Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Amaris]

Bull butter.

Coincidentally, a major ingredient in Chick-fil-A food.

 

[shivkala]

The Huffington Post had a great article about this whole ordeal and what it means to those who are gay.

Growing up is never easy. But, teenagers who grow up gay are four times more likely to take their own lives. No, that has nothing to do with our sexuality on its own -- suicide rates are lower where gay kids are accepted. It's because our institutions, and all too often the adults in our lives, tell us we're not as good as our straight peers. In 29 states, it is legal for an employer to fire me for who I am. In 31 states, leaders and voters have told me that I am not worthy of the fundamental human right to marry. You want to marry because you love your Mr. Right; I have no rights to do the same. And, the consequences of this inequality are terrifying and real. For example, I can be denied access to my loved one on his deathbed. There are over 1,100 other rights that I am denied.

When gays get so angry about a chicken sandwich, it is because Chick-fil-A has given around $5 million to fight to discriminate against us. When we praise brave Eagle Scouts who give up their badges in protest of the Boy Scouts of America's prejudice, it's not about scoring political points; it's because there are kids in dens who are being taught to believe that they are less than equal. When we rant about the pastor who preaches that gays should be thrown into a concentration camp, we scream out of fear. And our fears are justified -- in the last seven days, a lesbian in Nebraska was carved with a knife, a gay man in Oklahoma was firebombed, and a girl in Kentucky was kicked and beaten -- her jaw broken and her teeth knocked out -- while her assailants allegedly hurled anti-gay slurs at her.

I still see no reason why my wife and I should have these rights, but this author should not.

 

[The Dominion]

Bull butter.

Coincidentally, a major ingredient in Chick-fil-A food.

Suddenly, I'm no longer curious about their food.

 

[ichab]

I'm going to admit up front that I don't have much of a dog in this hunt. While Chik-Fil-A has the right to say what they want to say, they must also face the consequences of those words. I don't agree with them, nor do I eat there (Not a fan of fast food fried chicken in general, so it's not a big deal to me)...

However, I've heard a few things in other places for the past few days that make me wish we, as a society, were more fair in our protestations.

CFA doesn't support the killing of homosexuals, they simply support groups who support "traditional marriage."... Yet we all drive cars that run on oil, a large part of which comes from OPEC. Don't the more radical sects of the Muslim faith call for the execution of homosexuals? Where are the protests?

In Chicago and Boston, there are thriving muslim communities and they are welcomed with open arms.

In fact, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual lauded Louis Farrakhan's group for their stance on crime earlier this month. Didn't Farrakhan just recently take President Obama to task for his flip flop on gay marriage? Farrakhan and his followers are just as homophobic as the CFA owner. Where's the protest?

Sun Times article

I just want some fairness. No side is clean in this debate.

Good luck with that one. The way I see it,I don't know why people are acting so shocked over this. Walk in to any Chick-fil-a restaurant and their "We are closed on Sundays because of our christian beliefs" is staring you right in the face. The president of the company was asked a question that everyone in their brother already knew the answer to. He didn't post a big sign and advertise it.He was asked a question and he answered it. If that upsets some people, then they have the right to not eat there without scorn. If it doesn't bother the other side, then they have the right to eat there without scorn as well. Simple.

 

[marillion]

CFA doesn't support the killing of homosexuals, they simply support groups who support "traditional marriage."

Well, gee, as long as they don't support KILLING them, right?

Traditional marriage, my eye. Some of those groups want homosexuality made illegal.

I just want some fairness. No side is clean in this debate.

Bull butter.

I'll see your bull butter and raise you a caca-doodie...

So because it's easier to protest a business than an organization, the unfairness is justified?

All I'm saying is that the Mayor of Chicago should just inherantly be careful. By condeming one group and not another for basically the same thing, he continues a dangerous precident of hypocrisy in government. But with government, it's big business as usual.

 

[ichab]

CFA doesn't support the killing of homosexuals, they simply support groups who support "traditional marriage."

