I must have missed when Cathy indicated that he believed that serving gay customers was wrong. When was this?
Last edited:
Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
I must have missed when Cathy indicated that he believed that serving gay customers was wrong. When was this?
Funny you should ask. I was just reading something written from a Christian perspective which addresses that very question, among others. It's not brief, but neither is it overlong, and I found it to be quite thoughtful and well-written - I strongly recommend reading the whole thing:
Jesus and the Chick-fil-A ordeal
I second that recommendation.
I never said he did; in fact I said the exact opposite in the same sentence with the part which you quoted above. My point was that if gays are not welcome at the company's corporate retreats, if they're not welcome to share the bonds of marriage, if they're second-class citizens whose desire for equal rights "invites God's judgment on our nation," why serve them at all?
Should I link to the message boards for my local newspaper and tv stations and discussions at Huffington Post, Facebook and other places to show that to you, or can you honestly not figure that out for yourself?
And you couldn't guess this would happen? Get into the mindset of your opponents. They tend to feel targeted by "secular forces", sometimes directed by Satan himself. They feel their way of life is under assault from Hollywood, the porn industry, pool halls, rap music, the UN, liberals, and the French. Almost any time you push them, they drive their trucks to an outdoor rally or concert and bring the kids. Their numbers are so huge that it doesn't take a high percentage of them to make a big showing. They feel oppressed, and threatened - by you. It might not make a lick of sense to you, but they do.
And that ditty expresses exactly how they feel - threatened and brave enough to stand up. It didn't take a rocket scientist to predict the counter reaction.
And that's a problem, not a feature. If the dollars don't matter, why on Earth do you have a problem with how Cathy spends his money? By the reaction, it would seem the $10,788 that came from Chick-Fil-A is the biggest threat the gay community has ever faced. People in this thread could outspend Chick-Fil-A on the gay marriage issue. They probably have. People in this thread have definitely made more statements than Cathy's couple of little paragraphs.
Think about that. Chick-Fil-A itself, and Cathy, wouldn't even be a major political force, voice, or funder in this thread, one that's all about Chick-Fil-A.
But as a result of the boycott (or more accurately as a result of the mayors), now there are busloads of people singing anti-gay marriage ditties and using chicken sandwichs as a symbol of hetero-freedom, including millions who didn't know what Chick-Fil-A was two weeks ago.
I assume you've partied with gays. Does that somehow make you an anti-gay bigot? Even gays have stood up for Chick-Fil-A. I used to read a popular gay blogger who was adamantly opposed to gay marriage because he viewed it as an existential threat to the male gay lifestyle (he was very active, and very detailed). Was he an anti-gay bigot?
She calls gay marriage "genocide". In one speech she said, "I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to be extinct, and none of us wants to be. So we don't want genocide. We don't want to destroy the sacred institution of marriage. Marriage between one man and one woman remains the guard against human extinction."
She's also said, "Neither my great-grandfather an NAACP founder, my grandfather Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. an NAACP leader, my father Rev. A. D. Williams King, nor my uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. embraced the homosexual agenda that the current NAACP is attempting to label as a civil rights agenda. In the 21st Century, the anti-traditional marriage community is in league with the anti-life community, and together with the NAACP and other sympathizers, they are seeking a world where homosexual marriage and abortion will supposedly set the captives free.”
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.co...ay-marriage-support/politics/2012/05/22/39964
You could giver her a timeslot on late night world-band radio, right between Art Bell and the Michigan Militia program. I'm not sure even Phelps think gay marriage will lead to human extinction. Fire and tribulations, perhaps, but not extinction.
Is there a special gay seating section in Chick-Fil-A?
The South had always hired blacks. They luved making blacks work. They even got in a lot of trouble for overdoing it. I'm pretty sure Chick-Fil-A has never used gay slaves, doesn't limit gays to washing the dishes and taking out the trash, and lets them sit anywhere they want. They even pay them the same.
No, I call drama queens drama queens. I used to live with hair-dressers, one of whom had narcissistic personality disorder. She later moved in with two gay men (who used to hang out with me over here), who ended up leaving because they couldn't put up with all her drama queen behavior. I warned them repeatedly about her, but they didn't believe anyone could be that bad.
You should probably note that drama queens are almost invariably assumed to be women, and the 'queen' part has nothing at all to do with gays. It has to do with girls who act like they're a freakin' queen.
As an aside, California girls named Amy (there was about an entire page of them in the LA Times link) gave six times more than Chick-Fil-A. I suppose we could start a campaign saying "Amy's are oppressors!"
