company but not other companies who do the same thing. As soon as I mentioned that I thought it might be hypocritical for the reasons stated within, it was immediately assumed that I was generalizing everyone who is against Chik-fil-a as a hypocrite.

As for the other thing I mentioned in my post that you replied to, it is a very emotional thing for ME. Its the main reason I am now a non-practicing christian and my wife and I are very much raising our son in a non-christian (albeit spiritual) manner. This thread is about the "chicken place" in general and how and how not to boycott them. Bringing up the reasons for the boycotting/protesting includes everything that was stated by the company that started this and that is something I wanted to bring to light as well.

PAR

mcdonis wrote:

What scares me in your statement is "Why should I tolerate on any level". I don't like what a lot of organizations are trying to do, yet I don't demand those whom believe the way they do not be allowed to make money or exist. That is hate

It's also a straw man argument; no one has said that about CFA, and when you've brought up examples, they've all been knocked down as false.

Boycotting and protesting are not saying that a company should not be allowed to make money; it's saying that their actions should be brought into the public eye, and that people should make their own decisions about whether to spend money there.

Par - why would you get banned for making reasonable and thoughtful remarks?:)

We need more of those!

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Gravey wrote:
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

So without completely derailing by getting into the meat of your statements, some people in the US hold opinions you don't agree with and you're attempting to slut-shame the entire country.

Noted, I guess.

?

I don't think that's what he said.

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

Stele wrote:

That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Stele wrote:

That's exactly what gay people want, the right to marry anyone. People are born gay, just as they are born with skin pigments and other racial features. We're all people, we all deserve the same rights.

My main issue with the racism equivalence is that there's a difference between discrimination based on what you look like and discrimination based on what you do. Our entire justice system is based on restricting the rights of people based on actions they take, we do this as a matter of course. The heart of the issue is, "is this action wrong, if so why", and comparisons to racism and arguments about being born with a predisposition to a particular action are sort of spurious.

You know it's not a choice, right?

SixteenBlue wrote:

If you really think not boycotting every anti gay company is hypocritical then the solution is to start boycotting. Not stop.

We can agree to disagree then I hope? Because I disagree with you.

PAR

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
par wrote:

I'm just really trying to figure out what implications are between:

  1. Has never purchased from them
  2. Has purchased from them and found out that they donate to anti-gay groups and stopped
  3. Has purchased from them and found out what they do and continued to purchase from them

What does it say about those people and what impact (if any) does it cause to them, to you and to the public in general?

PAR

1. Impetus: insufficient data. Effect: negligible.
2. Impetus: likely made principled choice. Effect: positive for boycott.
3. Impetus: 87% likelihood asshole; 6% likelihood confused First Amendment supporter; 6% likelihood contrarian; 1% likelihood really, really likes Chik-fil-A. Effect: negative for boycott & people affected by policies of Chik-fil-A-supported groups.

As mcdonis may have glossed over, there is a disconnect between the speech and action of the mayors vs. Chik-fil-A. Both said some things (GTFO out of our cities; Jesus hates teh gays) which fall under free speech. However, Chik-fil-A has backed its sentiments with action — the funding. The mayors are unable to do so, short of using eminent domain to flatten Chik-fil-A franchises to build public Homodromes.

3. C'mon perhaps the person just doesn't want to get involved in something he has no control over? Or maybe this person doesn't care, it doesn't mean you're an asshole.

Here's the thing, I for one am tired of politics, tired of all the hatred from both left and right, both are equally hateful and cruel. People call out one another constantly and state the "Facts" when we really have no reliable source that can be proven without reasonable doubt that it's not slanted to either the left or right side. You're simply hearing whatever one person spouts out, and then react irrationally. You ever notice how most people who are outspoken in politics are extremists? There are very few people who sit back, relax, look at the situation from all aspects and then maturely react. It's always anger, and then response. There are too many decisions in politics that are made strictly from an emotional point of view from one side. Both sides are horrible, both sides are hateful, and both are equally corrupt and people need to just accept that fact.