Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[cooleddie74]

If those of the fundamentalist/KT mindset can scientifically and convincingly prove that gay people are a bigger risk and danger in the workplace than their heterosexual peers and that hiring a gay applicant poses some sort of probable and concrete threat to other, non-gay employees' well-being. That something about their behavior is conclusively detrimental to workplace productivity and efficiency and is disruptive to the smooth operations of that business...even threatening its very operation and even survival. That LGBT applicants pose some sort of general physical health risk to their employer and fellow workers.

In short, that gay people are dangerous.

But they can't. They never will.

So there's no excuse for any of this bigotry. Never has been. Never will be.

 

[Peacemaker]

I'm talking about the mindset. Sure I guess if they want to be racist pigs, it's their right.

It's not a mindset I understand and, really, I'd hope it'd be something we would have grown out of by now, hell even in the last 50-60 years since the Civil Rights movements, but, alas, people want to be bigots. Fine. Their right. The church's right.

So long as they're not trying to influence government to behave in such a manner by enforcing such bigotry through law as anti-gay groups, persons and government higher-ups do (in the latter case much more actively to the point of passing laws or changing the word of law to exclude a group of people.

I mean, that sort of behavior is fucked up. See: Proposition 8 in California which changed a law specifically to exclude a group of people and remove a right they had through the state.

Disgusting.

Why did they accept their reservation for a wedding in the first place? These people are good enough to be members of the church. Their family belongs to the church. The invitations were sent out, and then one day before the ceremony, they tell them "no, you're Black"? Where is the Biblical and/or doctrinal rationale for that?

It just saddens me that people have to go through this kind of stuff. I can understand a church saying that we cannot marry you because you're not of our faith, or you haven't gone through our prescribed pre-marital classes. Stuff like that. But...because you're Black?

I hope they're enjoying their tax-exempt status.

My understanding is that it's a small faction of the church. The pastor just chose to keep the peace and marry these folks. I believe it's a Southern Baptist Church, and the pastor opposed these folks - he just has to keep the church together, because he's going to have to do some work. I know personally of a church in Wake Forest, NC, where this was an issue, and the pastor eventually left and about 3/4 of the congregation went with him and the racists stayed in the original church and eventually the racist church died out on its own. My guess is that, since Fred Luter, the current SBC President, and its first black President ever, has been told about it, and he is living in the neighboring state, Louisiana, they are probably going to be having him for a series of guest messages on this topic for "revival" services. If it was my church, I can guarantee you that would be what the pastor would do his best to do - in the short term - marry the folks and work with them and hope they stay and be very apologetic, face up to the idiots in his pews, and in the background the whole time be working to get the new black SBC President come preach revival and against racism in the church.

 

[nightwind1]

The NFL doesn't allow petit girls to play football. The PGA doesn't allow disabled golfers to ride golf carts. Hooters doesn't hire fat men as waitresses, and nobody hires a woman to play Santa Claus. Some companies refuse to hire smokers, and synagogues tend to be pretty selective about not hiring imams.

Actually, MANY women are hired to play Santa Claus. I've seen it myself.

But Chick-Fil-A hires gays, has gay managers and gay franchise owners, and they happily serve gays, so they're the ones discriminating - somehow.

Because they are donating many thousands of dollars to groups that actively oppose gay rights, women's rights, and scientific research looking to find cures for many diseases.

But, ignore all of that if you want. Keep your own bigoted thoughts, huh, asshole?

 

[nightwind1]

But Chik-Fil-A isn't discriminating. They hire gays, they serve gays.

That's still not true.

A gay guy couldn't become a franchisee. A gay guy couldn't go on one of their corporate retreats.

Care to try again?

You are mistaken, because lots of people are talking about their gay relatives who own Chick-Fil-A's and manage Chick-Fil-A's, wondering what the heck the screaming is about.

Lots of people?

What kind of cites to you have to back up that assertion?

Besides your own lying self?

 

[cooleddie74]

This might not be the best analogy. Who knows, it might be completely apropos. Make up your own minds.

For those who say that Chick-fil-A hires and employs gay people and serves them food, therefore the company can't really be all that bad and a lot of us are hyperventilating and overreacting? Consider the following:

The Confederate army in the Civil War included more than a few armed and uniformed black slaves as soldiers to help fight for the Southern cause. But did the presence of some blacks as soldiers mean that the Confederate government in Richmond was suddenly enlightened about the institution of slavery or black people? That the things that the CSA stood and fought for during the war were good and positive?

