Muppets dump Chick-fil-a

[Ethel mermania]

you know, it is possible to be for civil rights, and against gay rights.

Possible sure, sensible though?

to a fundamentalist christian, an orthodox jew, or a practicing muslim, sure.

[Blouman Empire]

But then again, my two cents-tax=no sense, so I may be wrong.

The most important part of your entire tirade on the horrible evils of consumer activism. You are most assuredly wrong, and have misunderstood the relationship between vendor and consumer. I, as the consumer, have the money. They, as the vendor, must persuade me to purchase their wares. I am not obliged to give them my money, and the criteria upon which I judge whether I have been persuaded are entirely my own to set. I can decide to refuse custom based on rational things such as the cleanliness of the restaurant, or I can decide to refuse custom based on the sex of my attendant. Maybe I'll only buy chicken sandwiches from a male cashier. It's my prerogative as a consumer to be just as arbitrary as I wish since I have no obligation to the vendor whatsoever.

In this case, the president and CEO of the company has made a statement which has offended me, and the company over which he presides has a history of donating to organizations supportive of causes I oppose. I have, based upon these facts, decided to refuse custom. Explain my folly.

That you think it will work and change their ways.

[Blouman Empire]

Cathy acted like an asshole, and now people are saying "What an asshole!" Sounds like a pretty appropriate level of reaction to me. Nobody's bombing his stores, nobody's attacking his children, nobody's passing laws to revoke his marriage license, nobody's campaigning to strip him of his right to vote, nobody's sending militarized police units in to turn the fire hoses on him. Just a lot of people saying "Yep, that right there is an asshole!" I am cheered by the good judgment of my fellow citizens.

Well we do have people want the company to be shut down in their small sphere of influence.

[Everbeek]

The most important part of your entire tirade on the horrible evils of consumer activism. You are most assuredly wrong, and have misunderstood the relationship between vendor and consumer. I, as the consumer, have the money. They, as the vendor, must persuade me to purchase their wares. I am not obliged to give them my money, and the criteria upon which I judge whether I have been persuaded are entirely my own to set. I can decide to refuse custom based on rational things such as the cleanliness of the restaurant, or I can decide to refuse custom based on the sex of my attendant. Maybe I'll only buy chicken sandwiches from a male cashier. It's my prerogative as a consumer to be just as arbitrary as I wish since I have no obligation to the vendor whatsoever.

In this case, the president and CEO of the company has made a statement which has offended me, and the company over which he presides has a history of donating to organizations supportive of causes I oppose. I have, based upon these facts, decided to refuse custom. Explain my folly.

That you think it will work and change their ways.

They don't have to change their ways. They can just go on doing things their way. Just not with his money.

[Blouman Empire]

You are apparently operating on a different definition of 'surprise' than I am.

It is quite possible. I have boycotted the company for almost four years now though, so I guess this sudden magnification of the issue just seems outlandish. Here is your sacrificial lamb, please come slaughter it type deal.

Kony 2012 all over again.

[Blouman Empire]

That you think it will work and change their ways.

They don't have to change their ways. They can just go on doing things their way. Just not with his money.

I'm sure it will be a major blow to their bottom line.

[Cromarty]

you know, it is possible to be for civil rights, and against gay rights.

No it's not.

If you seek to deny civil rights to a group who deserve civil rights, then it doesn't matter how much you're in favour of civil rights for others. You are against civil rights.

[Katganistan]

I know that. What is your problem? The words have not changed. I did not say it was BECAUSE he was Christian, I said the owner IS and OPPOSES it.

Do you have some kind of need to make something of things that aren't there? Altering the context? What?

Why not put the WHOLE context there? It went like this:






It's a statement of fact that is in no way changed by whatever contortions you're trying to go through.

no it is not, you are implying that because the owner is christian he by default opposes same sex marriage.
I was arguing that is not the case and you are unfairly tarnishing christians with a very broad brush. His being christian has nothing to do with his opposing same sex marriage. As it is NOT a requirement of Christianity to be against same sex marriage, the Episcopalians as an example.

Your line is analogous with the comment: he is a muslim, of course he supports jihad.
anyway this side battle has gone on long enough, in a topic where we both agree with each other, that we are not going to chick-a-fil.

You're wrong, and your assumption is asinine given that I AM a Christian and I am FOR same-sex marriage.
I can't help it if your WISH to see something that IS NOT THERE is making you spew like this.
TaQuad made a statement.
TJUR called bullshit on the statement.
I said, well, this owner is Christian and is opposed to same-sex marriage, so it's not bullshit.

I suggest you see what's ACTUALLY there and not what you WANT to see.

I did not say it was BECAUSE he was Christian

But the first person in the quote chain did, and that's what they got called on.

No, he said that they probably would.
Does no one read anymore?

The ACLU of Illinois is taking a stand on the whole "Kick Chick-fil-A out!!!!1!" thing going on in Chicago. They don't like it one bit and says the 1st Amendment will be violated if they do act on it.

