Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Chic-Fil-A Options · View
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 12:32:29 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,487
Location: Cakeland, United States
So, if a CEO or President of a corporation wants to come out publicly and offend any segment(s) of potential clients, don't those corporations have the 'right' to do so? Can't they say anything they wish to say or print or advertise?

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation is a person, after all. And if a person wishes to identify themselves as a bigot, racist, homophobe or a RedBloodedAmerkin...a CommieHater, a facist or facist-hater (ad nauseum)...how do you view this?

Personally, I'm all for it. It helps me make choices. It may also open those corporations up to discrimination lawsuits, and if they want to go there...hey, I'm all for them hanging themselves.

What do you think?

*edit - How related is this little recent news item?

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
Guest
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:06:31 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 689,149
That's pretty funny about Mayor Bloomberg. Especially after banning sugary drinks sizes, smoking and locking up baby formula he has the balls to say it isn't the governments business.
Personally, let the guy open them wherever he want to. Free enterprise and all that. The people will make the choices about the business. If they don't like him and his viewpoints, they don't have to eat there. He's closed on Sundays and holidays too because of his beliefs. So what? I like that he's out front with it. I keeps me better informed so I can make choices right for me and what I believe. Unlike Blockbuster and their views on porn and hard R rated movies.
SensualDesires83
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:15:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/27/2009
Posts: 373
Location: Southeast, United States, United States
Each person has a right to choose what they are and who they become. Each person also has a right as to where they want or do not want to eat. That's what makes freedom wonderful. It is unfortunate that some do not see it that way.

Personally, it does not matter what a person is in life to me. We are all our own person. We will do what we want to do. We can't live our lives based on somebody elses.

If one chooses to eat at Chic-Fil-A, that is their right. If not, so be it.

That is why we have choices in this world.

We choose what we want to be, our certain beliefs, and we choose where we want to eat.

This is not going to have any bearing on me going or not going to Chic-Fil-A.

Everybody has a right to his/her own choices. If the wrong one is made, oh well. That was the choice made and we have to live with it.

"So don't cry to me.
If you loved me,
You would be here with me.
Don't lie to me,
Just get your things.
I've made up your mind."

--Evanescence
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:52:00 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Am I the only one that thinks Chick-Fil-A is being "P.R. Bullied" just a little bit in this whole thing? So the guy opposes same-sex marriage, so what? He's just one guy. Not eating his employers' (Chick-Fil-A board of directors) chicken sandwiches isn't going to change his opinion on gay rights. I've always been of the mind that that our freedom of speech also comes with vulnerability to backlash based on what you can say; you can't have one without the other. So in that respect, people are well within their rights to boycott Chick-Fil-A. I just think the anger has swelled into a movement that's a little disproportionate to the five-second blurb where the CEO (probably unwisely) was candid about his personal beliefs. Personally, I vehemently disagree with his stance on gay marriage; I just wonder how many businesses we would boycott out of group-outrage if every company executive uttered his personal politics. So is the lesson to never say a single word that's not been vetted by your corporate PR team? If you're in a prominent position, maybe it is, but is our world any better for it?
ramrod32784
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:58:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/29/2012
Posts: 558
Location: Fl, United States
We've been manipulated to the upmost extreme.I don't care what the mans opinions are and I'm sure he is losing sleep thinking about mine.Everybody is entitled to their opinions.If this wasn't an election year I don't think it would have mattered at all
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:00:22 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,487
Location: Cakeland, United States
LadyX wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks Chick-Fil-A is being "P.R. Bullied" just a little bit in this whole thing?
So is the lesson to never say a single word that's not been vetted by your corporate PR team? If you're in a prominent position, maybe it is, but is our world any better for it?


I think it is yet another off center, trivial powder-puff deviation being thrown in our face by what passes for mainstream 'news' media in this wonderful attention deficit cultivated society we find ourselves suffering in, at the beginning of this century.

All of the really news worthy topics which need to be investigated, exposed & discussed and then ironed out - aren't.

We're left with crapviolent1 like this dead horse, beat_deadhorse to beat on.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:05:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,454
Location: Alabama, United States
I'm sure most of you have been seeing this battle rage on facebook. Chik-Fil-A can believe whatever they wish. They can spend their money however they wish. The most common anti-CFA stance is they're pushing their religious beliefs onto others. No they aren't. They aren't saying they'll only serve chicken sandwiches to heterosexuals. Nor are they refusing service to homosexuals. They don't require you to denounce gay marriage upon ordering a 12pack of chicken nuggets.

