Chick Fil-A Day!

[Veladio]

Rahm didn't actually have the power to do so, and Moreno backed down fairly shortly afterwards.

True, true. Evidently the real story is that some people should think before they speak.

Again, I agree.

[Lerro]

True, true. Evidently the real story is that some people should think before they speak.

Again, I agree.

BTW, you misspelled "Mumbles".

[Veladio]

Neither the mayor in Chicago nor the Alderman in Boston actually did anything to ban CFA. I say, let them bitch and moan about what ever they want, that is their freedom of speech as well. Politicians can say whatever they want, just like we can. But since neither actually *did* anything, then they didn't harm anybody's free speech.

See, the underlined is what I don't know about. While to some extent I see where you're coming from, a number of bad historical examples pop into my mind (HUAC didn't have to DO anything itself to get a lot of people blacklisted, Tipper Gore didn't have to DO much to cement the idea of rock'n'roll corrupting the youth in the minds of Americans, etc.).

I dunnow. Chick-Fil-A is nowhere near me so I don't have to answer the complex ethical questions that are apparently being raised by fried chicken sandwiches.

And I see where you are coming from as well. However, Politicians should be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Tipper Gore and HUAC were very different however. HUAC was an actual government entity that actually took actions to blacklist people. The PMRC was not a government entity, the Washington Wives merely took advantage of their husband's power. But they were pretty much just a lobbying group.

[Ifreann]

It warms my heart and brings a single tear to my eye, this outpouring of support for bigotry and discrimination freedom of speech...it's just so grand that people can come together for such a noble cause aslimiting supporting the rights of people they feel are icky.. to express their beliefs.

I mean, these people could have spent the day feeding homeless people or something, but then who would have come to the defense if of a large fast food chain that public supports limiting the rights of the LGBT community?whose founder supports the religius sacrament of marriage?

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

Oh, that's cute. You think you own marriage.

[Tmutarakhan]

It warms my heart and brings a single tear to my eye, this outpouring of support for bigotry and discrimination freedom of speech...it's just so grand that people can come together for such a noble cause aslimiting supporting the rights of people they feel are icky.. to express their beliefs.

I mean, these people could have spent the day feeding homeless people or something, but then who would have come to the defense if of a large fast food chain that public supports limiting the rights of the LGBT community?whose founder supports the religius sacrament of marriage?

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

It is you who are diverging from the facts, if you think that the marriage issue is the only limitation on our rights that Chick-Fil-A has fought for.

True, true. Evidently the real story is that some people should think before they speak.

Again, I agree.

Even I would agree here. Suggesting that a company should be banned (as opposed to boycotted) for its opinions was a bridge way too far. However, Moreno has not "backed down": he continues to insist that Chick-Fil-A adopt a corporate-wide nondiscrimination policy, and since so far they are refusing, it is unlikely that the permit will be granted (on the perfectly legitimate ground of their business practices).

As usual, your side totally misrepresents the story. City Council has PERMITTED the Chick-Fil-A, overturning a planning commission ruling that would have halted it (on grounds of too many idling cars in the drive-thru smogging up the neighborhood, nothing to do with the current controversy). However, the nearby college is full of students who intend to protest and urge boycotts.

"My side"? You mean the one that is pro-gay marriage but doesn't like people profiling, whether it a Christian business or otherwise.

Sorry, I assumed you were one of the fundies.

Sorry I got the information wrong

It was because your info wasn't just "wrong", but directly opposite to the facts, that I assumed you were getting it from Faux News.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Well, yes, because it's not just homosexuals, college students, and quotation-mark-worthy activists.
It's also anyone who believes in basic human decency that we convince. The world's opinion on gay rights has been shifting for a while, and Chick-Fil-A is on the wrong side of this shift both morally and financially.

Hmm.

In my own opinion, the government should be completely out of marriage (when did it ever get involved in the first place) and screw the benefits for everybody. Why should being married give you benefits?