Of course the First Amendment would be violated by denying them on the grounds of "they said something we don't like."
I foresee Chik-Fil-A in Chicago -- if they want to expand there.
[edit]Boston. And in Chicago as well.

The ACLU of Illinois is taking a stand on the whole "Kick Chick-fil-A out!!!!1!" thing going on in Chicago. They don't like it one bit and says the 1st Amendment will be violated if they do act on it.

If figures the Association of Creepy Lawyers and Utopians would come out from under their collective rocks and spew some nonsense about first amendment violations.

It's not nonsense. The 1st Amendment ensures that you cannot be punished by the government for your religious beliefs. This case would be such a slam-dunk I'd be surprised if they DIDN'T take it.

[Northern Dominus]

The ACLU of Illinois is taking a stand on the whole "Kick Chick-fil-A out!!!!1!" thing going on in Chicago. They don't like it one bit and says the 1st Amendment will be violated if they do act on it.

Of course the First Amendment would be violated by denying them on the grounds of "they said something we don't like."
I foresee Chik-Fil-A in Chicago -- if they want to expand there.

That is if the local Aaldermen don't make life difficult for them, which is sort of a grey area but not technically illegal. You'd be surprised how many permits you suddenly need around here.

[Katganistan]

ACLU has come out in favor of Chik-fil-a, in regards to attempts by city alderman to block permits they need to open stores.

http://chicagoist.com/2012/07/27/aclu_t ... ivileg.php

As usual I applaud the ACLU for truly living up to the ever popular statement.
"I may disagree with you but I will fight to defend your right to say it."

No one has attempted to limit Chick-fil-A's right to say those things. Chick-fil-A chose to use their freedom of speech to make bigoted comments. They have to deal with the consequences of their actions, just as they would if they had come out against interracial marriage.

When Chicago officials came out and said they would deny permits for Chik-fil-A to so business in their city, they certainly were trying to punish them for what was said.

[Telesha]

No one has attempted to limit Chick-fil-A's right to say those things. Chick-fil-A chose to use their freedom of speech to make bigoted comments. They have to deal with the consequences of their actions, just as they would if they had come out against interracial marriage.

When Chicago officials came out and said they would deny permits for Chik-fil-A to so business in their city, they certainly were trying to punish them for what was said.

That was Boston.

Alderman Moreno just wants them to put their anti-discrimination policy into writing.

Moreno said he’s willing to reconsider if the company publicly – in writing – promises not to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

[Katganistan]

But their success should be determined by the quality of their product and not the quality of their moral fiber.

As long as they aren't doing anything illegal, obviously.

No, that's wrong. They can have the best burgers ever, but the chances of them being successful because of how bigoted they are is slim. If they did become successful, it would be a new low in stupidity.

They should be allowed to take the risk.

Not to mention the amount of time freed up not going to Chik-fil-a. I mean, on the grand effort scale, 'not going to a nasty ass fast food restaurant' barely even makes a blip. I have to travel half a block less to go to my next available option...

Right? People are acting like [avoiding Chik-fil-a] equals [going hungry] instead of [going down three doors to the Chipotle].

Which I like better, in honesty.

Right? People are acting like [avoiding Chik-fil-a] equals [going hungry] instead of [going down three doors to the Chipotle].

Meh. I haven't eaten at Arby's since they did that block conservatives for being conservatives thing a while ago on Twitter.

Also, the sodium content in their food is Godawful high.

Meh, Roy Rogers was better. And I have a local roast beef joint that's better than all fast food roast beef on the planet.

Well to hear the homophobes tell it, not going to gay weddings is just about the hardest thing in the universe to pull off, so maybe not-doing things is the new doing things.

Like I said, it's slacktivism, or activism for slackers. For people who want to feel better about themselves while putting forth no additional effort.

So we should get out there and SHOW THEM by BUYING THEIR PRODUCT!

Yeah, no, my suggestion makes no more sense than your complaints about people not going there.

[Northern Dominus]

When Chicago officials came out and said they would deny permits for Chik-fil-A to so business in their city, they certainly were trying to punish them for what was said.

That was Boston.

Alderman Moreno just wants them to put their anti-discrimination policy into writing.

Moreno said he’s willing to reconsider if the company publicly – in writing – promises not to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

And you know what, that's more than fair enough. Considering we have the third largest LGBT population in the US and represent a significant enough chunk of the population they're entitled to that given the history of the company.

[Terraius]

Intolerance is no longer tolerated for the sake of tolerating intolerance.

AMERICA

[Tmutarakhan]

OK, so we have some actual cases. Where were these particular franchises? In locations where nondiscrimination statutes exist?

you know, it is possible to be for civil rights, and against gay rights.