If you dont' like their stance and wish to boycott, that's your civic right. If you choose to sit in a 2 hr long drive-thru line to show solidarity, that's your civic right. I've had CFA sandwiches, they're mighty tasty. But when I order a fast food meal I'm not making any political statement. I'm hungry. See food, buy food, eat food.

The funny thing is this. Within "normal" people crowds, like my friends on facebook, my gay friends are the ones that are like "whatever, it's a chicken sandwich. who cares." While the straight people are the ones getting most offended.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
JillMom
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 2:14:43 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 5/31/2012
Posts: 8
Location: United States
The largest problem is that the mayors of Chicago and Boston made statements that they will use their office to deny business permits to Chic-Fil-A because of the owner's view on same sex marriage. Whether you agree or disagree with the owner, he has the same 1st Amendment right to his opinion just as we all do. Having a government entity deny or punish him because of his opinion is a blatant violation of the Constitution. If the company had shown discrimination in their hiring practices or employee policies, or has denied service to a customer based on this opinion that would be another matter. No evidence of that has been found that we know of. If you are for same sex marriage, ask yourself how you would feel if a mayor of another city said they would not allow a company to build a facility in that city because the owner was pro-same sex marriage? Both situations are equally as wrong and should be condemned.

As for the boycott, remember while you are punishing the owner you are also punishing all the employees and vendors of the company, many of whom probably have the same opinion as you.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:20:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
LadyX wrote:
I just wonder how many businesses we would boycott out of group-outrage if every company executive uttered his personal politics.


Especially since there are multiple executives in every company. These people will inevitably have differing opinions on a variety of subjects, so do we boycott Company A for the opinions of one exec, while also buying more from Company A because a different exec came out with the complete opposite stance of the first exec?

Dirty_D
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 4:46:04 PM

Rank: Head Nurse
Moderator

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,487
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
Surprise! A right wing long acknowledged outspokenly christian person is against gay marriage. Next you are going to tell me the Kennedy's will be backing Obama.
Buz
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 5:55:12 PM

Rank: The Linebacker
Moderator

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 7,872
Location: Atlanta, United States
So what? The owner of Chic-Fil-A expressed his opinion when asked a question. He has never hidden his views. He is a serious Christian and operates his business within the moral code that he holds dear. Freedom of Speech is an American RIGHT! His stores do not discriminate against gay patrons at all. Chic-Fil-A offers much better service than any other fast food business. I am sure that many gay people are employed by Chic-Fil-A. Interestingly enough, ever since a boycott was called fort Chic-Fil-A's business is off the charts, they have scored record profits the last few days. Around here the lines are out the door and down the street to purchase their sandwiches.

Personally I would vote to allow gay marriage if it were a ballot referendum, but I do not hate people who don't agree with that view because of their religious convictions. I am vehemently opposed to any of the haters whichever view they hold. End the hate! Can you say tolerance? The quality person can be good friends with someone else who holds opposing views.



RumpleForeskin
Posted: Thursday, August 02, 2012 7:15:49 PM

Rank: The Right Rev of Lush

Joined: 7/3/2009
Posts: 2,947
Location: Lost in the ozone somewhere east of Luckenbach Tx,
Good thread, Buz. Something tells me those mayors are now looking for backpeddling room. Disagreeing with the man's opinion is one thing, threatening to use local law to discriminate against his company is a far different, and probably unconstitutional, deal.

glasses8

Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwords. - ROBERT HEINLEIN

Feels So Right, It Can't Be WrongMore steamy, seductive, straight step-sibling sex, 2-3

FROM:
Becky -- FOR: Matt -- With Love:
a Festive contest winner – honest

HOW HUMANS DO IT: a fish-eye view of sex an Editor's Pick - no kidding
Nikki703
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:33:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 13,910
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
The guy has the right to believe how he chooses. If he was banning gays from going into his restaurants then that would be a different issue. I really cant understand the point in making that statement other than to promote his own agenda. Just like todays planned "Kiss-A-Thon" is going to do for the gay rights side.

