Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

Posted Oct 30, '12 at 8:14pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

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


the word is boycott. not racism or whatever it's been called.
btw are they bankrupt already? it's been a while since this was posted so...?
 

Posted Oct 30, '12 at 8:30pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Partydevil, look back on page 5 at Mage's post...

the word is boycott. not racism or whatever it's been called.


Exactly. It's a different thing altogether.
 

Posted Oct 30, '12 at 10:21pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

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.

Discriminate:verb 1 (foll. by against or in favour of) single out (a particular person or group) for worse or better treatment than others.

According to this definition (from the "Collins Essential Canadian English Dictionary & Thesaurus") Chick-Fil-A AND the gay groups are discriminating.

So I suppose depending which dictionary you use the homosexuals are and aren't discriminating.

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

I believe you to be incorrect here.

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

Not in THAT definition anyways.

Don't get me wrong people, I do believe Chick-Fil-A to have been in the wrong, but just saying the homosexuals and a few of you guys are hypocrites and discriminators 0.0
 

Posted Oct 30, '12 at 11:26pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

Discriminate:verb 1 (foll. by against or in favour of) single out (a particular person or group) for worse or better treatment than others.

According to this definition (from the "Collins Essential Canadian English Dictionary & Thesaurus") Chick-Fil-A AND the gay groups are discriminating.

So I suppose depending which dictionary you use the homosexuals are and aren't discriminating.


Even according to that definition, people protesting Chick-Fil-A's actions are not discriminating. They are not saying to treat people who work for Chick-Fil-A badly, or to deny them rights, or give them preferential treatment, etc. All they are doing is boycotting the company.

I believe you to be incorrect here.


Then this is the heart of the issue. I'm not incorrect. You can continue to believe that a boycott is discrimination if you wish, but it's not correct.
 

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 3:43am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,239 posts

Knight

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.


They're funding groups who want to deny rights to gays. Rights that everyone else enjoy and take for granted. That is discrimination. If the company merely aired its homophobic views without laying off it's gay workers or gave such funding it's a different issue.

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.


My comparison was to Nazis discriminating and not killing. Read. Also read above.
 

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 3:48am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,239 posts

Knight

Even the definition you gave doesn't point gays out to be discriminatory. Your definition maintains that it is discrimination if groups are singled out for different levels of treatment based on flimsy reasons.

We can argue till the cows come home over semantics but the bottom line should be how the law defines it. As taken from LegalUs.com.

Discrimination refers to the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination based on any one of those characteristics. Other federal statutes, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, credit extension, public education, and access to public facilities. State laws also provide further protection against discrimination.

 

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 4:04pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

Even the definition you gave doesn't point gays out to be discriminatory. Your definition maintains that it is discrimination if groups are singled out for different levels of treatment based on flimsy reasons.

According to the definition I used it doesn't say for flimsy reasons, all there needs to be for there to be discrimination is better or worse treatment to a specific person or group, so by definition if you treat your child nicer than a serial killer it is still discrimination, NO MATTER the reason.

We can argue till the cows come home over semantics but the bottom line should be how the law defines it. As taken from LegalUs.com.

Context depending I agree, but since this isn't a legal issue I disagree. I think if it's not a legal issue then a regular dictionary will do.

P.S. All I'm doing is arguing the semantics of this definition, and by the definitions of a dictionary a few of you guys and the gays are hypocrites and are discriminating, no matter how justified it is.

Discrimination can be the effect of some law or established practice that confers privileges on a certain class or denies privileges to a certain class because of race, age, sex, nationality, religion, or handicap. Federal law, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employment discrimination based on any one of those characteristics. Other federal statutes, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in voting rights, housing, credit extension, public education, and access to public facilities. State laws also provide further protection against discrimination.

Legally you are very, very true indeed, but then again you should only use legal definitions if this were a legal matter, which it is not.

The reason I'm arguing this is for to reasons really:
1. To argue (always nice to improve one's selfs debating skills).
2. To be controversial and mainly to show that you can't talk about this as though the gays are all good and no bad and are the saints in this case, because in reality they are being hypocrites and discriminating.
 

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 4:12pm

VonHeisenbourg

VonHeisenbourg

379 posts

They're funding groups who want to deny rights to gays. Rights that everyone else enjoy and take for granted. That is discrimination. If the company merely aired its homophobic views without laying off it's gay workers or gave such funding it's a different issue.

And to show that taking away someones right is wrong and that funding hate groups is wrong you try to be bankrupt a company for legally funding] a legal company? You're basically trying to take away this Chick-Fil-A companies rights to fund and aid legal hate groups. That also sounds hypocritically.

Even according to that definition, people protesting Chick-Fil-A's actions are not discriminating. They are not saying to treat people who work for Chick-Fil-A badly, or to deny them rights, or give them preferential treatment, etc. All they are doing is boycotting the company

Incorrect. The definition is (basically put): treat a particular person OR group worse or better than others.

So... Unless you're going to boycott every company in the world it is discriminating against this company. Or am I wrong?.

Then this is the heart of the issue. I'm not incorrect. You can continue to believe that a boycott is discrimination if you wish, but it's not correct.

See above :D

My comparison was to Nazis discriminating and not killing. Read. Also read above.

And I'm saying unless this Chick-Fil-A company is going to kill and beat gays you shouldn't compare them ever... If you're going to compare Nazis with others. At least be reasonable about it. They are no where on the same level as Nazis, thus they shouldn't be compared to them.
 

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 4:25pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

P.S. All I'm doing is arguing the semantics of this definition, and by the definitions of a dictionary a few of you guys and the gays are hypocrites and are discriminating,


No, what you're doing is saying definition A (discrimination as bigotry/unfair treatment) is the same as definition B (to make a distinction) which is utterly false.
 

Posted Oct 31, '12 at 4:29pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,258 posts

Knight

Discrimination in it's most basic term does simply mean to treat differently.. but for instance, this specific case illustrates that the discrimination as it's understood commonly in law, media and society means you treat someone badly for an unjustified reason. Which is the case for chick-fil-a, and which is not the case for homosexuals boycotting it.

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

You must be logged in to post a reply!