Well, gee, as long as they don't support KILLING them, right?

Traditional marriage, my eye. Some of those groups want homosexuality made illegal.

I just want some fairness. No side is clean in this debate.

Bull butter.

I'll see your bull butter and raise you a caca-doodie...

So because it's easier to protest a business than an organization, the unfairness is justified?

All I'm saying is that the Mayor of Chicago should just inherantly be careful. By condeming one group and not another for basically the same thing, he continues a dangerous precident of hypocrisy in government. But with government, it's big business as usual.

I seem to recall a big issue about a mosque in New York and how it wasn't right to deny it to them based on their beliefs. Amazing how those attitudes change when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[boobatuba]

I'll see your bull butter and raise you a caca-doodie...

So because it's easier to protest a business than an organization, the unfairness is justified?

As has been said several times in this thread, the bad deeds of others don't excuse Chick-fil-A for theirs. I don't know why that's such a big issue for you. There's unfairness happening all over the place...it doesn't excuse the bigotry of this company's policies.

All I'm saying is that the Mayor of Chicago should just inherantly be careful. By condeming one group and not another for basically the same thing, he continues a dangerous precident of hypocrisy in government. But with government, it's big business as usual.

You're reading WAY too much in Rahm's meeting with Farrakhan. He hasn't "given the streets" to the Nation of Islam. They responded to a general call to faith leaders to assist. It's an entirely false equivalency.

 

[warriorsfan]

I seem to recall a big issue about a mosque in New York and how it wasn't right to deny it to them based on their beliefs. Amazing how those attitudes change when the shoe is on the other foot.

Those "attitudes" you speak of were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The Right Wingers who led the opposition to the Mosque never once cited "gay marriage equality" as a justification for doing so. No, their opposition was not traced to any specific policy stance of that particular Muslim organization, but was simply based on the fact that "they're Muslim and we don't like Muslims." At least, with Chick-fil-A, people can point to actual specific words and actions discriminating against a specific group of people. It's not like Rahm Emmanuel is opposing Chick-fil-A because "they are Christian and we don't like Christians."

 

[ichab]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120730_Is_anti-gay_marriage_hate__Don_t_ask_Rahm_Emanuel.html

Is anti-gay marriage hate? Don't ask Rahm Emanuel

YOU KNOW we're in the summer doldrums when a Chicken War is hatched to take center stage.

After the president of the Chick-fil-A chain stated he opposes gay marriage based on what the Bible says, he was blasted in the media, which is OK, while a few elected officials said they planned to ban his restaurants, which is not OK.

The sanctimonious mayors of Deep Blue Boston and Chicago fumed that Dan Cathy's words were discriminatory and discrimination can't be tolerated. Locally, Councilman Jim Kenney called Cathy's remarks "hate" speech, but sanely stopped short of trying to ban the restaurants — which would hurt those who work at the six Philadelphia franchises.

Is it "discrimination" to oppose gay marriage? In the broadest sense, I would say yes.

But is it always deep, visceral "hate"? Firm Christians (and others) believe "marriage" must be restricted to one man and one woman. Is that "hate"?

If you are pro-choice, do you "hate" the unborn? If you oppose polygamy, is that "hate"? My gay friends say those are silly questions. It is the same principle.

Cathy's views are based on the Bible, which is why none of his restaurants is open on Sunday, the biblical "day of rest." That decision costs Cathy money, but he is devout and lives his beliefs, whether or not you agree with them. Unlike shape-shifting politicians (I'll get to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel in a minute), Cathy is not a hypocrite. If his views are "hate," and they come from the Bible, it follows that the Bible must be "hate" literature and should be banned, too. (Stop cheering, atheists — it's not going to happen. Not soon, anyway.)

I don't believe that opposing gay marriage is automatically "hate." Some same-sex-marriage supporters see it differently, but they are throwing that word around too casually, as others do with "racist" or "socialist." Both left and right are guilty of sloppy thinking and trash-talking.

