Forums → WEPR → What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

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

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

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.

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.

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&quot Chick-Fil-A AND the gay groups are discriminating.

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

I believe you to be incorrect here.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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,

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.

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

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.

What did chick fil-a actually do wrong?

Discrimination in it's most basic term does simply mean to treat differently..

your wrong

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.

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.

I get the impression from this that you know your argument is a load of bunk but you're using it anyway. This almost comes off as trollish.

What I am saying to be perfectly clear is that by definition B of discriminate according to my Collins dictionary is that anytime anyone boycotts it is discrimination, anything there is any preferential treatment of anyone for better or worse (for any reason) it is discrimination.

I am not saying definition A and B are the same, just that by the actual meaning of the word some of you guys are hypocrites as well as the homosexuals.