Slaveowners also fed their slaves, too...the people who helped keep them in business. Doesn't mean that the plantation owners had any love or respect for them just because they kept them fed so they'd be nice and productive in the fields.

Again...maybe not the best analogy. Feel free to come up with any you feel are a little better. But just because Chick-fil-A hires and feeds gay people doesn't mean the head honchos like or respect them. Nor that what they fund and stand for in the greater scheme of things is something to laud and be proud of.

 

[nightwind1]

Knight Templar, when did you stop being attracted to men?

I don't think he has stopped. That's why he's being so defensive.

 

[Amaris]

Eddie, well said.

Knight Templar, when did you stop being attracted to men?

I don't think he has stopped. That's why he's being so defensive.

I think you're right.

 

[Knight Templar]

. Ah, but they can move. Really? Maybe they can, maybe they can't. Maybe they are there because they wanted to get away from the gay ghetto in Austin, TX. Maybe Billy's Mom has cancer and they are there to care for her. Why should they have to move just to avoid the bigotry of KT and his townsfolk?

?

In life there are tradeoffs.

And why should I care one whit about what Exodus International thinks about homosexuality?

and to me, a persons morals and values are more important to their "sense of identity" than their sexual tendencies.

So my morals and values should not have to yield to dealing without bias to someones whose sexual tendencies (or any other thing) I find abhorrent.

 

[Knight Templar]

Knight Templar, when did you stop being attracted to men?

I don't think he has stopped. That's why he's being so defensive.

Eddie, well said.

Knight Templar, when did you stop being attracted to men?

I don't think he has stopped. That's why he's being so defensive.

I think you're right.

And this attitude and comments like it are why so many people hate homosexuality

Being told that the only reason you could possibly hate something was because one had those feelings themselves.

By that reasoning, so many of you who scream "bigots" and get upset, who harshly denounce those who disapprove of homosexuality............must actually harbor a great deal of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals in your own hearts.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[ichab]

Homosexuality is a choice.

No one forces you to have homosexual sex. Aside from instances of rape of course.

No, it's not a choice. You have no proof it's a choice, it's not even in the Bible as a choice. Just because you don't understand basic biology doesn't give you the right to discriminate against someone for merely existing.

I should have the right to deal with others who are different from me as I see fit as long as it causes no direct physical harm.

Otherwise my rights are being infringed upon.

What....the....fuck...

 

[cooleddie74]

Can't somebody engage in sex you find abhorrent and still be an intelligent, kind and good person that you can get along with and tolerate? Perhaps even strike up a friendship with?

Seems to me that so many people who are prejudiced and bigoted towards gay people focus on the actual act of sex. As if that's all a gay man or woman is is sexual intercourse and physical intimacy.

Can't you sort of...you know...just dislike the sex(that you will most likely never see them having, by the way, so you don't have to fret about that) and still love and embrace the person themselves? We all have things about other people we don't necessarily like or even find a little twisted and bizarre, but if they're good and decent human beings who try to lead the best life they can we still love them for the things about them we do enjoy and gravitate towards.

Does it always have to be about the physical act of sex? Must fundamentalists always throw the baby out with the bath water?

 

[Knight Templar]

Can't somebody engage in sex you find abhorrent and still be an intelligent, kind and good person that you can get along with and tolerate? Perhaps even strike up a friendship with?

Seems to me that so many people who are prejudiced and bigoted towards gay people focus on the actual act of sex. As if that's all a gay man or woman is is sexual intercourse and physical intimacy.

Can't you sort of...you know...just dislike the sex(that you will most likely never see them having, by the way, so you don't have to fret about that) and still love and embrace the person themselves? We all have things about other people we don't necessarily like or even find a little twisted and bizarre, but if they're good and decent human beings who try to lead the best life they can we still love them for the things about them we do enjoy and gravitate towards.

Does it always have to be about the physical act of sex? Must fundamentalists always throw the baby out with the bath water?

Well you know what CE? Doggone it, maybe you're right.

After sexual identity is just one aspect of a person. right? right?

Except.

Was it you or someone else on the gay rights side who said a few pages back that being a homosexual basically helped define a persons identity?

So which is it?

Only one isolated aspect of a person?

or

What defines a persons identity?

You can't have it both ways.

See CoolEddie post #561

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=183038&page=38

 

[boobatuba]

By that reasoning, so many of you who scream "bigots" and get upset, who harshly denounce those who disapprove of homosexuality............must actually harbor a great deal of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals in your own hearts.

You can't have it both ways.

