Chik-fil-a controversy

[A.Nonymous]

Curious what you all think about it. Personally I think it's a bit BS. The owner states an opinion that is obviously unpopular. The fact that officials in three different cities are moving to block them from building new restaurants is completely ridiculous. I guess we don't have freedom of speech in this country any more if our speech is unpopular.

 

[jefboyardee]

I think it's a bit BS.

Everyone who agrees, let

 

[Dark One]

Curious what you all think about it. Personally I think it's a bit BS. The owner states an opinion that is obviously unpopular. The fact that officials in three different cities are moving to block them from building new restaurants is completely ridiculous. I guess we don't have freedom of speech in this country any more if our speech is unpopular.

I don't agree with his opinion but you're right, it is nonsense for the government to get involved with this.

 

[samwapp]

I'm still gonna buy their chicken, they are the best fast food restaurant. And hell, it's his money, he can do what he wants with it.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Oh, those upcoming gender discrimination lawsuits won't matter, as they were encouraging stay-at-home moms, by firing moms. After they settle, they'll just use more "pink slime" to make up for the judgements.

Hey, Chick-Fil-A is just following their biblical faith that blesses liars.

Chick-Fil-A's Anti-Gay Marriage Announcement - The Colbert Report - 2012-26-07 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

 

[ParishL31]

Jokingly, those who protest have never tasted the incredible food at Chik-Fil-A.

In all seriousness, I think it's a total load of crap and honestly don't see how what Boston is doing isn't illegal for discrimination. It'd be one thing if Chik-Fil-A actually banned homosexuals from their stores, but they didn't. The CEO simply stated his personal views (yes it was dumb for a business standpoint), but that's it. Anyone can still go to Chik-Fil-A and order food without any discrimination.

It's the typical, "I support freedom of speech, as long as you agree with me" type deal. If anyone should be the "bad guy" it's Boston for not respecting other people's opinions.

On the other hand, this made my day:
Chick-fil-A boycott? You’re doing it wrong: Reports, photos show it is a total fail; Update: Sarah and Todd Palin join in | Twitchy

The boycott completely failed. Chik-Fil-A is still packed to the rim as it always is.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Anecdotally speaking the line is still out the door here.

I find it interesting that Jeff Bezos recently donated $2.5 mill to defend a pro-same sex marriage law. Yet when I google 'Boycott Amazon' I get one and only one result telling me to boycott Amazon for this and it's from some right wing blog. Which side of the issue is being intolerant here? Just saying.

For the record, pro-gay rights people are right, but I've said for ages that the way they present their case is all wrong.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Anecdotally speaking the line is still out the door here.

I find it interesting that Jeff Bezos recently donated $2.5 mill to defend a pro-same sex marriage law. Yet when I google 'Boycott Amazon' I get one and only one result telling me to boycott Amazon for this and it's from some right wing blog. Which side of the issue is being intolerant here? Just saying.

For the record, pro-gay rights people are right, but I've said for ages that the way they present their case is all wrong.

Jeff Bezos is promoting the right of a legal contract between two individuals, Dan Cathy is promoting the denial of that right between two individuals. Promoting a right and promoting a denial of a right is a big difference.

Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. The same religious prejudices as Mr. Cathy holds were the bases on why interracial was illegal.

 

[citysentinel]

I'm pro-gay everything and I've eaten there. I won't eat there again (unless I really had to) because their food is only alright.

 

[cjr72]

Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. The same religious prejudices as Mr. Cathy holds were the bases on why interracial was illegal.

And marriage licenses in the US came about to used as an instrument for banning interracial marriages. It's rather ironic that gays are clamoring for them when you consider that sordid history. The truly progressive position would be to do away with marriage licenses altogether, end marriage tax breaks which will increase revenues to the government, etc.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Jeff Bezos is promoting the right of a legal contract between two individuals, Dan Cathy is promoting the denial of that right between two individuals. Promoting a right and promoting a denial of a right is a big difference.

Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. The same religious prejudices as Mr. Cathy holds were the bases on why interracial was illegal.

Again, the government denying someone a business permit based on their political stance (no matter how unpopular it is) is ok in your eyes?

 

[babelsquirrel]

The nearest Chick-fil-a is roughly an eight hour drive from me. So the fact that I wouldn't eat in one isn't really going to effect their business. I have never even seen one of their restaurants.