I have searched the Internet and cannot find one accusation that Chick-fil-A ever discriminated against a gay customer or refused to hire a gay person. That would be discrimination, and that isn't permitted in our society. Cathy's anti-gay-marriage views are his personal opinion, not reflected in his business plan.

The ugliest aspect of this debate was the desire by elected officials — would-be tyrants — to stick their noses where government doesn't belong. Boston and Chicago want to punish Chick-fil-A for the opinions of its owner.

One justification: Cathy donates to what his critics call "anti-gay" causes. His fans call them "pro-family."

Other rich people have opposing views. Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, gave $2.5 million last week to the campaign to support Washington's same-sex-marriage law. Should Deep Red Indianapolis and Dallas try to pull the plug on Amazon because they don't like Bezos' stance?

We are supposed to believe in free speech. The speech we should be most tolerant of — admittedly, this is hard — is that with which we disagree.

When I see a cheeseball like Rahm Emanuel trying to block a Chick-fil-A from opening because the chain doesn't have "Chicago values," is he referencing the values of murderous gang warfare, corrupt politics and fat-saturated food? A gold medalist in hypocrisy, Emanuel strongly campaigned for Bill Clinton and Barack Obama — even as they opposed gay marriage. He stayed on as Clinton's adviser even after he signed the ("anti-gay?") Defense of Marriage Act. Why didn't he resign in disgust?

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, who so deeply believes his city is "in the forefront of inclusion," will ban any contrary view to prove it. That's more like Benito Mussolini than John Adams.

On Friday, pro-gay-marriage New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said: "You really don't want to ask political beliefs or religious beliefs before you issue a permit. That's just not government's job."

At the risk of creating biblical-based controversy, I say, "Amen."

 

[ichab]

I seem to recall a big issue about a mosque in New York and how it wasn't right to deny it to them based on their beliefs. Amazing how those attitudes change when the shoe is on the other foot.

Those "attitudes" you speak of were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You are comparing apples to oranges.

The Right Wingers who led the opposition to the Mosque never once cited "gay marriage equality" as a justification for doing so. No, their opposition was not traced to any specific policy stance of that particular Muslim organization, but was simply based on the fact that "they're Muslim and we don't like Muslims." At least, with Chick-fil-A, people can point to actual specific words and actions discriminating against a specific group of people. It's not like Rahm Emmanuel is opposing Chick-fil-A because "they are Christian and we don't like Christians."

So let's stick a microphone to the leaders of these mosques and ask them what they think of gay marriage. If you don't like the answer, would that then be cause to deny them in your eyes?

 

[shivkala]

So because it's easier to protest a business than an organization, the unfairness is justified?

All I'm saying is that the Mayor of Chicago should just inherantly be careful. By condeming one group and not another for basically the same thing, he continues a dangerous precident of hypocrisy in government. But with government, it's big business as usual.

I'm still confused about this "unfairness." Again, you seem to believe that if we're upset about Chick-Fil-A and decide to avoid eating there, we must also do everything possible to protest every other group that shares their opinion. How exactly do you want us to address this unfairness? I've already said I am not a fan of Farrakhan and I disagree with Rahm Emmanuel on this (and other things).

However, as boobatuba is arguing, it's a false equivalency.

Emmanuel praising Farrakhan has nothing to do with his stance on gay-marriage. There are plenty of people, organizations, corporations, businesses, etc. that I disagree with on one thing, but not others.

 

[nightwind1]

I seem to recall a big issue about a mosque in New York and how it wasn't right to deny it to them based on their beliefs. Amazing how those attitudes change when the shoe is on the other foot.

Those "attitudes" you speak of were COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Not even that close.

They're comparing apples to thumbtacks.

 

[IndyJones]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120730_Is_anti-gay_marriage_hate__Don_t_ask_Rahm_Emanuel.html

Is anti-gay marriage hate? Don't ask Rahm Emanuel

The ugliest aspect of this debate was the desire by elected officials — would-be tyrants — to stick their noses where government doesn't belong. Boston and Chicago want to punish Chick-fil-A for the opinions of its owner.

