Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

Raiden · Before February 2015

Kirby wrote:

where have i heard this "did you know satan was once an angel?"
oh yes, if i am correct, batman.
lets all relate this to batman

xD

Shift · Before February 2015

I SHALL RISE TO THE CHALLENGE!

TakoMan02 wrote:

You're missing a very very vital puzzle piece here: Chick-Fil-A (namely Mr. Dan Cathy) is not spending his millions of dollars on pool maintenance. He is supporting anti-gay groups, who, as mentioned, have suggested things as wild as making it illegal to be homosexual. This is the definition of "oppressive"; if you have the slightest doubt I'd be glad to get a source or two for you.

Orly? I was unaware. However, you seem to be unaware of a much more important factor: the Constitution. While we may view Cathy as an ignorant... monkey... he has a right to express his opinion. The mayor's stripping of Cathy's constitutional right trumps Cathy's anti-gay campaign- a perfectly legal action.

TakoMan02 wrote:

Let's pretend you're the Mayor of Chicago. The CEO of McDonalds (Mr. Don Thompson) reveals he has been donating millions of dollars each year to Neo-Nazi groups. Then they show interest in putting a couple more McDonald's in the city of Chicago. What would you do in this situation?

Neo-Nazism is a political party. A scary, freakish political party. What would you do if a republican walks into your city?

TakoMan02 wrote:

Would you completely sever the opinion of the CEO with the business, or intertwine the two? They're connected, right? So for that reason, it's not right to say you're the oppressor for saying no to McDonalds. You're preventing the oppressor from gaining more power, and I think you think it's oppressing the oppressor, which is a misunderstanding.

I think you're exaggerating the connection. Although the company funds the CEO, if you were to remove said CEO from the picture then the company wouldn't be doing anything wrong.

But that's beside the point. Ever hear the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right"? Oppressing one's constitutional rights doesn't make up for the oppression of gays. If you honestly think that punishing someone for expressing his opinion isn't oppression, then I suggest you stay away from any living being for the rest of your life.

Again, I'm not saying that Cathy is the victim here. I'm simply pointing out that the mayor handled the issue very poorly.

Tako · Before February 2015

You didn't answer my question. What would you do in that situation?

I didn't ignore the rest, the answer is just crucial.

Shift · Before February 2015

I answered your question with a question that clearly displayed my answer: What would you do if a republican walks into your city? In case you still can't figure it out, I meant "nothing."

I believe you're suggesting that I act against the figure, but said action would be illegal. Since Neo-nazism is legal in the United States, your suggestion to oppress a supporter of said political party would directly strip him of a constitutional right.

Tako · Before February 2015

How, exactly would that be stepping on his constitutional rights or oppressing him?

He's not losing money... is he? There's potential money, not actual money.

He may lose money from the boycotting. But of course, if people hate Cathy for what he believes in and supports, that's not Menino's fault at all.

Menino was simply reasoning out why he's saying no. Cathy can have his cake, and eat it too.

So I don't quite understand what type of oppression you think is going on here, mind explaining?

As for the Constitution: you have the first amendment, but every coin has two sides. People have the right to be affected by what you say or believe in.

Saying "You have the right to speak, but people can't use that against you" is a little presumptuous. I'd take the Constitution word-for-word: you have the right to speak. That's it.

That's all this is. Cathy spoke, and people are using it against him. In my opinion, it's not as strong as oppression, but it is negative reactions of all different sorts. You get that sometimes.

You're right: two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't see it as two wrongs. I see it as a Person A doing a wrong, and Person B saying "no" when A is looking for acceptance and association with B.

And I find it a little appalling how you'd go as far as to go along with Neo-Nazism and LBGT oppression in the name of keeping a single person's constitutional rights. But, everyone has their own priorities.

Buzzerbee · Before February 2015

"Hey guys, let's not eat at a popular restaurant with great food and service simply because the president shared his opinion on homosexuality."

32OrtonEdge32dh · Before February 2015

Thought I'd show both sides of the story.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STRg3ZdkDFo[/youtube]
You can be opposed to the company's stance, and boycott them, but don't harass the employees like this guy. If you go around like this dude, you're just as bad as the other guys.