The whole thing with respect to the reaction of various city governments is just political posturing to gain votes. Politicians will be politicians.

 

[redrider67]

Well hopefully everyone that is protesting will quit buying gas for there cars, our oil comes from OPEC see how they treat homosexuals in there countries.

My opinion it's BULLSH*T!!!!!

 

[OutofDate1980]

Again, the government denying someone a business permit based on their political stance (no matter how unpopular it is) is ok in your eyes?

Has that occurred ?

Governments do have the right to deny a business permit and/or to shut a business down if it breaks the law.

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has publicly stated he believes that gays should be discriminated against, if he acts on these beliefs, then those jurisdictions that prohibit this discrimination, have the right to sanction such actions.

 

[HotRoderX]

I just don't get all the backlash on this guy. People seriously need to grow up and stop whining ever time they don't like something.

We are taught in Kindergarten we dont always get our way. Just because we don't get our way it does not give us the right to pitch a fit and make everyone life miserable.

I am 100% sure the admin of this website does not agree with a 100% of the post. I am also sure he does not delete post unless they violate the rules.

I am sure there are people on this forum that don't always agree with whats posted but they don't pitch fits. The reason for this is a very simple one they respect each others opinions and understand people differ.

I just wish more people would grow up and understand this simple concept.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... We are taught in Kindergarten we dont always get our way. Just because we don't get our way it does not give us the right to pitch a fit and make everyone life miserable. ...

Well, since that guy is trying to "pitch a fit" to make those that do not share his religious beliefs lives miserable, expect responsible adults to teach that guy respect for others.

 

[copestag]

Has that occurred ?

Governments do have the right to deny a business permit and/or to shut a business down if it breaks the law.

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has publicly stated he believes that gays should be discriminated against, if he acts on these beliefs, then those jurisdictions that prohibit this discrimination, have the right to sanction such actions.

can you cite a single instance where he or his business has actually discriminated against anyone for being gay? or even accusation of such an occurrence?

so your theory is guilty until proven innocent?

like I said...... those people want everyone who disagrees with their lifestyle choice to have their rights removed

 

[HotRoderX]

Well, since that guy is trying to "pitch a fit" to make those that do not share his religious beliefs lives miserable, expect responsible adults to teach that guy respect for others.

I am really lost as to how he pitched a hissy fit? All he did was voice his opinion. I could understand the uproar if he came out and said they planned to fire every Gay or Lesbian at the company. They came out and said Gay and Lesbians where not welcome to eat at Chik-Fil-A. As far as I know neither was done.

I think people forget there is a difference between discriminating against someone and disapproving of there actions.

Someone might not approve of someones particular beliefs, views, or opinons. As long as they Tolerate them and do not Discriminate. They have as much right to there opinion as you do yours even if that opinion is voiced.

To say they don't make you no better then the person you felt wronged you.

When someone starts trying to stop someone from doing something because of there opinion and beliefs then that becomes discrimination.

Personally I feel everyone is entitled to there opinion good bad ugly does not matter. I feel everyone has the right to voice that opinion because that's what 1st amendment is about.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Well, since that guy is trying to "pitch a fit" to make those that do not share his religious beliefs lives miserable, expect responsible adults to teach that guy respect for others.

What exactly has he done that constitutes "pitching a fit"? I'm unclear on what he's done besides voice his opinion.

Has that occurred ?

Governments do have the right to deny a business permit and/or to shut a business down if it breaks the law.

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has publicly stated he believes that gays should be discriminated against, if he acts on these beliefs, then those jurisdictions that prohibit this discrimination, have the right to sanction such actions.

Hasn't happened yet, but politicians in Boston, Philly and Chicago have all said they will oppose the restaurant opening and work to keep it from opening. Here in my state there are petitions being circulated at some of the universities to have Chick-fil-a booted from their campuses. Again, for no other reason than they disagree with the politics of the CEO.

No one, to my knowledge, has alleged that Chick-fil-a has discriminated against anyone because of their sexual orientation. If they have, I'd like to hear about it. So far, I've not heard that. I'm assuming you have heard of such things since you are in favor of the various local governments blocking the opening of new restaurants.

 

[PH8AL]

Anecdotally speaking the line is still out the door here.