I'm totally fine with fags shoving their genitals into each-other. It doesn't really have anything to do with me. However, I don't quite get why this guy recieved so much flack for saying "no i don't like fags shoving their genitals into eachother".

It wasn't even so much that he was expressing an opinion, it was the money given in the past to organizations that do care about that and work to prevent LGBT rights such as SSM, and then Cathy pretty much saying "so sue me, we're going to fighting it because we believe etc". Words are cheap, actions and money not so.

No. That would be valid if their freedom of speech was being infringed upon. It wasn't.

Governmentally boycotting a restaurant (and moving to prevent its expansion in your city, as the mayors of Chicago and Boston and San Francisico have done) based on the privately held beliefs of its owner (however publicly they may have been expressed) constitutes a violation of freedom of speech in my book. And in most people's.

Since members of the Government didn't actually do anything but talk...

Note that the defense of Rahm and Mumbles is essentially "You can't actually expect to take them seriously!"

No, you can take them seriously if you want - as seriously as you take any politician talking about issues - but lets not act like the police we down there escorting CFA staff to the city limits and smashing up the joint prohibition style.

Because that is silly. They talked, and that is it - there has been no ban, there was never talk of a ban. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

[Tmutarakhan]

Well, then, um...
I'm not sure how to respond.

Guys, what do you do when someone you were arguing with suddenly agrees with you on NSG? I've never encountered this before.

Never encountered this before?

Wow. That's odd. I just sat, thought for a moment, realized that I was being an asshole (which violates my moral code), and decided to apologize, and then I realized that I actually agreed with your second point.

This isn't relatively common?

It's practically unheard-of in this place.

[Tmutarakhan]

Luckily, we homosexuals are not the only ones who will never be eating there again. And it's not like we're going to start eating there again once this fades from the spotlight, whereas the bigots are going to go back to eating there however often they were eating there before they knew about this.

lets just say for arguments sake, Cathey has a dream, or just rethink's this thing, and says "i'm sorry i was wrong , here is a hefty contribution to GLAAD, as an apology" (and for the purpose of the conversation let's says he is sincere in his apology). Wouldn't you then have an obligation to go eat their crappy chicken?

Cracker Barrel was very grudging about it, but did eventually change its policies. There aren't any around where I live, so I can't exactly "end my boycott" now; but although I used to avoid them on my cross-country trips, I would no longer feel obligated to.

[Tmutarakhan]

Not everything that a company does is written down. Chick-Fil-A fires fags as well as other insufficiently Christian employees everywhere it can get away with it (nondiscrimination statutes are rare and the company's donations are to groups that fight to keep it that way), but does not have a written policy of doing so; alderman Moreno in Chicago has demanded that they write down a corporate policy on the subject (which would open them to wrongful-termination suits if they continue discriminatory firings against their stated policy, in places other than Chicago as well as within Chicago) as a condition of their business licensing.

except, I'm not talking about what the company does, but what is stated in their policies.

They have avoided putting anything in writing.

you have state governments demanding they post policies

One city government.

I demand that all other businesses show that they have such anti-discrimination policies in their employee handbooks and posted in their places of business.

That's actually becoming quite normal. Most big businesses do.

surely Chik Fil-A isn't the Only company funding anti-gay activities/groups.

The "Family" groups don't have to disclose their donors; it appears they largely rely on individuals, rather than corporations. Chick-Fil-A may be one of the last corporate donors, judging by the recent financial collapse at the largest of the "Family" (the group headed by radio-preacher Dobson).