Plus he is getting a lot of free publicity. To be honest, until this came out I never heard of Chick-Fil-A. I guess it is popular in the south. I read that there is only 1 in NY and its on the NYU campus. Guess I wont be having any of their food anytime soon. So disappointed, LOL!!
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:48:32 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
First off. Going out against smoking and sugary drink sizes is different than going after a company for it's beliefs. Sugary drinks and smoking affects your health, your health affects your ability to work and that most certainly is a governmental problem. Just because you hate coloured people, immigrants and gays doesn't make you a bad worker.

Companies should be allowed to speak out their view on things as long as they don't break the law. Simple. A company should be allowed to go out and say "Niggers are less worth than us white people", but they shouldn't be allowed to say "We're not hiring niggers because they can't work properly" and actually do it. Then you're venturing into something different and making accusations and not front values and ideas. THere's a bit of a difference.

And are they being run down too hard due to an executive's slip of tongue? Well, that all depends. He is a spokesperson for the company, so wherever he is he will be representing his company. Same way Obama will always represent the US, Queen Elizabeth will always represent the UK. It's just the way it is. People will connect you to that company/place no matter what, thus anything you say will immediately be connected with the company. It won't be the cunty cashier. You earn millions, thus you're never really off the clock. It's just the way it is.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Nikki703
Posted: Friday, August 03, 2012 1:26:07 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/7/2009
Posts: 13,910
Location: The Other Side Of The Mirror
elitfromnorth wrote:
First off. Going out against smoking and sugary drink sizes is different than going after a company for it's beliefs. Sugary drinks and smoking affects your health, your health affects your ability to work and that most certainly is a governmental problem. Just because you hate coloured people, immigrants and gays doesn't make you a bad worker.

Companies should be allowed to speak out their view on things as long as they don't break the law. Simple. A company should be allowed to go out and say "Niggers are less worth than us white people", but they shouldn't be allowed to say "We're not hiring niggers because they can't work properly" and actually do it. Then you're venturing into something different and making accusations and not front values and ideas. THere's a bit of a difference.

And are they being run down too hard due to an executive's slip of tongue? Well, that all depends. He is a spokesperson for the company, so wherever he is he will be representing his company. Same way Obama will always represent the US, Queen Elizabeth will always represent the UK. It's just the way it is. People will connect you to that company/place no matter what, thus anything you say will immediately be connected with the company. It won't be the cunty cashier. You earn millions, thus you're never really off the clock. It's just the way it is.


I know you are using to prove a point, at least I hope you are, but I find that word very offensive and I am sure many others here do also so please dont use it!! I dont think I need to tell you what word I am refering to.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:06:07 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
After thinking about this for a while, I feel a little differently about this issue.

Yes, Mr. Cathey's opinion amounts to free speech, which he has a right to. But consider that only fifty to sixty years ago, people defended the rights of millions of white people to say that (insert pejorative term for Black Americans) should know their place and that integration was a bad and unnatural idea. People talked about that as free speech, too. "You can't deny him his opinion, or his right to speak his mind!" True, but by choosing to defend his voicing of opinion (which needs no defense, since the Bill of Rights is on his side), you're legitimizing a despicable anti-human rights position by allowing it to be categorized as somebody's political opinion. You're giving them cover, and in an indirect way, furthering a status quo where normal reasonable people just like many of us simply shrug it off and say "he has a right to say what he wants to say." Saying nothing while bigotry is furthered is to aid and abet bigotry itself. It's not a comfortable truth, but it's truth nonetheless.

Going back to the civil rights comparison: even though terribly racist people still abound, they have no legitimacy. They're cultural lepers for their bigotry, as they should be. Their white-supremacist point of view is no longer taken in stride under the guise of 1st Amendment rights. Instead, it's called what it is: racist hate speech.

I look forward to the day that this sort of reaction, a direct result of the Chick Fil A President's comments no less, is not given backing by "family" groups, Christian churches, and corporations.

It's bigotry. And while there's some truth to the comment that this is a sideshow issue, meant to distract us from the "real" problems, let me assure you that to many gay Americans, fighting for not only rights but general acceptance in society, it's not such a minor issue.

It has very little to do with fast-food chicken sandwiches, as it turns out.

sprite
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:32:04 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 17,281
Location: My Tower, United States
LadyX wrote:


It's bigotry. And while there's some truth to the comment that this is a sideshow issue, meant to distract us from the "real" problems, let me assure you that to many gay Americans, fighting for not only rights but general acceptance in society, it's not such a minor issue.

It has very little to do with fast-food chicken sandwiches, as it turns out.