I find it interesting that Jeff Bezos recently donated $2.5 mill to defend a pro-same sex marriage law. Yet when I google 'Boycott Amazon' I get one and only one result telling me to boycott Amazon for this and it's from some right wing blog. Which side of the issue is being intolerant here? Just saying.

For the record, pro-gay rights people are right, but I've said for ages that the way they present their case is all wrong.

Personally I think Homosexuality is disgusting but I am very pro rights. The Government has no right interfering in our lives the way they do.

I understand protesting but I agree the GR Movement goes about it wrong.

The true price of liberty is putting up with other peoples freedom. But some of the GRM tactics go to far and are offensive to a lot of people like me who don't support what they are doing just their right to do it.

Same goes for Chic filet. They got a right to their point of view and face it in a free society a man who has a company should be able to run it by his beliefs including who he wants to employ.

Goes back to the same line of thought I often go down, I hate every thing the KKK stands for but would step up to defend their rights to say them as long as they don't cross the line and infringe some one elses rights. If we let the Government limit the free speech of some one else its only a short time before they are knocking at the door wanting to shut us up.

Boycotts often backfire and draw more support to the one being boycotted than more people to support the boycott.

Smartest thing to do is take it with a grain of salt and don't make a big deal out of it and you then marginalize them.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... As far as I know neither was done. ...

Chick-Fil-A has been sued in 12 incidents and counting for employment discrimination. Employment discrimination is very difficult to prove. Usually it's done in private with no witnesses. Also, it's very expensive to litigate, not unusual for a $30k retainer, which often amount to just 10% of the final cost.

I advise any that suspect discrimination to be wired as a memory aid. There are many devices that can be concealed as a belt, tie, watch, etc... that will do the job. Also retain copies or emails or other documents off-site that seem a bit odd, as discovery is very expensive.

I feel everyone has the right to voice that opinion because that's what 1st amendment is about.

Dan Cathy also gives many $millions to groups that promote discrimination.

Dan Cathy is promoting the denial of a right between two individuals to enter a legal contract due to religious beliefs. He is attempting to influence laws to have government enforce his religious beliefs on others.

He is now in the public arena, so expect others to question if his business is good for the community and the public to question, if they wish to purchase the product.

Dan Cathy is not being prosecuted for his exercise of the 1st Amendment. It's just a business decision being made by local communities if what this business represents fits within the needs of the community.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Chick-Fil-A has been sued in 12 incidents and counting for employment discrimination. Employment discrimination is very difficult to prove. Usually it's done in private with no witnesses. Also, it's very expensive to litigate, not unusual for a $30k retainer, which often amount to just 10% of the final cost.

Chick-fil-a was started in 1946. If it's only been sued 12 times since then (don't know what your source is) then it is way, way ahead of the curb for a fast food chain. Regardless of that, do these suits allege discrimination based on sexual orientation. If not, they're completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Dan Cathy also gives many $millions to groups that promote discrimination.

Dan Cathy is promoting the denial of a right between two individuals to enter a legal contract due to religious beliefs. He is attempting to influence laws to have government enforce his religious beliefs on others.

He is now in the public arena, so expect others to question if his business is good for the community and the public to question, if they wish to purchase the product.

Dan Cathy is not being prosecuted for his exercise of the 1st Amendment. It's just a business decision being made by local communities if what this business represents fits within the needs of the community.

So, again, you're in favor of the government denying someone the permits to operate his/her business based on the political opinions of the CEO? If so, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment?

 

[PH8AL]

So, again, you're in favor of the government denying someone the permits to operate his/her business based on the political opinions of the CEO? If so, how is that not a violation of the First Amendment?

I don't believe that is what was said at all.

What he said was, elected Community Leaders have the right to deny applications for business permits. Not "the Government"...

I love their chicken sandwiches and the service is usually pretty good but I stopped eating there years ago because I don't give my money to any company who gives large contributions to the fanatics on either extreme. Im sure he really doesn't care about my little bit of money but I sleep better.

Does make me wonder when we are going to change the legal status of Christian Churches and Organizations and hold them to the standard of political groups. They should not enjoy the benefits of religious protection if they want to be in politics.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't believe that is what was said at all.

What he said was, elected Community Leaders have the right to deny applications for business permits. Not "the Government"...

 

[PH8AL]

No there is a big difference between Local elected officials and what is implied by "the Government" And while business owners do have rights so do the people in these communities who elected the Leaders to look out for their best interest and whats right for their community.