People who are bigoted against gays dislike them for who they are and the sexual acts they might or might not engage in.

People who denounce those bigots dislike them because they are bigots.

That you can't see the difference is...not surprising.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Some people would be lost without a folk devil to combat. That is to say, they wouldn't know what to do with themselves.

 

[Amaris]

And this attitude and comments like it are why so many people hate homosexuality

Being told that the only reason you could possibly hate something was because one had those feelings themselves.

By that reasoning, so many of you who scream "bigots" and get upset, who harshly denounce those who disapprove of homosexuality............must actually harbor a great deal of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals in your own hearts.

You can't have it both ways.

No, no, that's not what I'm implying at all. I'm directly saying you are or were gay. When did you stop being sexually attracted to other men?

 

[cooleddie74]

You can't have it both ways.

Nobody's having it both ways and I don't know how on earth you could be interpreting it that way. Sexual identity is a big factor in the life and existence of a person who is gay, but it's not the only one. Nor is being heterosexual, which is a very big factor in the identity of a straight person, the only one.

Every human being is multifaceted. Sexuality is one facet. An important and kind of glaring facet to be sure, but not the only one. And if someone condemns and denounces a person simply because of who they're emotionally and physically attracted to or the gender of the person they choose to sleep with, then they're being foolish. They're throwing the baby out with the bath water, and rather callously and selfishly.

People offer and bring so much more to the table than their genitals and their love lives. If you're going to be an actual follower of Jesus and not just pay him empty lip service then you need to be more open minded. You don't have to like or agree with someone's sexuality. But does that make them a leper to be avoided and somebody to be treated as less than a full human being? Even legally discriminated against and mistreated?

 

[Knight Templar]

And this attitude and comments like it are why so many people hate homosexuality

Being told that the only reason you could possibly hate something was because one had those feelings themselves.

By that reasoning, so many of you who scream "bigots" and get upset, who harshly denounce those who disapprove of homosexuality............must actually harbor a great deal of bigotry and hatred of homosexuals in your own hearts.

You can't have it both ways.

No, no, that's not what I'm implying at all. I'm directly saying you are or were gay. When did you stop being sexually attracted to other men?

To the latter, never was.

To the former, why do you say that?

Hasn't it occurred to you that someone can find any sexual practices beyond "one man, one woman" to be absolutely disgusting and utterly abhorrent?

 

[IndyJones]

Well you know what CE? Doggone it, maybe you're right.

After sexual identity is just one aspect of a person. right? right?

Except.

Was it you or someone else on the gay rights side who said a few pages back that being a homosexual basically helped define a persons identity?

So which is it?

Only one isolated aspect of a person?

or

What defines a persons identity?

You can't have it both ways.

See CoolEddie post #561

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=183038&page=38

The sex I have with consensual adults should be important to me, and to the people I chose to share that with. It shouldn't have anything to do with you.

Like how you're probably able to love your parents even if the idea of them having sex probably grosses you out a bit? Right?

 

[Knight Templar]

You can't have it both ways.

Nobody's having it both ways and I don't know how on earth you could be interpreting it that way. Sexual identity is a big factor in the life and existence of a person who is gay, but it's not the only one. Nor is being heterosexual, which is a very big factor in the identity of a straight person, the only one.

Every human being is multifaceted. Sexuality is one facet. An important and kind of glaring facet to be sure, but not the only one. And if someone condemns and denounces a person simply because of who they're emotionally and physically attracted to or the gender of the person they choose to sleep with, then they're being foolish. They're throwing the baby out with the bath water, and rather callously and selfishly.

People offer and bring so much more to the table than their genitals and their love lives. If you're going to be an actual follower of Jesus and not just pay him empty lip service then you need to be more open minded. You don't have to like or agree with someone's sexuality. But does that make them a leper to be avoided and somebody to be treated as less than a full human being? Even legally discriminated against and mistreated?

Sounds to me like you're suggesting I and others go out of our way to find something about people whose practices we find disgusting to be tolerant of and friendly to.

Not like your side is doing the same with fundamentalists

 

[Amaris]

To the latter, never was.

That's a lie. You stated that people choose to be gay. At some point, you made your choice. When was it, and when did you stop finding yourself sexually attracted to men?

To the former, why do you say that?

Hasn't it occurred to you that someone can find any sexual practices beyond "one man, one woman" to be absolutely disgusting and utterly abhorrent?

Sure. I call them bigots. I also call them backwards, ignorant, foolish, selfish, hateful, narrow-minded, obtuse, spiteful, lacking, limited, and hypocritical.