Alex · Before February 2015

BuzzerBee wrote:

"Hey guys, let's not eat at a popular restaurant with great food and service simply because the president shared his opinion on homosexuality."

moreso...because the president supports opression, homophobia, racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination

by the same logic all the people that boycotted busslines during the civil rights movement were overeating

Idk if it's cause I'm from the west coast and cfa's is in the east coast, so the one where I live might just not have made it right? All I know is I speant 9 bucks to get some waffle fries with no seasoning or salt, and some semi-okay chicken nuggets... the diet coke I got was A+ though

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Thought I'd show both sides of the story.
<boop>
You can be opposed to the company's stance, and boycott them, but don't harass the employees like this guy. If you go around like this dude, you're just as bad as the other guys.

oh yeah people like that are just obnoxious, odds are the people working there, at least the cashiers probably just want to make money and don't actually support the same stuff as the cfa ceo
peple like that, and all the people that go to make out with some of the same gender at CFA just need to stop

Tako · Before February 2015

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Thought I'd show both sides of the story.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STRg3ZdkDFo[/youtube]
You can be opposed to the company's stance, and boycott them, but don't harass the employees like this guy. If you go around like this dude, you're just as bad as the other guys.

Yes, that is what I consider oppression. I understand this guy want to share his opinion, but that's the wrong person to talk to and he's out for an argument and won't accept anything other than receding.

I admire the employee for not just bowing down to her company's beliefs and let him know he was being a female dog.

Shift · Before February 2015

You made it nearly impossible to pair up your paragraphs, and so this is really long.

TakoMan02 wrote:

How, exactly would that be stepping on his constitutional rights or oppressing him?

He has the freedom of speech, opinion, press, and, although a bit reaching, religion. If banning him from a city due solely to his OPINION against gays, his SPEECH against gays, and his PRESS against gays isn't stepping on his constitutional rights, then I don't know what is.

TakoMan02 wrote:

He's not losing money... is he? There's potential money, not actual money.
He may lose money from the boycotting. But of course, if people hate Cathy for what he believes in and supports, that's not Menino's fault at all.

o.O Who, in relation to our argument, said anything about money?

TakoMan02 wrote:

Menino was simply reasoning out why he's saying no. Cathy can have his cake, and eat it too.

What are you talking about? Are you sure we're having the same argument? This stuff just doesn't apply at all.

TakoMan02 wrote:

So I don't quite understand what type of oppression you think is going on here, mind explaining?

Again, stripping of his freedom of speech, opinion, press, and, although a bit reaching, religion.

TakoMan02 wrote:

As for the Constitution: you have the first amendment, but every coin has two sides. People have the right to be affected by what you say or believe in.

When did I say they didn't? Their right to be affected by opinions, if it can even be called a right, does not grant them the right to take away his rights.

TakoMan02 wrote:

Saying "You have the right to speak, but people can't use that against you" is a little presumptuous. I'd take the Constitution word-for-word: you have the right to speak. That's it.

What are you talking about...? When did I say anything like that? I think you're confusing yourself- freedom of speech is MY side of the argument, not yours.

TakoMan02 wrote:

That's all this is. Cathy spoke, and people are using it against him. In my opinion, it's not as strong as oppression, but it is negative reactions of all different sorts. You get that sometimes.

THEY, as in a collective, are, but THEY, as in Menino, are unconsitutionally banning him from a city.

TakoMan02 wrote:

You're right: two wrongs don't make a right, but I don't see it as two wrongs. I see it as a Person A doing a wrong, and Person B saying "no" when A is looking for acceptance and association with B.

You forgot about one little detail: person A has the law on his side.

TakoMan02 wrote:

And I find it a little appalling how you'd go as far as to go along with Neo-Nazism and LBGT oppression in the name of keeping a single person's constitutional rights. But, everyone has their own priorities.

I'm sorry for not promoting illegal activities like you are. Personally, I find it extremely appalling that you prioritize gay rights- which don't even exist yet- over constitutional rights. But if you're sure, then I'll offer you a deal: I'll quit standing up for Cathy if you surrender your constitutional rights. Sound fair?

Greenzoid2 · Before February 2015

I'm sorry shift but you aren't really getting tako's side of this at all. The mayor absolutely has every right to refuse to let chik-fil-a and their opinion be associated with his city.

An example of this is, say, a catholic school. You have to be catholic to enroll in this school, but a non catholic person tries to enroll. The principal refuses because he is not catholic, and therefore if he were to enroll, he would spread the idea of non-Catholicism around the catholic school.

Another one: A non-american citizen trying to live in america without his citizenship. It's just not gonna happen because that's not the way the USA functions.

Last edited by Greenzoid2 (Aug 9 2012 7:05:11 pm)

Shift · Before February 2015

Greenzoid2 wrote:

I'm sorry shift but you aren't really getting tako's side of this at all. The mayor absolutely has every right to refuse to let chik-fil-a and their opinion be associated with his city.

I think you mixed up the definitions have "misunderstanding" and "disagreement."

Greenzoid2 wrote:

An example of this is, say, a catholic school. You have to be catholic to enroll in this school, but a non catholic person tries to enroll. The principal refuses because he is not catholic, and therefore if he were to enroll, he would spread the idea of non-Catholicism around the catholic school.

