Chick-fil-a and the homophobic sandwich

Post Reply New Topic

Gay rights are human rights. The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has donated heavily to anti-gay rights groups. As far as I am concerned, that means they are opposed to equal rights for all human beings. They don't deserve the patronage of moral people. The anti-gay lobby can pretend to be facing "intolerance and bigotry" but nobody worthwhile is fooled.

If Dan Cathy wants to learn about tolerance, he should talk to Bill Marriott, deeply religious Mormon owner of the Marriott hotel chain:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... m-marriott

Here is a real Christian attitude. The rest should be ashamed of themselves and the utterly trite nature of the sexual controversy they maintain with their xenophobia, hatred and ignorance

They want to make America fabulous

Short of inciting a riot, inciting a panic or fomenting a lynch mob etc there should be no legal prior constraint on what is said or written. And yes, all of our external behavior has either or both social and legal consequences.

ruveyn

Marriage & Family Foundation
Focus on the Family
Family Research Council
Eagle Forum (also an anti-feminist organization)
American Family Organization
Exodus International (deals with conversion therapy of gays)
...plus campaigns for gay marriage bans (Prop 8 )

Some not all of these groups are mentioned in the Wikipedia article (others I do recall seeing on other reliable sources). At least half of the organizations mentioned are certified hate groups by the Southern Law Poverty Center. I honestly don't know why the media is not acknowledging this as this is the central reason for the boycott.

Here's my thing on this: A few years ago I used to be one of those people who would convert to one side of an issue based on the attitude of the opposition and the gay marriage issue was one of those things. Since then I've realized that you can't let the attitudes of other people (regardless of how bad or negative they are) push you to one side of the debate. Go by facts, not by attitude is my feeling on this. Really do your research on the topic and get an idea for both sides of things. Though at this point I do think that both sides are acting irrational in one way or another but I'm not going to let it affect what I do believe on this issue.

I was well aware of the contributions years prior to Cathy's announcement and made the decision then not to go back to Chick-Fil-A (which I never went outta my way for anyway). Recent events and attitudes have not changed my thinking. I'd rather support an issue because I believe in it, not because the other side is acting like a-holes.

I once had their food, and I absolutely adored it. If it wasn't for them donating profits and proceeds to anti-gay groups, I would happily go there once a week. I wouldn't even care if the owner was against gay marriage, but I do draw the line when money is donated to groups who have hurt my friends and family; the LGBT community. I cannot stomach that, and I will go elsewhere.

I don't understand why people single out Chick-fil-A. There are plenty of other corporations who have a more negative track record. At least Chick-fil-A has class when it comes to endorsing discrimination.

OK. That's funny.

I need to send that to my gay best friend Alfie.

I don't particularly care what the CEO of a company has to say, or even what he chooses to spend his money on, but I'd happily have gone to a Chick-fil-A restaurant if we had them in my area to give the fat finger to Tom Menino, Rahm Emmanual and co. I'm sure it was also something of a show of force moment for the socially conservative set, but to my mind it was the conduct of certain government officials in threatening a company over it's owner's political beliefs that was the outrage calling for a statement.

Wouldn't it make more sense to send angry letters to the politicians? I mean I can get the giving the finger thing but I think going to Chick-Fil-A would only accomplish half of what you're trying to resolve.

As opposed to simply stunning?

ruveyn

Not really. The politicians are the only ones who would see them and they don't even need to acknowledge them. This is more of a publicly visible finger to them.

A friend just told me that their closest location to us in the Spokane/Spokane Valley area, indeed, is Boise, Idaho. They can continue to stay that far away from us as far as I'm concerned.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Supporting family values and standing up for hatred are two different things.

I don't have any problem with people boycotting some company for some reason (whether or not the reason makes sense). My problem is with people saying hate or bigotry or something like that without backing it up. I also have a problem with actual hate, but I haven't seen any evidence of that.

I like that you showed up with actual data. I'm not convinced with just that, since if I'm going to conclude that some group is a hate group, I want to know why, not just that the SLPC came to that conclusion.

The anti-conversion therapy thing is something I think is a bad idea, but I don't think it justifies a label of hate. Neither does the prop 8 support. If you understand feminism as being pro-gender-equality, then I don't see anything about the Eagle Forum that is anti-feminist (from a look at wikipedia and at their website).


I'm more or less on the fence on it. It's a moral issue, so just gathering facts isn't likely to persuade me one way or the other. I've seen little in the way of logical arguments on either side.

If I had a definite side, I would be on that side regardless of how obnoxious the other people on that side acted. That still doesn't mean I'd like the people on my side to be obnoxious.


I can agree with you on that.

I agree, the biblical Jesus did not hang out with the pharasees but hung out with societies outcasts. He bucked the system and was anti-establishment too. In fact the religious folks really did not like him because he was like the pied piper of the damned meanwhile he told the religious leaders that they will be judged in the manner they judge others. Ironicly, the biblical Jesus was a leftist.

Jojo

Nah, I think that giving money to CFA sends a better message than a letter a politician is just going to ignore does, politicians seem to pay a lot more attention to money.

Jesus was on his own side. He wasn't interested in what the Romans did or any other geo-political issues. He wasn't interested in overthrowing capitalism,he participated in that system as a carpenter, and did not discourage others from it but emphasized voluntary charity and aid to those who need it. With the exception of the sick and disabled, he did not associate with the outcasts as a sign of approval even though he didn't judge them. The state of their lives was in bad shape and they didn't just need help, they needed a radical intervention. If ancient Israel had a significant underground gay community, Jesus would have interacted with them for that same reason- not to condemn them, but to intervene for those willing.