1. Download the #1 Android News App:   EarlyBird - News for Android
    Dismiss Notice

Chik-fil-a controversy

Last Updated:

  1. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Forum rules dictate it, so yes. People likely do not want to read what I have to say about that segment of our society.

  2. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    Stockholders would likely be upset. The founder is seldom free to spend corporate funds on such things without approval from the board.

    I would not care if he donates to the KKK, just as long as he does not screw up my to go orders. I can accept his comments as long as he makes it clear they are his comments and he is not speaking for the company.

    Unfortunately, the public often punishes the corporation because they cannot separate the president from the company.

    But I do not own any stock in the company, so I could care less.
  3. Rachel A

    Rachel A Well-Known Member

    The way Mark Zuckerberg spent $1Bn on Instagram without the board even knowing about it?
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  5. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I cannot comment until I know more about the purchase. A quick Google search indicates he probably made a mistake.

    From one random site: "If the valuation of Instagram was unorthodox, so were the negotiations. No bankers or lawyers were involved in the sitting-room deal which was thrashed out between Zuckerberg and Systrom."

    Seems Zuckerberg believes he owns the company. He must go if he is violating the rules and such purchases must be approved, first. I am sure the board can quash the sale, so the Instagram people should not start spending the billion just yet.

    That said, this is not something every corporation does. CEOs are very aware of what they can and cannot do. Once your company goes public, you are no longer free to spend money at will. A CEO can go to jail for theft if he or she is use to spending his or her commany cash on silly things.
  6. Rachel A

    Rachel A Well-Known Member

    Naivety much? He owns 57% of the company. The board are a bunch of sheeple when faced with his domineering force.

    Now, the market is a totally different story.

    Not sure if you could classify spending $1Bn as a 'silly thing'.
  7. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    When one starts insulting others for their views, expect a response.

    Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy bites into gay-marriage debate - Post Leadership - The Washington Post

    "So why have Cathy
    Rachel A likes this.
  8. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    So what? Owning 57% does not give him the freedom to do anything he wants to do. He is not spending his cash; he must also be mindful of the other shareholders who might not like what MZ did.

    Especially when it comes to spending a billion dollars in secret.

    Perhaps the board will bend to Mark's will. So what? The board also bends to the will of the stockholders and I am not sure they are all that pleased these days. That said, it might be possible the board either cannot or will not do anything about it, anyway. Not so sure the stockholders will not sue.

    This will likely end up in court. Shareholders can bring a law suit, after all. Not saying they will prevail.

    Lots of bad things we never read about happen every day. Like CEOs giving themselves raises or like the case of Zuckerberg, spending a ton of cash behind closed doors.

    I think someone is headed to court, eventually.
  9. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    I hold the same view of marriage. Let straight people get married and let gay people have civil unions.

    These days, many gay people automatically hang a "Gay Basher" sign around your neck for any comment that might be construed as hate speech. Even though it is not hate speech.

    Some gay people likely do not really care and they likely still eat at the restaurant. Just a few with big microphones and a willing liberal press willing to help spin reasonable comments out of control.

    Very sad, but the era of free speech is over, I should think.
  10. Martimus

    Martimus One bite at a time... Moderator

    All... we are treading on a delicate subject here. Let's please try to stay on-topic and not drift into areas where words can inadvertently create other issues. Thanks!
    EarlyMon likes this.
  11. Rachel A

    Rachel A Well-Known Member

    You must not know much about how companies operate. With Zuck having a 57% control at the time he could do anything he wanted. The shareholders really had sod all to do with it.

    A post IPO FB would perhaps find it harder to do such deals, however at the time it was private and Mark could do pretty much whatever he wanted. Board be damned.
  12. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    So where are we going wrong? The thread has everything to do with Gays and that lifestyle. Perhaps a little guidance and specifics? Certainly, there are gay people here and those on the other side who agree with the chicken salesman.

    I agree that gay bashing on the forum is a no no, but I do not see that as happening, yet.

    Clarity, please.
  13. Jordan

    Jordan Well-Known Member

  14. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    How so ? Remember there's an equal protection clause. An adult entertainment business can also be restaurants.
  15. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

  16. HotRoderX

    HotRoderX Well-Known Member

    I really think we are starting to see a much deeper issue surface in America then just what the CEO of chick fli a said. I really think where at tipping point here in America.

    We see tons of outrage because the CEO came out and said he does not support gay marriage that's his opinion. I believe he is entitled to it just like everone is entitled to there's.

    After the CEO came out and said that he was labeled a racist, hater, etc, etc. Then people talked about boycotting Chick-fil-a which to me is the proper way to handle the situation. No one is forced to eat there, you can always go to another restaurant to eat.

    Then mayors in several counties came out and said they would not approve zoning permits or what have you for Chick-fli-a. This is when things changed at least in my mind. I want to forget for a sec that the mayors have the rights to do this. That's not in question at all there elected officials its there city's they have the right to do as they please and the power.