Many of you, most of you, probably, understand the issues and empathize. That said, the reality is, unless you are one of those people affected by the current laws, you don't really feel it. Most of you just accept that you can get married if you wish, that you can walk into a Chik-Fil-A, or anywhere else with your loved one, as an obvious couple, and no one will bat an eye, that if, God forbid, something happens to your spouse, you have the right to make decisions for them in the hospital, visitation rights, and that you will be able to collect benefits if they pass.

i understand it. this is our civil rights movement. Black America had theirs in the 60s and while i am educated enough to know that in many ways this doesn't compare to the intensity of that, that doesn't diminish the bigotry involved or the real fear of many LGBT people. Do i need to remind you of what happened to Matthew Sheppard? in some parts of our country, that is a very real possiblitiy, being bullied, beaten, or killed for our sexual orientation.

in that light, Cathy's statement is Hate Speech. Substitute any other minority, be it black, mexican, asian, or women, for gay, and people would be up in arms. Because they are targeting gays, apparently, it is ok. until that kind of thinking stops, the very idea of equality for all people in America is a farce. As is, it's equality for all, unless you are gay.

i applaud those who have made a stand against Chik-fil-a. they are saying this is unacceptable, and they are making a stand that, hopefully, will bring more attention to this cause. In Washington State, we are currently waging a very quiet war. In November, an entire state will decide if we, my girlfriend of 5 years and i, will be allowed to be married. If i was 18 and wanted to marry a guy i met 3 hours ago, i would have that right. As a 30 yo old, i have no right to marry the woman i love. at present, i we are hoping that the whim of an entire state, 90% of whom have no vested interest in the result, allows us to marry. there is a very real chance that it will be voted down and we will remain un-equal to the 90% of you who were born straight, and trust me, it's not a choice. Can you imagine choosing to belong to a minority with less rights, who are prejudiced against on a daily basis, who fear coming out of the closet because their parents and friends will disown them, who see the bigotry and violence done against them is accepted not only culturally, but legally?

yes, i believe in free speech, but that doesn't include HATE speech. READ Xuani's link:

http://storify.com/homophobes/top-50-homophobic-chick-fil-a-tweets

Can you imagine reading this shit, knowing it's referring to you, that it might be coming from the person standing next to you in line, or your neighbor or your boss? You have no idea how it feels.

Live, love, laugh.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 10:52:54 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,454
Location: Alabama, United States
Eh, not so sure the Chic-Fil-A stance is the equivalent to the civil rights movement. Maybe a better comparison is women's suffrage. Denying gay couples the right to marriage denys them the same governmental protections and security that straight couples get. Like denying women the right to vote denied them the opportunity to have a say in their futures by them not having a vote/voice. CFA's stance isn't really like the civil rights movement in that back then blacks were banned from restaraunts. Had their own drinking fountains, swimming pools, schools, hospitals. Were made to sit in the back of the bus so as to not contaminate the good ol' white folk. They made less money than whites, were treated as indentured servants. Singled out and profiled by police forces everywhere. Often beaten and murdered simply for being black. Being gay in our society isn't always easy, but it isn't nearly as challenging as being black in the '40s and '50s. Granted there are some nutjobs out there that are violent to gays. But back then, it was understood, more frequent, and almost condoned.


The longer it takes for gay marriage to be legalized the more I think it's about the same thing as everything else. Money. Just think of all the people that now file seperately/individually that would be able to file jointly.. lowering their tax rate. The money that people can be given from one spouse to another, tax free. Can't give money to a bf/gf/lover like that. Life insurance policies, health insurance, wills, all that stuff will change. People can beat their chest saying this is about the sanctity of marriage, and maybe it is to the true religious conservatives. But for politicians and tax colletors, it's about money. Add in the people that fear the worst scenarios. Two dudes that are straight, get married because they can get a break on health insurance and a lower tax rate as a couple. Wasn't there an Adam Sandler movie about that?

Most of American knows that gay marriage is going to happen sooner or later. Most politicians are keeping their mouths shut on the issue. They'll keep the status quo until they are forced to pick a side. When America pushes hard enough things will change. Until then Uncle Sam is enjoying the benefits of all those single filers.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:04:30 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
lafayettemister wrote:
Eh, not so sure the Chic-Fil-A stance is the equivalent to the civil rights movement.


Nobody here is equating Chick Fil-A to Civil Rights. But it's absolutely the same issue when it comes to the current condoning of bigotry.