*That's* the ugliest aspect of this debate?

Really?

The issue surrounding the words- not actions- of these elected officials, was quickly walked backwards, and earned the scorn not just of Christian conservatives but of the ACLU and TBBS's most liberal posters.

Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A's money has *actually* gone to fight equal marriage rights in the courts. Trying to use their money, and the government, to enforce their beliefs on me.

And I'm sick of people like that author, and ichab here as well, saying that this is about the words of Dan Cathy. It's not. It's about actions. It's about funding groups that file amicus briefs. It's a cheap way of trying to fight an easier argument. But it's not what's going on here, and it's dishonest to pretend it is. And if you're fighting on the side that claims divinely inspired moral authority, then you should at least try to be less nakedly deceitful.

 

[iguana_tonante]

The president of the company was asked a question that everyone in their brother already knew the answer to.

What they do in their brother is none of our concerns, but I wouldn't advertise it.

 

[Peacemaker]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120730_Is_anti-gay_marriage_hate__Don_t_ask_Rahm_Emanuel.html

Is anti-gay marriage hate? Don't ask Rahm Emanuel

The ugliest aspect of this debate was the desire by elected officials — would-be tyrants — to stick their noses where government doesn't belong. Boston and Chicago want to punish Chick-fil-A for the opinions of its owner.

*That's* the ugliest aspect of this debate?

Really?

The issue surrounding the words- not actions- of these elected officials, was quickly walked backwards, and earned the scorn not just of Christian conservatives but of the ACLU and TBBS's most liberal posters.

Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A's money has *actually* gone to fight equal marriage rights in the courts. Trying to use their money, and the government, to enforce their beliefs on me.

And I'm sick of people like that author, and ichab here as well, saying that this is about the words of Dan Cathy. It's not. It's about actions. It's about funding groups that file amicus briefs. It's a cheap way of trying to fight an easier argument. But it's not what's going on here, and it's dishonest to pretend it is. And if you're fighting on the side that claims divinely inspired moral authority, then you should at least try to be less nakedly deceitful.

I'll add to that...This also isn't about what Cathy and his family does with their personal finances that they get as the owners. Rather it's about what they do with *corporate* finances that they channel into Winshape. So, really, running around like some here about what they do 'with their own money" doesn't cut it, because that's really an oversimplification. It's not about personal finances; it's about the portion of corporate funds that is laundered...oops, sorry...funneled into Winshape and from there dispersed over time to these groups that use them. For good Christians, they seem very comfortable with taking money from people they just plain find godless and then funneling it to organizations that disempower those people. They, as their signs advertising the reason they are closed on Sundays state (not just "Closed, but we're close cuz we're Christians and want our people to worship), are the very epitome of the moralist and the Pharisee.

 

[Amaris]

I'll add to that...This also isn't about what Cathy and his family does with their personal finances that they get as the owners. Rather it's about what they do with *corporate* finances that they channel into Winshape. So, really, running around like some here about what they do 'with their own money" doesn't cut it, because that's really an oversimplification. It's not about personal finances; it's about the portion of corporate funds that is laundered...oops, sorry...funneled into Winshape and from there dispersed over time to these groups that use them. For good Christians, they seem very comfortable with taking money from people they just plain find godless and then funneling it to organizations that disempower those people. They, as their signs advertising the reason they are closed on Sundays state (not just "Closed, but we're close cuz we're Christians and want our people to worship), are the very epitome of the moralist and the Pharisee.

Don't you see, though? That's what's in, now. When it comes to the modern church, almost everybody wants to be the Pharisee! It's not about a position within God's love and trust, it's about a position in the community, a position of power and influence, because influence leads to wealth, and that's what Jesus wants for everybody, is to be wealthy! He wants them to have Citation X jets and Rolex watches because Jesus rewards his Real True Followers™!