Rights for yourself, but none for others? I think you are unclear on the concept.
I am sure Chick-Fil-A abides by nondiscrimination laws where they exist; the question I was asking was whether they arbitrarily fire gays where they are allowed to, which is in the majority of states, including the southern states where the vast majority of Chick-Fil-A franchises are. They do contribute to the organizations which are principally responsible for fighting against employment-nondiscrimination statutes: the "marriage" issue is a red herring here, since the primary interest of the corporation is in whether they can continue to fire people arbitrarily, hence my interest in whether that is or isn't their practice. Anybody who spends money there is spending part of their money to limit my employment opportunities (not that I would be likely to work for Chick-Fil-A, but that they fight to make sure ALL employers in the southern and other states get to fire gay people), and is a personal enemy of mine.

[Greed and Death]

When Chicago officials came out and said they would deny permits for Chik-fil-A to so business in their city, they certainly were trying to punish them for what was said.

That was Boston.

Alderman Moreno just wants them to put their anti-discrimination policy into writing.

That is Moreno back tracking after the City attorney spoke to him about the limits of his power.

[Katganistan]

Of course the First Amendment would be violated by denying them on the grounds of "they said something we don't like."
I foresee Chik-Fil-A in Chicago -- if they want to expand there.

That is if the local Aaldermen don't make life difficult for them, which is sort of a grey area but not technically illegal. You'd be surprised how many permits you suddenly need around here.

After those statements were made? I think that Chicago might end up owing Chik-Fil-A some money if they persisted with their open bigotry against Christians.

When Chicago officials came out and said they would deny permits for Chik-fil-A to so business in their city, they certainly were trying to punish them for what was said.

That was Boston.

Alderman Moreno just wants them to put their anti-discrimination policy into writing.

Moreno said he’s willing to reconsider if the company publicly – in writing – promises not to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

Thanks, Telesha; I stand corrected.

[Gaveo]

What angers me is that the left is saying this is unfair and he (the owner) should shut up. While I agree that gay civil unions should be legal (but not marriage), I don't agree the owner should shut up or anything, he is saying his beliefs and we should just agree to disagree because after all this is the USA, right?

[Vettrera]

Shhhh. Let him live in his atheist fantasy land where every Christian is a gay-hating sociopath.

i didn't say I hate it (i'm neutral so I don't really care) its just where I live thats opposed to it

which is why you post it on a global site, that represents all of America + The World.

Secondly, Zaxby's is better than Chick Fil A

[Farnhamia]

What angers me is that the left is saying this is unfair and he (the owner) should shut up. While I agree that gay civil unions should be legal (but not marriage), I don't agree the owner should shut up or anything, he is saying his beliefs and we should just agree to disagree because after all this is the USA, right?

No, we're saying that because of his opinions on gay marriage, we're not buying his product anymore. Anyone who says he should shut up, except in an off-hand, school-yard manner is as big a prat as Don Cathy is.

[Katganistan]

I don't think they're saying he should shut up. I think they're saying they don't agree with his public statement and are not buying his product anymore.

Officials saying they would deny the company permits -- well, I think they'll find they don't have a legal leg to stand on. But certainly I can stop frequenting it because I don't want my money spent in ways I disagree with?

[Vettrera]

I don't see why the owner had to go off (Randomly) and speak for the whole company as to how he feels about Gay Marriage.
I understand that every person is entitled to their opinion. But a "Largely Franchised" company should not go out, and speak
as to what they permit and what they don't. Cause it's obvious that Chick-Fil-A is in it for the money, whether it's touched gay
hands or straight hands. It's also obvious that the owner didn't think this through, and expected everyone to agree and keep on
keeping on. But I digress, everyone is entilted to their opinion. But I doubt 1,614 restaurants have the same opinion as the owner.

[Gaveo]

I don't think they're saying he should shut up. I think they're saying they don't agree with his public statement and are not buying his product anymore.

Officials saying they would deny the company permits -- well, I think they'll find they don't have a legal leg to stand on. But certainly I can stop frequenting it because I don't want my money spent in ways I disagree with?

I totally agree what you are saying but noted left-wing mayor of Boston is going (or wants) to disallow Chick-fil-a, becuase of the owner's thoughts on gay marriage, which is illegal.

[Northern Dominus]

I don't think they're saying he should shut up. I think they're saying they don't agree with his public statement and are not buying his product anymore.

Officials saying they would deny the company permits -- well, I think they'll find they don't have a legal leg to stand on. But certainly I can stop frequenting it because I don't want my money spent in ways I disagree with?

I totally agree what you are saying but noted left-wing mayor of Boston is going (or wants) to disallow Chick-fil-a, becuase of the owner's thoughts on gay marriage, which is illegal.

And would you be just as purturbed if a noted neo-conservative mayor decided to ban GLAAD from obtaining office space somehow would you be just as up in arms?

[Wikkiwallana]

What angers me is that the left is saying this is unfair and he (the owner) should shut up. While I agree that gay civil unions should be legal (but not marriage), I don't agree the owner should shut up or anything, he is saying his beliefs and we should just agree to disagree because after all this is the USA, right?

Freedom of speech means he's free to say stupid things, and we are free to call them stupid. As long as he supports hurting people, I'm not going to just agree to disagree and leave it at that.