I'm sure most of you have heard of the Chic-fil-A controversy that has happened over the past month or so about the COO of the restaurant not supporting gay marriage.
If you haven't, here's the story. Dan Cathy, of Chick-fil-a said:
âWe are very much supportive of the family â" the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."
They also came to light of donations to anti-gay political organizations, including the Family Research Council.
This sparked huge controversy nationwide, many protests, and gay rights supporters also staged a same-sex "kiss day" at stores nationwide on August 4, among other things.
Now I must ask, what are your thoughts on this whole situation?
I kinda touched on the subject in the other homosexual thread but I'll go a little more in depth on this topic.
I believe that Dan Cathy has the right to speak his opinion just as much as Anthony Cooper or Jon Stewart has to voice his. If you look at Mr. Cathy's statement it was not hateful in the least. He was asked a question in an interview and he answered in what he felt was the best way possible for his stance on the question. To hear the LGBT thumping and kicking and screaming about it is their right, but I hope they respect my right to think they are stupid for it.
The rhetoric I keep hearing from people is that, and I quote "This has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The fact that he contributes to anti-gay political organizations makes it a human rights issue!" Complete bollocks.
You see the 1st Amendment is a beautiful thing, but it can be a wench when it works against you. I do not see a difference from this to the millions for the LGBT causes that are given by Ben & Jerry's, Amazon, or JC Penny's. Or even the millions given to Planned Parenthood (a little off topic but it just goes to prove a point.) Just because a business is pro-this or anti-that than it is your right to not patronize that said business but let's be realistic their is no difference either way. To say otherwise is obnoxiously hypocritical. As I prefer to look at both sides of an issue I did some research on the supposed funds the Cathy's/Chick-Fil-A donates too and what I found was interesting. The funds were given for counseling of homosexuals to bring them to heterosexuality as well as for overseas missions to Uganda to "bring others to the light" among other things. Among those funds were also millions in community building projects in Atlana as well other Christian orginizations. During the Buycott on Wednesday many Chick-Fil-A employees brought water out to the boycotters so they wouldn't become dehydrated.
I don't base where I shop based on an owners stance on an issue. I shop at places where I enjoy the services provided. Regardless that I am a proponent for Pro-Life both the trousers and shirt that I'm wearing are from Target; and as a proponent of the 1st Amendment and a savage chicken sandwhich I ate at Chick-Fil-A on Wednesday.
Those claiming Human Rights look like a broad-sided ninny if you ask me. Show me the argument that isn't a strawman and I'll listen.
The fact is that Chic-fil-A is a PRIVATE business, with PRIVATE owners. (private meaning that the Government does not own the business.) Which means that they are allowed to have an opinion on things. Just like a store run by a Christian owner is allowed to put out a nativity scene, and a store with a Jewish owner is allowed to put out a menorah during their respective holiday times. Is it bad for business? probably, but they are allowed to do it. In fact, chic-Fil-A has all the same rights to do that as another restaurant has the right to support the legalization of gay marriage, as well as the rights to donate money to pro- gay marriage legalization organizations. But this also means that people have the right to PEACEFULLY protest Chic-Fil-A, (notice PEACEFULLY), and if it drives down business, then tough cookies.
The fact is that Chic-fil-A is a PRIVATE business, with PRIVATE owners. (private meaning that the Government does not own the business.) Which means that they are allowed to have an opinion on things. Just like a store run by a Christian owner is allowed to put out a nativity scene, and a store with a Jewish owner is allowed to put out a menorah during their respective holiday times. Is it bad for business? probably, but they are allowed to do it. In fact, chic-Fil-A has all the same rights to do that as another restaurant has the right to support the legalization of gay marriage, as well as the rights to donate money to pro- gay marriage legalization organizations. But this also means that people have the right to PEACEFULLY protest Chic-Fil-A, (notice PEACEFULLY), and if it drives down business, then tough cookies.