[Sailsia]

I remember eating at Chick FIl-A once. Their food was pretty good. Ironically, they're building one in my town which is EXTREMELY gay-friendly. I would go there because they have good food if it wasn't for the fact that part of the money I'm spending there is going towards anti-gay groups and "gay rehabilitation" centers. It's fine to have an opinion, and spend your own personal money on whatever special group you hold close, but the company its self gives money to these groups. But at the same time, the people so fervently for a boycott also are wearing cloths and typing on computers made by boarder-slave labor. I feel like it's important to pick and choose your battles, and in a world where there is some genuinely fucked up shit happening on a MASSIVE scale, this just isn't that huge of a deal. If you want to wait in line for hours to get chicken specifically because some of the money goes to victimizing a massive swath of humanity, then you're a dick and fuck you. If you generally don't care either way, and you'll buy from them, that's fine. I just don't like that it's become a national debate when there is much more pressing matters. Of course, if you're gay, I can totally see why it's important to you. I guess what I'm trying to say is:

(tl;dr)if you aren't gay, it is ENTIRELY 100% IRRELEVANT to you whether or not two dudes want to get the same tax breaks and legal rights as one dude and one chick. Leave them alone, and if you don't want your money going to groups who try to fuck those people over, than don't go to Chick FIl-A.

[Adventus Secundus]

Fixed that for you. It was beginning to diverge from the facts.

Oh, that's cute. You think you own marriage.

Nope, just the right to express my own views without getting trampled on by the 'majority consensus.'

[Adventus Secundus]

I remember eating at Chick FIl-A once. Their food was pretty good. Ironically, they're building one in my town which is EXTREMELY gay-friendly. I would go there because they have good food if it wasn't for the fact that part of the money I'm spending there is going towards anti-gay groups and "gay rehabilitation" centers. It's fine to have an opinion, and spend your own personal money on whatever special group you hold close, but the company its self gives money to these groups. But at the same time, the people so fervently for a boycott also are wearing cloths and typing on computers made by boarder-slave labor. I feel like it's important to pick and choose your battles, and in a world where there is some genuinely fucked up shit happening on a MASSIVE scale, this just isn't that huge of a deal. If you want to wait in line for hours to get chicken specifically because some of the money goes to victimizing a massive swath of humanity, then you're a dick and fuck you. If you generally don't care either way, and you'll buy from them, that's fine. I just don't like that it's become a national debate when there is much more pressing matters. Of course, if you're gay, I can totally see why it's important to you. I guess what I'm trying to say is:

(tl;dr)if you aren't gay, it is ENTIRELY 100% IRRELEVANT to you whether or not two dudes want to get the same tax breaks and legal rights as one dude and one chick. Leave them alone, and if you don't want your money going to groups who try to fuck those people over, than don't go to Chick FIl-A.

Ah. An articulate, well rounded, and truly sensitive post that displays the author's extensive vocabulary. How refreshing. Reminiscent of certain YouTube comment boards...

[Ifreann]

Oh, that's cute. You think you own marriage.

Nope, just the right to express my own views without getting trampled on by the 'majority consensus.'

Oh yes, lots of trampling. Practically epidemic.

[Veladio]

Oh, that's cute. You think you own marriage.

Nope, just the right to express my own views without getting trampled on by the 'majority consensus.'

Oh yes, holding marriage hostage, is totally just expressing your views. You are so getting trampled on when you have the right to marry who you want.

[Adventus Secundus]

Nope, just the right to express my own views without getting trampled on by the 'majority consensus.'

Oh yes, holding marriage hostage, is totally just expressing your views. You are so getting trampled on when you have the right to marry who you want.

I am not holding a social institution hostage.

[Veladio]

Oh yes, holding marriage hostage, is totally just expressing your views. You are so getting trampled on when you have the right to marry who you want.

I am not holding a social institution hostage.

By keeping it a "religious sacrament"...you kind of are.

[Adventus Secundus]

I am not holding a social institution hostage.

By keeping it a "religious sacrament"...you kind of are.

Umm...no. It was a religious sacrament waaaaay before gay people decided they wanted in. To wit...

See, this is sometimes why I don't like "my side", they seem to have to jump on anyone who doesn't go 100% with their protests and militancy. And this just isn't the profiling: it happens much too often concerning many different ideologies, but the most prevelant I see is the whole "gay marriage" debate (which has happened only in the last 40 years, even the liberal ideas of homosexuality in Greece defined marriage as between a man and a woman).

