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
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Discrimination in it's most basic term does simply mean to treat differently..
Which is what I'm saying, and since this is the definition of discriminate...
your wrong
I am not 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.
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.
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.
This whole time I have not been saying that by the law definition the homosexuals are discriminating, just that by a definition of the word they are. The way people construe definitions of words is fine, but to say I'm wrong like partydevil is when I showed and quoted the definition I used is incorrect.
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.
Well my argument certainly is not bunk, it is by semantics (which is all that matters when I argue) correct. Telling me I'm wrong when I copy/paste a definition that says "to treat one person or company different from others for better or worse" is trolling. This definition does not say it has to be just or prejudicial treatment. Just that there has to be a difference between the way you treat these different companies. Therefore any type of boycott is discrimination.
Putting a serial killer behind bars is discrimination against him just because he murdered he is treated differently (justifiably albeit) than a pope. That there is plain and simple discrimination.
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.
Here is where you're splitting hairs with semantics, and arriving at a false conclusion.
In situation A, Chick-Fil-A is discriminating against homosexual rights by funding anti-gay groups.
In situation B, opponents to this are discriminating (in a different meaning of the word) against Chick-Fil-A as a means of protest.
A /= B and so people opposing what Chick-Fil-A did are not being hypocritical.
There is no hypocrisy. Yes, if you -really- want to push it, both sides are discriminating, but for fundamentally different reasons and thus it is not hypocrisy.