I agree 100%. They're Christians who follow the word of the Bible. The fact that is has been THIS chaotic of an outburst just blows my mind. It's not like they're banning gays from their store or refusing to serve gays. Why are people outraged that a Christian agrees with the bible? Why is it only okay for someone to speak their mind about gay marriage if they agree with it? In my opinion, people are fighting for freedom and equality but the efforts are worthless. Freedom of speech is not only for those who believe in gay marriage but ALSO for those who don't.
It's his money. He can choose to do whatever he wants with that money. If he wishes to support groups that are anti-gay, so be it. As long as he doesn't directly hurt others, who cares? He's not banning homosexuals from buying merchandise from him, he's not banning gays from the proximity of the store. He just simply doesn't support them.
What kind of logic is having freedom of speech, but it being controversial, or bad if you say something different than the general public says? Freedom of speech is either a person can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants without suffering any consequences from what he's saying. He has full right to that. Just because you disagree with what he says does not mean he's a bad person.
Freedom of speech is not freedom if you have ANY kind of boundaries set for you.
Reminds me of this. I don't think it's that serious, we are all entitled to our opinion; yes, even if we don't agree with them, they are still allowed to have an opinion. I'm not going to stop eating at a restaurant if I find out that the chef is gay, or is against gays. I don't care what their views are, I'm there for food.
I doubt there will be serious repercussions from this. They did lose a deal with the muppets, I think, for happy meal toys, and probably some of their customers too. But, they will also gain customers because they will come to support them in their decision to be against gay marriage. As for me, I don't really care for fast food, but I wouldn't care about the CEO's view on gay marriage.
They need to realize that their supporting/not supporting gay marriage is an opinion. If I can say I'm for gay marriage, then someone else can say they are against it, and there isn't anything I can do about that. The CEO of a company is allowed to voice his opinion and do whatever he wants with his money. Whoever boycotts a company just because of the CEO's opinion is stupid. It's not going to change his opinion, so I don't know what they are trying to accomplish besides missing out on some awesome food.
The boycott isn't because the CEO has an opinion. It's because he is actively supporting anti-gay organizations. Those who go and buy food at Chick-Fil-A will have a portion of that money go to such a cause. So people who are in support of LGBT rights don't want to give someone money knowing it will go towards something they are against.
The boycott isn't because the CEO has an opinion. It's because he is actively supporting anti-gay organizations. Those who go and buy food at Chick-Fil-A will have a portion of that money go to such a cause. So people who are in support of LGBT rights don't want to give someone money knowing it will go towards something they are against.
Very well said.
At first, I thought it was ridiculous how everyone was giving Chic-fil-A a hard time for a mere personal belief. I then found out that the owners donated money to anti-gay organizations, which completely swapped my views on this issue around.
What kind of logic is having freedom of speech, but it being controversial, or bad if you say something different than the general public says? Freedom of speech is either a person can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants without suffering any consequences from what he's saying. He has full right to that. Just because you disagree with what he says does not mean he's a bad person.
Freedom of speech is not freedom if you have ANY kind of boundaries set for you.
Freedom of speech is the ability to speak freely without the government intervening. As thepyro stated, the restaurant owners have the freedom to speak as much as others have the freedom to speak back and choose whom they do, and do not do, business with.
They need to realize that their supporting/not supporting gay marriage is an opinion. If I can say I'm for gay marriage, then someone else can say they are against it, and there isn't anything I can do about that. The CEO of a company is allowed to voice his opinion and do whatever he wants with his money. Whoever boycotts a company just because of the CEO's opinion is stupid. It's not going to change his opinion, so I don't know what they are trying to accomplish besides missing out on some awesome food.
As long as there is no use of coercion, I have no problem with the boycotts.
Should the owners of Chic-fil-A be allowed to donate money to anti-gay organizations? Yes.
Should customers be allowed to voice their disagreement with the owner's decision? Yes.
Should customers be allowed to take their business elsewhere and avoid giving Chic-fil-A their money? Yes.
Should the anyone at the government level be allowed to shut down Chic-fil-A or prohibit Chic-fil-A from doing business in their community? No.
