Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich

Post Reply New Topic

I'm glad they don't have Chic-fil-a's around here. That way, if people send there money to a homophobic organization, they at least do so of their own misguided views, not because the chicken restaurant has been sending their money for years without telling anyone.

I agree about people needing to work together to tackle serious issues like child hunger (statistics show 1 in every 4 children has to deal with "food insecurity," not knowing when their next meal will be). When it comes to Chick Fil-A or any other business and their religious or political views, I simply do not care. I have eaten at Chick Fil-A and find their chicken to be rather nice. On the rare occasion I do go to a restaurant, I'm going for the food (and price of said food), not for any other reason. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions/beliefs regarding topics such as homosexuality (this works both ways!)...

I have something to say the other way:

Dear intolerant bigots.
You can't expect to be prejudiced and hateful towards a group and then accuse them of being intolerant for not tolerating your intolerance.

I've seen that for various things, not just gay stuff.

I'm glad we don't have them where I live and I never heard of them before. I would never eat there now if I'm ever around one.

I've been thinking about jumping on the popular side of this for awhile, and what's holding me back is this type of reaction. The problem isn't being intolerant of actual intolerance, it's labeling a disagreement as intolerance and not bothering to back it up with reason.

What did the CEO actually say? What group(s) actually got funding from his company? Nobody has even so much as mentioned these things, and without knowing this there is no grounds to call them 'hateful' or 'prejudiced' or 'bigoted' or any other label. If you can say what they actually did or said and that happens to be objectionable, then you don't need to slap a label on it. Show me the wrong, don't tell me you've slapped the label 'wrong' on it and that I therefore can't question whether it actually is wrong.

One can refuse to patronize Chick-Fillet restaurants because of the opinions of its owner. Or one can make purchases there because a) one agrees with the owner or b) one supports the owner's right to free speech whether or not one agrees with what the owner has to say. One thing for sure though: The City of Chicago has no right or power to legally discriminate against the legal business Chick-Fillet and refuse to issue a license to do business in Chicago. That is tantamount to government censorship.

ruveyn

I could care less what some CEO has to say. It's the sick behaviour of the patrons; queuing up for blocks to support HATRED and the singing of the national anthem in the spirit of hatred. I could say a lot more on this topic, but in order to avoid an argument, I will end it here.

G.

Have you considered the possibility that some may have bought chicken there to support the owner's right to free speech? I support the owner's right to his opinion on the matter of gay marriage even though I disagree with what he says completely. I could not care less about who consenting adults choose to marry. If they want to marry their pet ponies or pet sheep I have no objections either.

ruveyn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html

I am quite sure that some people are just supporting free speech, and that's great, but a lot of people/organizations/groups themselves have said things to the effect of standing up for "family values" etc.

Free speech doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want with no consequence.

It's amazing how many people don't understand this.



I'm quite sick of "tolerance." There are many things in society that I don't care to "tolerate," such as serial murder, and child molestation.

While I'm happy to "tolerate" differing opinions, I'm not going to let them go unchallenged either, and this goes double for people who attempt to shape society as according to those views. I have no intention of letting racist and homophobic attitudes go unchallenged, and I have a "right" to not support businesses who espouse those views. I have a "right" to disagree, and I even have the "right" to disagree publicly.

As for people who don't like their attitudes being called "homophobic," oh well. There is no "right" to be free from criticism.

So do you apply this statement to gay activists s well?

That depends.

What are the "gay activists" trying to accomplish?

I've noticed that when one group hates another and tries to deprive them of their rights or promotes intolerance and hatred of them any fighting back that the oppressed group does they then project what they are actually doing on them and claim the other group is doing it to them. It's a way to try to get away with their hateful bullying behavior.

I noticed this, too.