It's easy for those of us who don't wish to have same-sex civil rights to say "gay marriage will happen" as if a perceived inevitability somehow softens the blow for our dysfunctional rejection of it today.
sprite
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:04:32 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 17,281
Location: My Tower, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
Eh, not so sure the Chic-Fil-A stance is the equivalent to the civil rights movement. Maybe a better comparison is women's suffrage. Denying gay couples the right to marriage denys them the same governmental protections and security that straight couples get. Like denying women the right to vote denied them the opportunity to have a say in their futures by them not having a vote/voice. CFA's stance isn't really like the civil rights movement in that back then blacks were banned from restaraunts. Had their own drinking fountains, swimming pools, schools, hospitals. We made to sit in the back of the bus so as to not contaminate the good ol' white folk. They made less money than whites, were treated as indentured servants. Singled out and profiled by police forces everywhere. Often beaten and murdered simply for being black. Being gay in our society isn't always easy, but it isn't nearly as challenging as being black in the '40s and '50s. Granted there are some nutjobs out there that are violent to gays. But back then, it was understood and almost condoned.





as i said, i agree with that, this is nowhere near as intense as the black civil rights movement. don't, however, think that, just because that kind of hatred and violence doesn't exist in your neighbor hood, it doesn't exist. here's a sample for you, of things we are exposed to on a daily basis:

If any body sees fags kissing in front of Chick-fil-a please feel free to hit them with you car. <--actual twitter quote

can you imagine the fear, knowing that it would take very little for those words to turn to actions? for some of us, violence is always a possibility.



Live, love, laugh.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:15:01 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,454
Location: Alabama, United States
sprite wrote:


as i said, i agree with that, this is nowhere near as intense as the black civil rights movement. don't, however, think that, just because that kind of hatred and violence doesn't exist in your neighbor hood, it doesn't exist. here's a sample for you, of things we are exposed to on a daily basis:

If any body sees fags kissing in front of Chick-fil-a please feel free to hit them with you car. <--actual twitter quote

can you imagine the fear, knowing that it would take very little for those words to turn to actions? for some of us, violence is always a possibility.



I was typing my response before you had replied. It isn't as intense, but it still stings to those dealing with it. I don't agree with CFA's stance. People should be able to marry whomever they wish. But let's not confuse CFA's stance of not agreeing with gay marriage as condoning or agreeing with the hate filled type tweet you quoted. That person and the many like him are idiotic bigots. Saying to run over "fags" with your car is a far cry from a CEO saying he doesn't agree with gay marriage. The twitter poster is a hater. The CFA guy may or may not be, but his anti gay marriage stance doesn't prove he hates gay people. I disagree with Obamacare but it doesn't mean I hate sick people. He may be shortsighted and narrow minded but that doesn't necessarily equate to hate.

X, I'm not trying to soften the blow. It's just reality. People may reject the idea of gay marriage, doesn't mean they hate or fear gay people. I ran across a quote a couple days ago that I like. You may not, but it seems reasonable to me.

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. - Rick Warren






When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:20:45 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Ah, but that's just it. Their stance, which is bigoted, gives cover for the hate speech. Nobody who is going to voice opposition to gay rights is off the hook for anti-gay hate speech and violence, because they're the ones legitimizing the stance to begin with. Full stop. To argue otherwise, is to say that those who accepted pre-civil rights bigotry as that person's right to an opinion aren't in part responsible for the overall climate that condoned institutionalized racism. It's the exact same thing.

To deny a group of people the same rights that the majority currently enjoy is the furthest thing imaginable from "compassion".
sprite
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:21:57 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 17,281
Location: My Tower, United States
oh, and another thing, as far as segregation not existing, don't be so sure. want to bring your gay boyfriend to the prom? want to go on a church picnic with your lesbian girlfriend? want to hold hands at school? many places it's either discouraged or just not allowed. gays on the football team? better not come out of the closet and bite your tongue when you listen to the locker room talk. do you know how it feels to stand next to a nice couple talking about 'those gays/fags/dykes/queers and not knowing what to do or say? have you ever been called queer or faggot or dyke or lez? they carry as much sting as the N word, trust me, i know from experience, be it directed at myself or some of the beautiful gay men i am proud to call friends.

Chik-Fil-A has made it clear that they condone the above actions - they may not say it in so many words, but it is there in the subtext.