There was a governor who tweeted that they wouldn't allow Chic-fil-A to do business in their city. I heard he later took his comment back, knowing he didn't have the power to do such a thing. The government, at all levels, should not be allowed to outlaw or prohibit Chic-fil-A in any way.
I'm actually kind of glad people are boycotting Chic-fil-A. It shows that consumers are capable of having power over corporate decisions.
There was a governor who tweeted that they wouldn't allow Chic-fil-A to do business in their city. I heard he later took his comment back, knowing he didn't have the power to do such a thing. The government, at all levels, should not be allowed to outlaw or prohibit Chic-fil-A in any way.
I'm actually kind of glad people are boycotting Chic-fil-A. It shows that consumers are capable of having power over corporate decisions.
It's nice to see a moderator still active in these forums giving an opinion on such things.
You made some really good points, but I still believe it's gotten way out of hand. Hence, the first paragraph I quoted you on. As pyro said earlier, it is a private business and he is willingly able to spend his money on whatever he wants.
I can understand gay rights supporters and gays themselves being bitter about such a thing, but to go out of their way to boycott and protest? Just simply avoid the restaurant and move on with your life.
I can understand gay rights supporters and gays themselves being bitter about such a thing, but to go out of their way to boycott and protest? Just simply avoid the restaurant and move on with your life.
They're protesting a restaurant who's profit is being used to fund anti-gay corporations. I see nothing wrong with that at all. I would agree with you if the owners weren't funding anti-gay organizations whom are hellbent on doing everything they can to persuade politicians to tell us what we can and can't do with our lives.
This protest isn't just a way to make Chic-fil-A donate less/no money to anti-gay corporations. This protest is a way for people to bring more attention to the gay rights movement.
*I would go into more depth, but I just realized that the word "tell" can mean two entirely different things. This is a pretty major brain ****. I mean, if I say, "People don't have the right to tell others what to do," am I saying that nobody is allowed to force other people to do certain things, or am I saying that nobody is allowed to physically tell someone to do something?
I can't tell you what to do with your life... oh wait, yes I can, you need to become a clown! There! I just told you what to do with your life! Now, you don't actually have to become a clown, but I still told you what to do. But, that's not the sense we often use the word 'tell'. Often, when we say I can't tell you what to do, we mean that I can't force you to do something you don't want to.
The reason why my mind is suffering from such a major mind **** is because I was going to say "Protestors are allowed to tell the owners how not to spend their money." But such a statement could be true AND false, it can both support AND oppose my position, you can interpret the statement two entirely different ways that both conflict with each other, yet both interpretations would be "roper".
Sorry, I've known of these kinds of statements that can mean two entirely different things depending on the context, but this is honestly the first time where I feel the context is so hard to portray that it's just making me very uncomfortable.
Doesn't the same thing somewhat apply to the Susan G. Komen foundation? Y'know, the organization devoted to a cure for breast cancer? I'm aware they give some money to abortion clinics, and Planned Parenthood as well. Sun Chips gives money to the organization, and I'm sure that's a huge source of money. My family boycotted Sun Chips for a few months because of it.
Oh, and before you argue my point, read MageGrayWolf's post:
The boycott isn't because the CEO has an opinion. It's because he is actively supporting anti-gay organizations. Those who go and buy food at Chick-Fil-A will have a portion of that money go to such a cause. So people who are in support of LGBT rights don't want to give someone money knowing it will go towards something they are against.
I can understand gay rights supporters and gays themselves being bitter about such a thing, but to go out of their way to boycott and protest? Just simply avoid the restaurant and move on with your life.
That's pretty much the definition of boycott. Since their activities can have a direct impact on the lives of those who are LGBT why should they and those supporting them remain silent? If you found a corporation was donating money to organizations that that were trying to suppress your rights would you just stop going there and move on or would you call them out and try to get others to join you so as to make a bigger impact?
The reason why my mind is suffering from such a major mind **** is because I was going to say "Protestors are allowed to tell the owners how not to spend their money."
Perhaps a better word to use here would be inform and/or persuade? The protesters are trying to inform the general public of these actions and persuade people to stop eating there for those reasons.