Just look at the massive cauldron of arrogant pride that is the modern church. They're proud to call out their devotion to their faith, they're more than happy to point their fingers at you and tell you that you're a sinner, and then they step back behind the cloak of humility when they get called on it.

Zealot: "You're a sinner, and will go to hell, you homosexual!"
Accused: "You're bigoted, and why is one sin worse than the other?"
Zealot: "Hey, guy, no one is perfect, I'm just an imperfect human being like everyone else."

 

[cooleddie74]

Hell, one of the most famed and notorious televangelists of recent years is named Creflo Dollar for crying out loud. The guy has a lifestyle so lavish that he owns two Rolls-Royces, a personal jet and at least one home worth over a million dollars. Creflo refuses to disclose his personal salary to anybody and his ministry received an "F" grade for financial transparency from a major watchdog group.

It's all about the bling and the outrageously expensive suits for some guys who preach the words of God and Jesus Christ. The message comes second. If it holds even that lofty a place in their "ministry."

 

[Amaris]

Hell, one of the most famed and notorious televangelists of recent years is named Creflo Dollar for crying out loud. The guy has a lifestyle so lavish that he owns two Rolls-Royces, a personal jet and at least one home worth over a million dollars. Creflo refuses to disclose his personal salary to anybody and his ministry received an "F" grade for financial transparency from a major watchdog group.

It's all about the bling and the outrageously expensive suits for some guys who preach the words of God and Jesus Christ. The message comes second. If it holds even that lofty a place in their "ministry."

What's sad about it is that there are millions of people who flock to these guys, thinking learning the word of God will get them rich. That's what it's about for so many of them. They believe there must be some kind of secret, that there's an angle to getting in God's good graces, and so they pull stuff like this, thinking it would please Him.

"If I can make him happy, he'll give me stuff!"

And yet, these same people who want God to give them stuff just for sucking up, will turn around and condemn the poor and indigent as lazy, or slothful, just for needing a safety net.

 

[ichab]

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120730_Is_anti-gay_marriage_hate__Don_t_ask_Rahm_Emanuel.html

Is anti-gay marriage hate? Don't ask Rahm Emanuel

The ugliest aspect of this debate was the desire by elected officials — would-be tyrants — to stick their noses where government doesn't belong. Boston and Chicago want to punish Chick-fil-A for the opinions of its owner.

*That's* the ugliest aspect of this debate?

Really?

The issue surrounding the words- not actions- of these elected officials, was quickly walked backwards, and earned the scorn not just of Christian conservatives but of the ACLU and TBBS's most liberal posters.

Meanwhile, Chick-fil-A's money has *actually* gone to fight equal marriage rights in the courts. Trying to use their money, and the government, to enforce their beliefs on me.

There is money being used to fund groups that are for things I completely disagree with. Guess what? It's their right to do so.Welcome to America and the first amendment.

And I'm sick of people like that author, and ichab here as well, saying that this is about the words of Dan Cathy. It's not. It's about actions.

The article in question is about the actions of these Mayors. The Mayors specifically pointed to the comment made by the President. This whole shit storm started with the comments of the President of Chick-Fil-A. This whole thread started with the comments of the President of Chick-Fil-A. It's proper to continue talking about it because these Mayors are using their power to stop free enterprise based on the thoughts of the companies president. That is wrong and we have every right to point that out.

 

[boobatuba]

There is money being used to fund groups that are for things I completely disagree with. Guess what? It's their right to do so.Welcome to America and the first amendment.

No one is arguing otherwise.

The article in question is about the actions of these Mayors. The Mayors specifically pointed to the comment made by the President. This whole shit storm started with the comments of the President of Chick-Fil-A. This whole thread started with the comments of the President of Chick-Fil-A. It's proper to continue talking about it because these Mayors are using their power to stop free enterprise based on the thoughts of the companies president. That is wrong and we have every right to point that out.

You're late to the party. The mayor has recanted and admitted that he was wrong.