But back to the need to plan these things out, or focus efforts on good opportunities that arise, coming up with more optimal strategies in light of the facts on the ground.
One would think a better strategic plan would've involved targeting one of the huge funders first, instead of some random nobody, because now everybody is already sick of the issue. Chick-Fil-A is thriving, and people could be seen physically flocking to its support all over the country (which couldn't have happened if the target had been some billionaire who made his money in finance) making supporters of the ban look weak, ineffective, and a bit ridiculous, and it will be hard to get a do-over.
That's why I bring up strategic thinking. You should've targeted someone who was:
A) A major funder of anti-gay marriage efforts, not a totally insignificant one. (Some guy named Bruce from Orem Utah gave a million dollars, about a hundred times more than Chick-Fil-A, and I'll bet nobody has even sent him a nasty note.)
B) Isn't involved in all sorts of other charitable work in the communities. That way local folks don't speak up in defense like they reflexively do ("but he does such good work for the _____!")
C) Doesn't have thousands of restaurants or stores where people could show support.
D) Hopefully has a very questionable background, ideally a Wall Street fraudster or Enron type.
E) Gives to anti-marriage efforts directly, not through a foundation that gave to a charity that donated some money to an anti gay-marriage campaign.
You want a big target spending LOTS of easily documented money so everyone can follow it in one or two sentences, not have to wade through multiple layers of charities and then dig through financial reports to get an approximate idea and potential connection as I just did.
It's entirely possible that none of Chick-Fil-A's money has ever gone to anti-gay marriage campaigns, and it would take a team of Earnst & Young accountants weeks to figure out the answer to that. Even Cathy probably doesn't know.
Given a better target, you could rack up an easy and significant victory, and move on to the next best target, building on a string of successes, each of which not only removes major opposition funding (millions, not $10,000), but simultaneously establish credibility and a growing reputation, inclining companies and individuals not to want to become the next scandal splattered all over the front pages. For an intangible, everyone would subconsciously notice that everyone opposed to gay-marriage who lands on the front page seems to be a highly nefarious individual.
That was very good, but I'll add that Jesus would've been in direct competition with Chick-Fil-A with his awesome and miraculous fish sandwiches, which he didn't even charge for. He must've had an incredible deal worked out with his wholesale distributor.
So, you take the fucking Drudge Report as anything approaching an accurate, truthful reporting of the news?
Next, you'll be saying that Grimm's Fairy Tales are an accurate reporting of the news. And it would be much closer to the truth than the fucking Drudge Report.
You're not even going to acknowledge his answer to your question.
I guess that's all I should have expected, really: as always, you make only the barest feint at a response, while at the same time ducking away from making any kind of serious attempt at addressing what Mr. Phillips said. In spite of your repeated harangue in this thread, you don't yourself pick a hill on which to make a stand so much as you pick a traveling spot within which you can gaily tap-dance hither and yon, flicking handfuls of fairy dust you hope will dazzle the audience, before suddenly making a break for the wings and leaving your number unfinished.
Song-&-danceus interruptus? No curtain call for you, I'm afraid - I don't think much of the act.
But he didn't answer my question, he addressed a very different one, which was why the Chick-Fil-A support didn't advance God's kingdom. My question was how Chick-Fil-A support is oppressing gays, which also applies to an athiest standing in line, and athiest gays.
The amount of money that might've gone to anti-gay causes that day through Chick-Fil-A, assuming a 10-fold sales increase and their total spending over the past few years, going through various charities that have lots of other unrelated programs, was probably around a hundred dollars. If millions of gays can be so easily oppressed for a hundred bucks, then absolutely nothing will help them because some elementary school kid could oppress them with the money from his lemonade stand.
Frankly, while I think people are overstating the importance of this Chick-fil-A controversy, I feel that getting to wrapped up in it is a distraction from more pressing issues. Chick-fil-A is simply an illustration of a larger issue: which is the public's lack of awareness of how their spending habits can contribute to causes they don't support. Awareness of Chick-fil-A's corporate donations is now out there for everyone to see, and making a media circus out of it isn't helpful or necessarily useful.
The kiss-in idea was just silly. I've done my share of marches and protests for gay rights and I figured out early on that it's better to make people think twice than to just attack their decisions and businesses they support. The latter generally changes no minds and results in knee-jerk reactions because no one likes being attacked. This is not to say you have to be meek, but you have to think about what the response to your message will likely be.
If Chick-fil-A is worth singling out, then a better tactic is to not focus specificially on the polarized "gay marriage" issue alone but to point out all the things Chick-fil-A donates to that a lot of Americans might not support. It's tactically foolish to narrowly engage on a single issue when there are other issues that could help you in your cause.
