Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

Posted Oct 28, '12 at 4:26pm

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

They're hypocrites. They tell people not to discriminate against them and not to act against them, but they did all that to Chick Fil-A.

hmmm... reminds me of how a "friend" of mine talked bad about arabs and germans and when i called her racist i was suddenly the bad guy. doesnt sound too logical does it?

 

Posted Oct 28, '12 at 4:30pm

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

Homosexuals just want to be left alone and treated like normal people while having their pervert-parades and dressing acting like fruit-cakes. Because when you are gay you are born with a lisp? Amirite?
If there is anything we can thank the homosexuals for its the advancement in AIDS treatment. If it wasn't for them spreading the disease like candy in the 80's and somehow catching a "super" version of the virus that kills in months our treatments would be still in the stone age.

how are the parades perverted? i personally think most female haloween costumes are perverted... oh wait... they are FEMALE so its awsome isnt it? and you do realise that in order to spread aids you have to be PART of the sex right?

 

Posted Oct 28, '12 at 5:44pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,033 posts

Knight

I know right? Because homosexuals are beaten in the streets, put in concentration camps, aren't allowed to ride buses with straight people, and put in gas chambers.

Because now, those are the only and necessary requirements to being called discrimination?

Homosexuals just want to be left alone and treated like normal people while having their pervert-parades and dressing acting like fruit-cakes. Because when you are gay you are born with a lisp? Amirite?
If there is anything we can thank the homosexuals for its the advancement in AIDS treatment. If it wasn't for them spreading the disease like candy in the 80's and somehow catching a "super" version of the virus that kills in months our treatments would be still in the stone age.

Gay milieus spread AIDS among other gays because homosexuality was shunned. Way to make sense of your arguments.

 

Posted Oct 29, '12 at 12:59am

thebluerabbit

thebluerabbit

2,915 posts

Gay milieus spread AIDS among other gays because homosexuality was shunned. Way to make sense of your arguments.

same goes with the pride parades. they wouldnt have them if they were treated equally in the first place

 

Posted Oct 29, '12 at 6:03am

handlerfan

handlerfan

192 posts

I think the statement that homosexuals spread AIDS like candy in the 80s is wrong. I think that heterosexuals contributed  to the spread of AIDS too.
It's not a question of heterosexuals being normal and homosexuals wanting to be treated as normal as hetereosexuals are. I think homosexuals want to be treated as equal in society as everyone else.
What chick fil-a did wrong was to reveal their prejudice against homosexuality. I want my fast food restaurent to serve me with chickburgers or whatever rather than promote their stance on our sexuallity.
It's none of their business.

 

Posted Oct 29, '12 at 10:52am

Strop

Strop

10,823 posts

Moderator

What chick fil-a did wrong was to reveal their prejudice against homosexuality

I want to be a stickler and point out the difference between doing something wrong and something objectionable because much of the debate lies in that difference, but really, I guess this sums it up.

So I'mma talk about AIDS instead.

Let's face some home (and away) truths here:
1) AIDS is not a "gay virus". Also, learn that AIDS is not the thing that's being spread, it's HIV. AIDS is a consequence of contracting HIV and this consequence can be delayed using anti-retroviral therapy. And AIDS being a syndrome, the term is a status that denotes an umbrella of associated conditions. Now go look up what HIV actually does and how it's transmitted. You'll find that modes of transmission involve both seminal fluid and blood.

2) Therefore the commonest modes of transmission were unprotected sex of any kind, and HIV contaminated blood. The latter isn't so much an issue in most first world countries, there's all kinds of screening (some reasonable, some ridiculous) involved in the donation process. Which leaves unprotected sex, which is the major form of transmission across the world.

3) You'll find that heterosexual transmission is far far more common in actual HIV epidemic countries (like Africa), where there's not only a cultural objection to using protection, but also cultural practices that compromise natural defenses and increase the risk of successful HIV transmission.

4) However again in first world countries, we do tend to pay more attention to homosexual transmission because to be frank, the incidence and prevalence of HIV +ve status predominantly comes from the MSM population (men who have sex with men). Whilst educational campaigns on HIV/AIDS were initially effective, once they eased up, some rather dangerous beliefs among subsets of the GLBT population started circulating, as well as this sense of HIV martyrdom in which people were using their HIV status as a form of 'solidarity'. Quite an uncomfortable home truth, but not surprising: in the absence of education comes mythology, especially in a marginalised and therefore distrustful, elusive community.

But after saying all that, I ask this: which one among you who talks about AIDS and how much "the gays" have to do with it, has a grasp on how to deal with it?

Homosexuals just want to be left alone and treated like normal people while having their pervert-parades and dressing acting like fruit-cakes.