Live, love, laugh.
sprite
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:27:22 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 17,281
Location: My Tower, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


I was typing my response before you had replied. It isn't as intense, but it still stings to those dealing with it. I don't agree with CFA's stance. People should be able to marry whomever they wish. But let's not confuse CFA's stance of not agreeing with gay marriage as condoning or agreeing with the hate filled type tweet you quoted. That person and the many like him are idiotic bigots. Saying to run over "fags" with your car is a far cry from a CEO saying he doesn't agree with gay marriage. The twitter poster is a hater. The CFA guy may or may not be, but his anti gay marriage stance doesn't prove he hates gay people. I disagree with Obamacare but it doesn't mean I hate sick people. He may be shortsighted and narrow minded but that doesn't necessarily equate to hate.

X, I'm not trying to soften the blow. It's just reality. People may reject the idea of gay marriage, doesn't mean they hate or fear gay people. I ran across a quote a couple days ago that I like. You may not, but it seems reasonable to me.

Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate. - Rick Warren


CFA's stance obviously encourages the haters. they empower them to declare their hate, give them a focus for it. that might not be the intent, but that is the result. it fires up the bigot's moral outrage and gives it a target and, on top of that, CFA uses their money to fund the de-equalization of gay men and women...

we have nothing against black people, but here, here's $20,000 to help keep them from being allowed to vote, move into my neighborhood, or, omg, marry outside of their race. oh, and here's another $20,000 for those nice boys with the KKK.

Live, love, laugh.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:33:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,454
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
Ah, but that's just it. Their stance, which is bigoted, gives cover for the hate speech. Nobody who is going to voice opposition to gay rights is off the hook for anti-gay hate speech and violence, because they're the ones legitimizing the stance to begin with. Full stop. To argue otherwise, is to say that those who accepted pre-civil rights bigotry as that person's right to an opinion aren't in part responsible for the overall climate that condoned institutionalized racism. It's the exact same thing.

To deny a group of people the same rights that the majority currently enjoy is the furthest thing imaginable from "compassion".


I guess it depends on what hate speech really is. Is there a difference between being anti gay marriage and being anti gay? If it is hate speech, it's illegal and can be prosocuted as such. Since that hasn't happened, as of now, then it mustn't rise to the level of hate speech. In my mind hate speech would be more in line with that tweet. Or saying all gays should be killed or beaten or other forms of mistreatment. He didn't mention anything violent, he didn't say that any gays that show up for a chicken sandwich will get what's coming to them. Disagreeing with something and voicing violence are two different things.

I just know this, several of my gay friends on facebook think this is way out of proportion. They won't eat at Chic-Fil-A but the could care less what their CEO says about marriage. Until he starts making public policy, he's irrelevant. As my friend Todd put it, "I'm gay, he's not. He's married and thinks I can't get married. Fuck him. I can't stop him from saying i can't get married. He can't stop me from telling everyone he's an asshole."





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:38:18 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
lafayettemister wrote:


I guess it depends on what hate speech really is. Is there a difference between being anti gay marriage and being anti gay? If it is hate speech, it's illegal and can be prosocuted as such. Since that hasn't happened, as of now, then it mustn't rise to the level of hate speech. In my mind hate speech would be more in line with that tweet. Or saying all gays should be killed or beaten or other forms of mistreatment. He didn't mention anything violent, he didn't say that any gays that show up for a chicken sandwich will get what's coming to them. Disagreeing with something and voicing violence are two different things.

I just know this, several of my gay friends on facebook think this is way out of proportion. They won't eat at Chic-Fil-A but the could care less what their CEO says about marriage. Until he starts making public policy, he's irrelevant. As my friend Todd put it, "I'm gay, he's not. He's married and thinks I can't get married. Fuck him. I can't stop him from saying i can't get married. He can't stop me from telling everyone he's an asshole."



It may not be "hate speech" as defined by law, but that's absolutely what it is in practice, and it's especially true of the responses to their stance by bigots everywhere.

He's far from irrelevant, we're kidding ourselves if we really believe that. Although you've made the same argument about Limbaugh's influence in politics, which also is hard to fathom as "irrelevant", so I'm not sure you'll be swayed off of this line of thinking any time soon.