The kiss-in idea was just silly. I've done my share of marches and protests for gay rights and I figured out early on that it's better to make people think twice than to just attack their decisions and businesses they support. The latter generally changes no minds and results in knee-jerk reactions because no one likes being attacked. This is not to say you have to be meek, but you have to think about what the response to your message will likely be.
If Chick-fil-A is worth singling out, then a better tactic is to not focus specificially on the polarized "gay marriage" issue alone but to point out all the things Chick-fil-A donates to that a lot of Americans might not support. It's tactically foolish to narrowly engage on a single issue when there are other issues that could help you in your cause.
1. I did, and you did exactly what M'Sharak said you do - and you gave some bullshit response about getting into the mind of your opponent.
And by the way, Sherlock, gays have been informally boycotting CFA for years. I've pointed this out before, but, just like you gloss over so much of what gets said to you, you missed that. So, for all the prevarication about us needing to get inside the heads of our opponents, guess what - we've been doing it for years already. Ask your gay friends, you know the ones you party with and then say that doesn't make you a supporter of homophobia, because, you know, you have gay frriends. Are they black too?
2. It's rather obvious that reading comprehension isn't exactly something you've mastered lately, so, once again, somebody is going to have to state something for you. Really, dealing with you is hopelessly jejune at times. It gets tiresome.
It reads:For most, supporting Chick-fil-A may not have been meant as a statement against homosexuals, but that’s what it was. The only time the gay community hears from mainline Christianity is when they are being told how wrong they are. They’re told how their sexual orientation is wrong. They’re told how their wanting to marry the person they love is wrong. This whole Chick-fil-A thing was a way to even tell them how their choice to boycott a restaurant is wrong.
Read more: Daily Mountain Eagle - Jesus and the Chick fil A ordeal
Pssst, that's the answer to your question. Did you read that last sentence? Go back, read it again. "This whole CFA thing was a way to even tell them how their choice to boycott a restaurant is wrong.
You asked how CFA support is oppressing gays. Well, there you go, it's just one thing we have to see as we live our lives, one more thing we have to see and hear people we know and some cases love do and talk about insults us. And, guess what, sparky, it's exactly what you do here with every passing backhanded comment about this whole thing yourself.. The reason you don't see it, is because you're blind to what you're doing. Yes, I'll say it, you're blind to your very own bigotry - but, hey, you party with gays, so that makes you one of the cool ones, right?
Last edited:
I never said he did; in fact I said the exact opposite in the same sentence with the part which you quoted above.
I just assumed that the part I quoted meant that because of greed he serves them despite being morally against it. Did I misread that?
Ah, ok. Well, that question is easy to answer: they have no reason not to. All three things you mentioned are directly related to the belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Serving gay people food doesn't conflict with that belief in the least.
I'm betting that the country's largest Wendy's franchisee to which you refer is also a substantial Chick-Fil-A franchisee as well, and was only expressing solidarity with his bank-balance.
Seriously, most of these fast food places in a given region aren't owned by Mom and Pop independent franchisees, but large franchise groups, who often own most (if not all) of the franchises in a given area.
For years, the vast bulk of the Popeye's Chicken franchises in Central Indiana were owned by the same company that also owned the majority of the Church's Chicken and KFC franchises. The stores didn't technically compete with one another, but simply covered the whole market, and still profited regardless of where your allegiances happened to lie, chicken-wise.
This same company now owns most of the Wendy's franchises in Indiana, along with just about all of the franchises of one of Wendy's supposed primary competitors, Rally's (Checker's). They also own most of the Denny's, Long John Silver's, and Papa John's in the area as well.
Last edited:
Someone pleeeeeeease trim this issue down for me...
Are gay staff (or clients) discriminated by this company in anyway? No or Yes?
Can individuals whether it be liberal or not have the right to express their opinion? Yes or No?
---
For me it rests on these two questions and how they're answered? If the first answer to the first question comes back as an affirmative then the company should be seriously scrutinized as discriminating its employees and clients on the basis of what? Pure bigotry.
Into this, you should also be allowed to express your thoughts in a western democracy that enshrines the right to freedom of speech. No matter how disgusting those thoughts are. If you're a big (which believe this man to be) then so be it. Yes its painful but its just his thoughts. I wouldnt never argue for his censorship. I would however argue against him discriminating against his homosexual employers and clients.
Are gay staff (or clients) discriminated by this company in anyway? No or Yes?
Can individuals whether it be liberal or not have the right to express their opinion? Yes or No?