If normal people would lighten up, have pervert parades and dressed up and acted like fruitcakes on a regular basis, I think the world would be a gayer place :D

 

Posted Oct 29, '12 at 12:58pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,677 posts

Knight

I know right? Because homosexuals are beaten in the streets, put in concentration camps, aren't allowed to ride buses with straight people, and put in gas chambers.

Really why should they want equal rights when it's not as bad as being killed for being gay.
Matthew Shepard 's Story
Britney Spears Fan Killed For Being Gay
Dad: Son killed for being gay
Violence against LGBT people
Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill (Chick-Fil-A supported)

Yep it's defiantly a good thing violence against homosexuals doesn't take place so they have nothing to be so concerned about.

Homosexuals just want to be left alone and treated like normal people while having their pervert-parades and dressing acting like fruit-cakes.

The gay rights parade started from protests against violence and discrimination against LGBTs. They primarily serve to spread information on the matter. The more flamboyant ones are held in places where homosexuality is more acceptable and serves as a celebration for being accepted in such places.

Because when you are gay you are born with a lisp? Amirite?

It's a stereotype that homosexuals speak with a lisp. Many don't, I would go as far to say most don't.

If there is anything we can thank the homosexuals for its the advancement in AIDS treatment. If it wasn't for them spreading the disease like candy in the 80's and somehow catching a "super" version of the virus that kills in months our treatments would be still in the stone age.

I don't think I need to add anything to this after Strops post.

 

Posted Oct 29, '12 at 1:59pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,094 posts

Knight

I know right? Because homosexuals are beaten in the streets, put in concentration camps, aren't allowed to ride buses with straight people, and put in gas chambers.

Actually they still are persecuted with such ferocity in many nations today. Sad.

 

Posted Oct 30, '12 at 6:49pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

215 posts

Going against discrimination isn't discrimination in itself.All they did was put the discrimination into the public view, stopped providing Chick-Fil-A funding and asked others to do the same.

Discriminating against others for discriminating against you is still discrimination, not matter if it's justified or not.

Not funding Chick Fil-A and telling others not to because of their beliefs and actions is still discrimination.

No. If they were being hypocrites, here's what they would have to do.

1) Fund anti-heterosexual groups for the re-education of heterosexuals to 'cure' them.
2) Speak out how they think a heterosexual's lifestyle choices are 'immoral' and will condemn said hetersexual to eternal punishment.
3) Lobby for the rights of heterosexuals to be taken away and against heterosexual marriage.

That would also be hypocritical, but what they're are doing is also hypocritical: that being as I already said

They tell people not to discriminate against them and not to act against them, but they did all that to Chick Fil-A.

P.S. The way I see it, is that you can still be a hypocrite and still be in the right such as the homosexuals were for discriminating against Chick Fil-A the way they were doing it.

All people are doing is saying Chick-Fil-A's choices were bad and that until such actions were stopped people should support them.

I'm confused doesn't some people and Catholics and others say the same thing about gay people and the gays oppose these people saying that about them?

If this is the case then by definition them doing that to Chick-Fil-A's is by definition hypocritical, no?

P.S. I don't mean to sound like a gay basher (which I'm not) or offend anyone.

It is not hypocritical. Chick a fill and homophones are allowed to broadcast their anti gay stance so long as it does not constitute libel or discrimination.

I don't think so, I think Chick-Fil-A is allowed to discriminate and use libel as long as it doesn't threaten the safety of the gay people and promote actions to attack homosexuals in America and as long as they don't deny service to homosexuals in their restaurants.

Of course I could be mistaken.

That's like stating a Nazi is allowed to hate on Jews and to prevent a Jew from doing such and such activities because clearly a policy that aims for fairness for all is somehow discriminatory against Nazi ideals that are based on prejudice and intolerance.

Incorrect, that is a poor comparison unless Chick-Fil-A is building concentration camps and shooting gay people and burning them. Chick-Fil-A is doing nothing to prevent gay people from doing anything to my knowledge. All they're doing is supporting anti-gay associations.

 

Posted Oct 30, '12 at 7:05pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Not funding Chick Fil-A and telling others not to because of their beliefs and actions is still discrimination.

Discrimination definition

"1the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:"

Look at the definition. Not buying a business's products and advocating others do the same in protest is not discrimination.

Keywords in the definition: unjust/prejudicial. It is not prejudice to speak out against prejudice. 

They tell people not to discriminate against them and not to act against them, but they did all that to Chick Fil-A.

Except they aren't being hypocrites by saying this. The grounds by which they are each doing so are different.

 
Reply to What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

You must be logged in to post a reply!