    I wanna look at this from a moral stand point for a sec. What makes these mayors any different then the CEO? When the city's decided to block Chick-Fli-a from building in there districts isnt that discrimination? There basically saying our point of view is right and if you don't like it your hateful racist who discriminant. How does this even remotely make since.

    People need to remember there are always two sides to ever coin. I don't understand how its wrong for the CEO of Chick-Fli-A to give money to a organization who is anti gay rights. When its OK for the CEO of Amazon to give money to a PRO gay rights group? Why aren't they both wrong? Why is it OK to support one but not the other? They both infringe on someones beliefs and what they feel is right.

    Another argument I see a lot and have even had to deal with.

    Is the gun rights arguments people have I am pro 2nd amendment. I own a few firearms my self and I really enjoy going out to the range.

    I have been called some pretty nasty things when I had a friend find out about it. I let him know after he told me how horrible I was. That I fully support his rights to not like firearms. I understand and appreciate we have different opinions. I would do my best to not mention or speak about them in his presence. I would not come around him with any type of firearm. In return I ask for him to do his best to respect my rights to keep and bare-arms. Also to not come around me if he knew a firearm would be present. We both agreed and could respect that. I also think he was a little blown away by my civility. I think he thought he was going to pick a huge political fight about how firearms are not bad etc etc. He does like to debate things :p

    I think that's the major problem with things. People want to put there opinions and views on the for front they want shove them down peoples throats. They want to champion a cause to be a hero. They want everyone to know how they feel 24/7. I think we have twitter, facebook, myspace, etc to blame for this.

    Maybe if more people took the approach i used with my friend there would be far less discrimination on both sides of the coin.
    Rachel A likes this.
  17. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    The difference between gay and straight citizens that is the basis for the government to treat these two groups unequally is ?
  18. Martimus

    Martimus One bite at a time... Moderator

    This thread was created to discuss the Chick-fil-a controversy... In my opinion it would be prudent to consider limiting the conversation to Chick-fil-a, it's CEO, and the CEO's controversial comments.

    I do believe Early mentioned this already in the post

    EarlyMon likes this.
  19. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    People took the chicken seller's comments as hate speech and that is how it is sold to a public that will decide something based on rhetoric and an inaccurate headline.

    Chances are, some people reading the other side's stories likely agree that marriage should be between a man and woman. But all they read is this guy is a hateful racist.

    As for the mayors, they were wrong. and they said what they said to curry votes and look good. There is no way to know if they support gay marriage or not.

    And you are also right when you asked, "What makes these mayors any different then the CEO?" Not really a difference. They are saying you can have free speech just as ling as we approve, which is not free speech.

    Fortunately, in a week or two, this will go away and few will care. More chicken sandwiches will be sold and life goes on.
  20. rushmore

    rushmore Well-Known Member

    I think the beauty is we can have this discussion freely, where as quite a few countries the response of "disagreement" would be absolute and brutal.
    EarlyMon and Rachel A like this.
  21. Rachel A

    Rachel A Well-Known Member


    I agree with many of your points, to wit firearms (hate them myself but agree folk have a right to have the bloody things), Mayoral over stepping, rights of boycott etc.

    The one thing I'd like to clarify is the difference between Jeff Bezos and Dan Cathy. Jeff used his personal money to fund pro-gay rights in Washington. Dan used Chik-Fil-A's corporate money to fund his stuff.

    That said, there are folk out there (1 Million Moms) who have stated they will boycott any company that supports gay rights. This suits me fine. I applaud them for sticking by their principles - however misguided they may seem to me.

    There seem to be 3 sorts of people in the country now - those vehemently against gay marriage, those for and those who really don't care either way. There are enough in the later groups for the former to sit up and pay attention to. Trouble is for them it seems that the 'I don't care' brigade is getting bigger at the cost of the 'no' bunch.
  22. Rachel A

    Rachel A Well-Known Member

    Invariably it's either biblical (which often brings Leviticus into play which is a thorny bugger to deal with) or the dictionary (which now has a section for gay marriage).

    Either way it's not the constitution; if it was states wouldn't be making constitutional amendments to ban it...
  23. Prinny

    Prinny Resident Linux Nutcase

    I think amending the constitution is a load of...well garbage. I mean seriously. Just my two cents. Oh, and my opinion on gay marriage: if it bothers you...don't get one o.o

    And sure the owner may say things that no one likes. But welcome to America: where you can say what you want when the government and censors deem it okay. *rolls eyes* I think the main reason its blown up so much is because its the head honcho of a big.company. if my neighbor said it...who would care?
    Rachel A likes this.
  24. Rachel A

    Rachel A Well-Known Member

    Could be traditional as well - but then again it was traditional to have slaves...
  25. Prinny

    Prinny Resident Linux Nutcase

    Good point. I suppose there are tines for amendment...but when states are outlawing marriage - happiness to those couples...isn't that infringing the basic rights this country was set on?
    Rachel A likes this.

Share This Page