---
For me it rests on these two questions and how they're answered? If the first answer to the first question comes back as an affirmative then the company should be seriously scrutinized as discriminating its employees and clients on the basis of what? Pure bigotry.
Into this, you should also be allowed to express your thoughts in a western democracy that enshrines the right to freedom of speech. No matter how disgusting those thoughts are. If you're a big (which believe this man to be) then so be it. Yes its painful but its just his thoughts. I wouldnt never argue for his censorship. I would however argue against him discriminating against his homosexual employers and clients.
No, their concerns exceed gay marriage and go so far as to give support to organizations that fought laws designed to prevent statewide workplace discrimination against LGBT individuals in Pennsylvania.
Everyone has political views. Some of these people are business owners. I buy their products, not their politics. I don't have time to vet every individual business owner to see if their political views correspond with my own, and I believe in fundamental freedom, that even someone of an opposing idealogy of mine is entitled to earn a living.
Everyone in this country is entitled to an opinion and to spend their money how they wish. Personally I think it's downright un-American and fairly scary when you think on it, when elected officals start acting like they're wanting to impede anyone's ability to make a living for expressing an opinion contrary to theirs.
If Chick-Fil-A is digging themselves a hole in this ordeal though, then they found some buried treasure being they've been doing record amounts of business this past week.
Everyone in this country is entitled to an opinion and to spend their money how they wish. Personally I think it's downright un-American and fairly scary when you think on it, when elected officals start acting like they're wanting to impede anyone's ability to make a living for expressing an opinion contrary to theirs.
If Chick-Fil-A is digging themselves a hole in this ordeal though, then they found some buried treasure being they've been doing record amounts of business this past week.
Here's a link to help answer that question.
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201103220004
Scroll down a bit more than halfway and look at the section "Winshape's Traditional Marriage Activities." It's quite clear from the section there that gays are not wanted in leadership positions.
PopBoy said:
Of course they can, and it's not part of this issue. No one has claimed that Dan Cathy can't express his opinion or donate his company's money to whatever he likes. People are just expressing the opinion that they don't appreciate the money being spent to deny them equal rights.
I agree. I don't have the time to vet every company I do business with either. But, when I find out a company donates money to anti-gay hate groups it's a pretty good indication to me that I should do business elsewhere.
R. Star said:
What elected officials are trying to impede Chick-fil-A's ability to do business?
R. Star said:
That only shows that a lot of people don't care that the company they're buying lunch from promotes anti-gay causes. Does that surprise you?
Last edited:
So if you've been boycotting Chick-Fil-A for years how effective was it? Did anyone who wasn't part of the boycott even notice? Is there a way other restaurants can get you to boycott them as well? I'm sure the sales boost from a gay boycott is being discussed in other board rooms, since $10G is a tenth the cost of buying a 30-second commercial in prime time and apparently ten times more effective.
As I've pointed out, Chick-Fil-A seems to have spent about $11,000 to oppose gay marriage over the years. If a million gays have each wasted even an hour of their lives on the CFA issue, the company is getting them to torture themselves over it for only a penny an hour. What a bargain! At some point, you have to wonder if the victim is getting so much self-satisfaction out of being victimized that they'd volunteer to do it for free.
And why did all those people to go to Chick-Fil-A? They certainly didn't start the boycott. Apparently that went on for years without any of them even knowing about it. They didn't make Chick-Fil-A a headline by calling for a ban on Chick-Fil-A in their cities. Gay rights supporting mayors did that.
The chicken-munchers went to support a company they admired that they thought was under threat, because it was under threat, with mayors vastly overstepping their powers in a way that member of the House called "heinous." You've claimed that isn't allowed to count because the mayors dropped their decrees. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If a bunch of big city mayors had called for a ban on gay-owned businesses last week and then walked it back the next day, for how many years would the gay community be livid about it?
You got frustrated that nobody was paying attention to your victimization by a chicken sandwich place, so you poked a vast swath of people in the eye with a stick. They didn't go out and beat up gays, they went to the chicken place and bought a sandwich, and from that you are trying to play the victim - again. Is there anything that doesn't make you feel victimized?
But CFA didn't come up with the Chick-Fil-A appreciation day that is now some key part of gay oppression, Mike Huckabee did, so why are you trying to blame it on CFA? All they did is try to get everybody's orders right. And you had to see that as a result of whose heinous call for a ban on a business? For your next act, are you going to fly to Iran and burn a Koran in front of a mosque so you can scream about the inevitable Muslim riot?
Uh, no. I'm pretty sure I have my bigotry thoughtfully pointed out to me with every comment, even the backhanded ones.
