ForumsWEPRWhat did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

98 10105
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
2,325

What did they do wrong? I know that there is a thread similar to this but this is kind of a different question (so please donât lock it or I will be sad :C ) but really what did they do wrong? Itâs not like they said âwe should stone gays and not let them into our stores!!â they were simply stating their thoughts, so here is what I want you to do, this is going to be like a pole I guess, I want you to state what chick fil-a did wrong. Simple as that
Please no arguing, I just want to see what people think they did wrong

Again please donât lock this mod it will make me sad :C itâs not a duplicate

  • 98 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,719 posts
20,765

I think the answers for your question can be easily found in the other thread with a bit of reading; it isn't that hard.

But anyway, if you want my opinion: it wasn't wrong to state their opinion. It is wrong to fund anti-gay organisations. Simple as that.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

Itâs not like they said âwe should stone gays and not let them into our stores!!â


They funded groups who do say similar things though.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,354 posts
1,525

im not sure if you cant see what they did wrong or dont want to see. i can see 2 options:

1. you dont really know what they did (and in that case you didnt even read the first thread properly)
2. you yourself would give money to an anti-gay organistion and think its ok.

i wouldnt be too surprised if its number 2 since your the one who started the homosexuality thread, got countered by many people and im guessing you didnt change your mind (or at least tried to understand) even a little bit.

anyway, i probably sounded really mean in this post. thats not what and how i was trying to point it out. what i was saying is that you wont see whats so wrong about what they did until you can understand the other side.

Jefferysinspiration
offline
Jefferysinspiration
3,184 posts
2,380

But anyway, if you want my opinion: it wasn't wrong to state their opinion. It is wrong to fund anti-gay organisations. Simple as that.


This.

If they didn't hang black people but gave money to the KKK, would it be wrong? Erm, yes.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

They donated millions to a number of organizations such as Family Research Council.

Family Research Council was designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty law Center, a nonprofit civil rights organization. The criteria used to list them as such,
"Generally, the SPLCâs listings of these groups is based on their propagation of known falsehoods" claims about LGBT people that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities" and repeated, groundless name-calling. Viewing homosexuality as unbiblical does not qualify organizations for listing as hate groups."
You can read the article for yourself.

Campus Pride released "5 Simple Facts About Chick-fil-A."

1. Chick-fil-A profits fund documented hate groups that aggressively work against LGBT people, advocating for their criminalization, psychological abuse or death.

2. Chick-fil-A profits support the radical-right-wing group Eagle Forum, which supports LGBT people being considered criminals.

3. Chick-fil-A profits support Exodus International, which claims to âcure homosexualityâ through psychological coercion of LGBT people. It says LGBT people are âperverse.â

4. Chick-fil-A profits support Focus on the Family (FOF) and its off-shoot group, Family Research Council (FRC), which has been designated as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center. FOF aggressively defames LGBT people as a threat to children and FRC spent $25,000 to stop the US Congress from condemning Ugandaâs âKill the Gaysâ policy that would execute all gay people.

5. Chick-fil-A profits come from YOU. When you choose Chick-fil-A, you help fund hate groups.


These accusations are not denied by Chick-Fil-A.
thebluerabbit
offline
thebluerabbit
5,354 posts
1,525

1. Chick-fil-A profits fund documented hate groups that aggressively work against LGBT people, advocating for their criminalization, psychological abuse or death.

2. Chick-fil-A profits support the radical-right-wing group Eagle Forum, which supports LGBT people being considered criminals.

3. Chick-fil-A profits support Exodus International, which claims to âcure homosexualityâ through psychological coercion of LGBT people. It says LGBT people are âperverse.â

4. Chick-fil-A profits support Focus on the Family (FOF) and its off-shoot group, Family Research Council (FRC), which has been designated as a hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center. FOF aggressively defames LGBT people as a threat to children and FRC spent $25,000 to stop the US Congress from condemning Ugandaâs âKill the Gaysâ policy that would execute all gay people.

5. Chick-fil-A profits come from YOU. When you choose Chick-fil-A, you help fund hate groups.

These accusations are not denied by Chick-Fil-A.


wow... i only now realise its even more wrong and serious then i thought it was
jericho70
offline
jericho70
1 posts
660

Seems to me folks are focusing on the wrong bit here. The controversy about the opinions expressed by the corporation are indeed distracting, but the real issue is more basic. It's not about a chicken joint being anti-gay... it's about a corporation having the RIGHT to have an opinion at all. All the arguing simply validates that a corporate fiction (not the CEO, not the employees, but the CORPORATION) should be allowed an opinion. Enough blood has been spilled in the name of the bottom line that I for one resist completely that non-entity like a corporation should have the precedent set that it's views are valid in any way. I shudder at the laws that would come into being when a CORPORATE FICTION is allowed to vote in elections, or demand extraterritoriality, or hire legitimate private armies... No. Just no.