By the way, here's a bit more about the "family friendly" company in question.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:46:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,454
Location: Alabama, United States
sprite wrote:


CFA's stance obviously encourages the haters. they empower them to declare their hate, give them a focus for it. that might not be the intent, but that is the result. it fires up the bigot's moral outrage and gives it a target and, on top of that, CFA uses their money to fund the de-equalization of gay men and women...

we have nothing against black people, but here, here's $20,000 to help keep them from being allowed to vote, move into my neighborhood, or, omg, marry outside of their race. oh, and here's another $20,000 for those nice boys with the KKK.


The haters are responsible for their own actions. Movies and music don't make people violent. One person shouldn't be held accountable for the stupid actions of morons. CFA is spending it's money to keep things as they are. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a corporation has the same rights as an individual. In that regard, CFA can say whatever they like. We as society can correct their judgement by not patronizing a corporation. If their bottom line starts to suffer badly enough, they'll change their stance. I'm not going to eat CFA again. I don't want my money going to that cause. But until their cause is deemed illegal they are allowed to support it. Stupid as it may be.

edit... other companies that have donated to Religious/anti gay cause. Urban Outfitters, Exxon Mobile, Salvation Army (no surprise there, Catholic org), and Walmart.

edit #2... is this any worse?

This one may not be as newsworthy to some of you. Last year, Urban Outfitters faced outrage when it was revealed that president and founder Richard Hayne had donated $13,150 to famously homophobic presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s campaign. While the dollar amount may not be on par with Chick-Fil-A’s contributions to the “cause,” what galled many people was the seeming hypocrisy of Hayne’s selling anti Prop-8 shirts in 2008 (which were pulled from the shelves in one of Urban’s first controversies) and otherwise pandering to the gay community, and then using those profits to fund political action against them. In January, openly gay CEO Glen Senk, who also oversaw Free People and Anthropologie under the umbrella of Urban Outfitters Inc., resigned, and Hayne has now replaced him as CEO of the entire company. If you needed another reason to boycott, here’s a list of 9 of the most racist, homophobic, and otherwise offensive things Urban Outfitters has done





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dani
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:58:51 AM

Rank: Big-Haired Bitch
Moderator

Joined: 12/25/2010
Posts: 6,078
Location: Under Your Bed, United States
I'm guessing the mayors who say they're going to deny them their right to open a franchise in their towns are just feeding into all they hype. I think they were using the riled-up Gay Rights activists as a distraction whilst (lol, whilst) blatantly denying someone their constitutional rights. But when all the dust settles and the mayors' actions aren't shrouded in protests and demands for action, they'll realize they're in deep shit.



WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:18:28 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,487
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


The haters are responsible for their own actions.


Are you part of a minority now? Have you ever been?

Are there any members of your family or close circle of associates & friends who are or might be in a minority cluster/group/race/sexuality... etc fucking cetera?

Have you ever been in a social situation (or an online discussion group) where someone whom you admired or identified with - uttered something or typed something which, when you heard or read it - made your skin crawl and the fine hairs on the back of your neck, straighten out...as you felt your ears and cheeks filling with the warmth of a blush?

And you didn't say anything to that person who you once admired, but you felt your admiration suddenly lessened or misplaced?

That happens to me a lot, unfortunately. I either change relationships (as I've done a lot of over my life) or I take my concerns to that person - in a private room or moment, and clear the air between him/her and myself.

Sometimes, here... I've been known to upbraid an inconsiderate asshole in a public thread, when it is obvious that the person is just being a bigoted fucktard.

I hope that discretion can be employed, but sometimes - Fbombs are the only legitimate course of action.

I also think that we all have been in a minority at some point in our lives, and many of us know exactly when we hear or read something - likely to be offensive and hurtful to others.

Some of us reside in long silenced/shouted down/ridiculed minorities all our lives.

And that is what this Chic-Fil-A thing is all about, in my humble opinion.

Fuck that guy, the crap he passes off as digestible food probably tastes like shit and does more harm than good to humanity - anyway.

Most intelligent people are introspective and doubt themselves while many fucktards are proudly over-confident. - a tip of the hat to Charles Bukowski
blazestcyr
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:42:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/19/2011
Posts: 737
Location: where bugs die
1st amendment enough said....

there is zero argument on this

however

i am so gonna respect anybody, who puts their personal convictions, above the almighty dollar, whether i agree ..or not

my sister is a lesbian...she would zero deface property or do a kiss in protest...she would simply choose not to go to the place...period.

chick -fil-a did not say they would not serve homosexuals....they made a comment on a issue...just like all of us..do every..day..here on Lush
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.