---Benboy

[Veladio]

By keeping it a "religious sacrament"...you kind of are.

Umm...no. It was a religious sacrament waaaaay before gay people decided they wanted in. To wit...

See, this is sometimes why I don't like "my side", they seem to have to jump on anyone who doesn't go 100% with their protests and militancy. And this just isn't the profiling: it happens much too often concerning many different ideologies, but the most prevelant I see is the whole "gay marriage" debate (which has happened only in the last 40 years, even the liberal ideas of homosexuality in Greece defined marriage as between a man and a woman).

---Benboy

Actually, as has been shown in this thread, It was more about property then it was religion. Marriage is a civil institution that should not have religion involved.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I read that the government wants to shut down fast food chains man

Bloomberg says we cant have over 16 once drinks- what a crook

Now there trying to repeal the 2nd amendment- Gun Jerks

Now we cant have fast food or baby cant have their baby bottles

Usa Is like a socialist-do nothing- dictator government I want Freedom WE ALL WANT FREEDOM AND RIGHTS USA WILL BE THE DREAM LAND AND FREE LAND AGAIN GO MITT GO

There's a charming irony in the fact that you titled this gem of wisdom "The USA government seems so stupid".

[Ethel mermania]

Eh, to a certain extent it wasn't. It would depend on whether one identifies government officials deprecating private-sector businesses because of their owners viewpoints as an infringement on that owners free speech (gubm'nt trying to silence unpopular opinions via economic rather than legislative means). It makes some sense I'd say.

Plus, I really don't want to see Republicans have an excuse to get all pissy and scream about how Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is unpatriotic and unamerican and etcetera etcetera just because the owners happen to not share Republican ideology.

Neither the mayor in Chicago nor the Alderman in Boston actually did anything to ban CFA. I say, let them bitch and moan about what ever they want, that is their freedom of speech as well. Politicians can say whatever they want, just like we can. But since neither actually *did* anything, then they didn't harm anybody's free speech.

In nyc, city council president quinn sent NYU a letter asking them to throw chick a fil off campus. As NYU has a lot of business in front of the council now due to their expansion plans. This is an attempt by the government holding the hammer over the head of private compamies for their executives daring to express an unpopular view. Btw this is the only chick a fil in the city

[Adventus Secundus]

Umm...no. It was a religious sacrament waaaaay before gay people decided they wanted in. To wit...

---Benboy

Actually, as has been shown in this thread, It was more about property then it was religion. Marriage is a civil institution that should not have religion involved.

Yes, as has been conclusively shown by the resident experts of NS That's funny.

[Veladio]

Actually, as has been shown in this thread, It was more about property then it was religion. Marriage is a civil institution that should not have religion involved.

Yes, as has been conclusively shown by the resident experts of NS That's funny.

Well, they are just as much experts as you are.

[Adventus Secundus]

But I'm not claiming that my opinions were conclusively SHOWN IN THIS THREAD, when all that has happened has been opinion spouting. Anyway, why am I arguing with you? You're always right, anyhow. Just like Mavorpen.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Actually, as has been shown in this thread, It was more about property then it was religion. Marriage is a civil institution that should not have religion involved.

Yes, as has been conclusively shown by the resident experts of NS That's funny.

And their sources.

Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions... ...These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

[Dusk_Kittens]

Yeah, it's a not exactly a great idea to send parishioners to flood the restaurant without warning the restaurant of the possible increase in business:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/02/a-gay-chick-fil-a-employee-speaks-out.html

Yeah, I can separate the tastiness of chicken from the political views of a company's leader.

Unless the discriminate against LGBT individuals in their employment process or deny insurance to gay married couples (in states that allow it). But at this time, I don't think that is happening.

Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

"They have nothing on the books that says they do not discriminate and they are open to everyone," said Moreno, whose ward is on the northwest side. "I want to see that policy before they go forward."

-- Source