That would be a very apt parallel... if Chicago were an exclusively gay city.

Greenzoid2 wrote:

Another one: A non-american citizen trying to live in america without his citizenship. It's just not gonna happen because that's not the way the USA functions.

HAHAHAHAHA That's so cute! You really think everybody living in America is a citizen? Just ask your gardener!

Tako · Before February 2015

banning him from a city due solely to his OPINION against gays,

He's not being banned, first of all. It's a suggestion that his business not move in. He can still visit Boston, he can still speak his mind, and he can still plot businesses there.

Define free speech and the first amendment for me, as if I were a 3rd grader.

We're going to have to go down to the rudimentary, so bare with me.

Chewy · Before February 2015

Shift wrote:

Greenzoid2 wrote:
Another one: A non-american citizen trying to live in america without his citizenship. It's just not gonna happen because that's not the way the USA functions.
HAHAHAHAHA That's so cute! You really think everybody living in America is a citizen? Just ask your gardener!

Das racist.

32OrtonEdge32dh · Before February 2015

Chewy wrote:

Shift wrote:
Greenzoid2 wrote:
Another one: A non-american citizen trying to live in america without his citizenship. It's just not gonna happen because that's not the way the USA functions.
HAHAHAHAHA That's so cute! You really think everybody living in America is a citizen? Just ask your gardener!
Das racist.

Unless you have a Scandinavian gardener.

Tako · Before February 2015

I recently learned that CFA had its best sales ever once people realized that there are people boycotting them. Why?

Well it's simple: Someone you're cool with is in a hardship, so you help them out.
Except this is more like: Someone you're cool with is being stupid and self-inflicting hardship, so you help them out.

I'm surprised this never occurred to me. It always sounded stupid how he would bring in his ethics into his business, but now I understand that he did that because many people (unfortunately) share those ethics, which means more profit for him. It's a business tactic.

The fact still remains that he uses the money we give him for ludicrous things. This does not dwarf that. However, when people make a big deal out of something that's controversial, people pick sides, and then people who have never been to CFA in their life will now be all-interested in supporting the friend they never knew they had.

What I'm trying to say is, it's a big deal, very important, but people spend too much time on the opinion and less time on the effects. Judging their opinions is very silly, pointless, unimportant, and ultimately ends up giving them more unneeded money.

I see it justified to judge their actions, though, because if you're a reasonable person it'll often make them look like scum of the earth. Which of course actually achieves your goal in making them look undesirable.

Any corporation that publicizes any opinion should get the latter because corporations are not people; their opinions should not be respected and their only goal should be to provide the service or product. It's humanity's soft spot to support people we agree with, which is fine, but when it's from a whole body of people who aren't even supposed to have opinions, you know something's wrong. Ignore them. I don't care if you agree with them; just ignore them.

tl;dr/summary:
"Let's go to Chick-Fil-A"
"Uh they're anti-gay and I don't support that stuff."
"So? It's food. Good food. Besides, now that you've totally picked a side there's a 50% chance I'm going to pick the opposite side and be justified with it and henceforth throw money at him."

vs.

"Let's go to Chick-Fil-A"
"Uh the money we give them goes to stupid people. Really stupid people who want to prohibit gay people."
"Wow. Okay then. I'm totally not going to disagree with you on that one because I'd make myself look like an idiot, which I probably am from the previous example."

Also, corporations aren't allowed to have opinions. Moral opinions and food corporations is like apples and steaks. They should not exist together. It's a business tactic meant to abuse the trust of their customers.

What will happen next? Wal-mart agreeing with legalizing marijuana? KFC being pro-life? Really; apples and steaks. Whatever it may be, just tell me you won't pick a side unless you can really understand why it's bad and what the effects are.

Raiden · Before February 2015

That makes sense Tako...
I feel so stupid for not seeing that. x.x

ani · Before February 2015

Addi wrote:

soccerfreak006 wrote:
Addi wrote:
Trying to stop someone's personal love life and telling them what to do does not sound like loving.
I, an atheist, am not against nor standing for Christianity. Pretty much everyone around me here is Christian, but according to them, homosexuality is NOT against God's word. Homosexuality is loving. It's nature. Fishes can be homosexual, dogs can, apes can. Homosexuality is not a choice. You are born one whether you don't want to or not. If they are like that, God has to had made them that way.
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
My, my. A 2000 years old book must be a prove that homosexuality is wrong.

I think I have Freemanic Paracusia.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#126 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#127 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#128 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#129 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#130 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#131 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#132 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#133 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#134 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#135 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#136 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#137 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#138 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#139 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#140 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#141 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#142 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

#143 Before February 2015

Re: Chick-Fil-A & Gay Rights

Board footer