LegoMyLego27
offline
LegoMyLego27
101 posts
1,400

There opinion, in all fairness, RETARDED

bigjacob
offline
bigjacob
581 posts
2,170

I refuse to eat at chick fil a of my own free will now....

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,369 posts
24,370

Seems to me folks are focusing on the wrong bit here. The controversy about the opinions expressed by the corporation are indeed distracting, but the real issue is more basic. It's not about a chicken joint being anti-gay... it's about a corporation having the RIGHT to have an opinion at all. All the arguing simply validates that a corporate fiction (not the CEO, not the employees, but the CORPORATION) should be allowed an opinion. Enough blood has been spilled in the name of the bottom line that I for one resist completely that non-entity like a corporation should have the precedent set that it's views are valid in any way. I shudder at the laws that would come into being when a CORPORATE FICTION is allowed to vote in elections, or demand extraterritoriality, or hire legitimate private armies... No. Just no.


You went down the slippery slope really fast there.
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,725 posts
3,620

I refuse to eat at chick fil a of my own free will now....
As opposed to being tied to chair, having a gun pointed at your head being told "Eat this or die"?



Seems to me folks are focusing on the wrong bit here. The controversy about the opinions expressed by the corporation are indeed distracting, but the real issue is more basic. It's not about a chicken joint being anti-gay... it's about a corporation having the RIGHT to have an opinion....

I don't even know.
pickpocket
offline
pickpocket
5,989 posts
1,810

They did nothing wrong. They expressed their opinion. I dont see why people who support gays can go and say it, while others cant. Chick-fil-a did nothing wrong other than tell people what they think. And make me addicted to their chicken nuggets and waffle fries.

There opinion, in all fairness, RETARDED

What deems it retarded? You? Its an opinion based on religion(I think). Its so stupid when people call other people retarded for explaining what they believe.
Thats like you going and saying, "I like dinosaurs" and me saying "you are stupid because you like dinosaurs."
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,719 posts
20,765

They did nothing wrong. They expressed their opinion. I dont see why people who support gays can go and say it, while others cant. Chick-fil-a did nothing wrong other than tell people what they think. And make me addicted to their chicken nuggets and waffle fries.

If they merely expressed their opinion, we would not be talking about them right now. Please read the first page to actually see what this is about.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,081 posts
1,705

They did nothing wrong. They expressed their opinion. I dont see why people who support gays can go and say it, while others cant. Chick-fil-a did nothing wrong other than tell people what they think. And make me addicted to their chicken nuggets and waffle fries.


What they did was wrong, but not illegal, nor should their action be illegal. A boycott is the perfect response to their actions, no government intervention is necessary on either side.

What deems it retarded? You? Its an opinion based on religion(I think). Its so stupid when people call other people retarded for explaining what they believe.
Thats like you going and saying, "I like dinosaurs" and me saying "you are stupid because you like dinosaurs."


It's not their opinion we're against, it's their action. Their action is the donation to anti-gay organizations that are trying to pass laws that will effect us and limit our freedoms. Why should straight people care? Because we should protect all our freedoms, including those we don't immediately use ourselves. It's this idea that we only pay attention to laws effecting ourselves that really screws up politics.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,095 posts
3,975

Seems to me folks are focusing on the wrong bit here. The controversy about the opinions expressed by the corporation are indeed distracting, but the real issue is more basic. It's not about a chicken joint being anti-gay... it's about a corporation having the RIGHT to have an opinion at all. All the arguing simply validates that a corporate fiction (not the CEO, not the employees, but the CORPORATION) should be allowed an opinion. Enough blood has been spilled in the name of the bottom line that I for one resist completely that non-entity like a corporation should have the precedent set that it's views are valid in any way. I shudder at the laws that would come into being when a CORPORATE FICTION is allowed to vote in elections, or demand extraterritoriality, or hire legitimate private armies... No. Just no.


While that was indeed a slippery slope, I see his point and agree with it. While I do have a moral argument with the opinions of Chick-Fil-A's CEO, as someone who wishes to pursue a career in business, it really gets to me that the business is being used to lobby a political and theological belief. As far as I'm concerned, if it's the opinion of the owners, then they can use their own money, not their business. It should not be Chick-Fil-A's name on those checks.

And this doesn't even take into account as the rest of you have mentioned, the blatant donations to bigoted organizations that seek to repress and demote those who are gay. I can't understand how in this age, the very idea that it's alright to discriminate against someone simply because of who they are, even exists.
Showing 1-15 of 98