Daddy Todd wrote:
Nice attempt to make the protesters worse than Cathy. Sorry, not buying it. I've worked for deeply homophobic companies; they eventually learned they must change or die. Chik-Fil-A needs some kind of wake-up call to prompt them to move on from the '50's. If we don't work every angle (including boycotts and protests) they will have no incentive to leave their hatefulness behind.
You completely missed my point. Of course I agree with you about homophobes; I'd be an idiot not to. But the kind of extremism you're engaging in is no more realistic or constructive than the extremism of people like Murdoch or that Chik-Fil-A owner. You're spreading your net of hostility so wide that it encompasses a lot of people who aren't
to blame for the attitudes or choices of a few people a dozen steps higher on the corporate ladder. Hell, now you're even attacking me, even though I agree with your basic morals, just because I question your methods. That's not constructive in any way. Extremism in any
direction is just part of the problem, not part of the solution.
So, is it wrong of me to decide not to contribute even one penny of my hard-earned money to people who hate me?
See, that's just the kind of blind, unfair generalization I'm talking about. There are probably millions of people working for companies that happen to be owned by moguls like Murdoch, and those people come from all stripes, all walks of life, all ideologies and ethnic groups and social classes and lifestyles.
And come on, you know how the moguls work. They give themselves raises and bonuses even when their corporations are tanking. The only people who ever feel any financial sting if their businesses do badly are the employees lower down, the people who are not to blame for what the moguls believe or do.