Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[Peacemaker]

Everyone is entitled to their bigotry, and as long as you keep it confined to your own private residence or business, I don't think anybody should have the right to stop you.

But KT isn't even being consistent, as he's in favor of Chick-fil-A using money to try to enforce their beliefs on me, which is the very thing he says he's against.

I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.

You are in favor of CFA using their money to fund groups to actively disempower gay men and lesbians. Just come right out and say it. You believe in institutionalized homophobia.

You also believe in institutionalized racism and sexism, for, you also believe that a business should be allowed to discriminate against persons in those areas as well. That is, by definition, a form of institutionalized racism and sexism. Your protestations don't change that fact.

You also believe in institutionalizing a form of a state church by use of private means. If you had your way, you would be fine every person who owns a business in town or municipality who is of your ecclesiastical stripe refused to hire Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. This, of course, would directly affect their ability to support their local churches and associations, episcopates, and presbyteries respectively, and would be an indirect means to keep them out of your town. That would be a rather effective means to keep them out, and it would be an indirect means of establishing a civil religion and therefore a species of a state church without using government means qua government means. That's the very sort of thing, by the way, that the people who settled in this country came here to avoid, and your little sect is considered, as distasteful as it is, to be an offshoot of Baptist and Presbyterian stock - your first leaders were formerly Presbyterian, and your churches were formerly Baptist, and Baptists are the very ones who were the most oppressed in this way in Britain and who especially came here to escape it.

 

[boobatuba]

Yes, I understand what the law is for, but for the sake of argument, I want to question its merits. Why shouldn't a private business owner be allowed to hire a clearly inferior applicant? All they're doing is hurting themselves anyway by hiring someone less qualified.

Because that's not all they're doing. They're discriminating.

Individual small business owners can, of course, "get away with it." EEOC is designed to go after patterns of discrimination moreso than individual cases of it. Ergo, they tend to focus more on the large corporations and biggest employers.

Here is a great article that explains the continuing need for the EEOC and fairness in employment better than I ever could. An excellent read.

 

[nightwind1]

In the Thread Bomb thread, I noticed a church sign and noted that it was from a church in the town next to the one I grew up in. Interested in seeing if (a) I wasn't mistaken about that and (b) if it was a real picture and not a photoshop, I Googled the church and found the Pastor's blog, specifically a post where he was confronted by a woman very upset at his signs. This woman (even the pastor wasn't quite sure who she was) went on trying to "educate" the pastor. His response, which I think you can guess from reading the blog post title, if you care to read the post in my link above, is priceless.

It also shows a pastor who appears to be quite knowledgeable of the Bible, and, as many in this thread are trying to say, argues that the message of Jesus, the Bible, etc. is one of love.

Tying it to this thread, he supports equal rights for homosexuals, said he baptized the adopted baby of a lesbian couple, and mentions he had signs praising the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," celebrating that his church is a Marriage Equality Church, and, of course, even had one that read "It's OK to be Takei."

I think it's a nice reminder that there are some clergymen and churches (and I'm sure there will be more in the future) who preach things like love, acceptance, etc. and really mean it!

That pastor is a true Christian.

Reminds me of most of the people I grew up going to church with (Society of Friends- the Quakers).

 

[Peacemaker]

One of the reasons these laws exist is that, contrary to the philosophy espoused by KT, the harm that is done if his philosophy is practiced has been proven to be far more than physical. I would add here that his limitation: physical harm is unprincipled and ad hoc. He has given no supporting argument for it. For example, I have already cited how it is possible in a small community to exclude Joe and Billy Gay Couple, and his response was basically to shrug his shoulders. In KT's philosophy, the business alone has rights, any harm to the applicants that isn't physical harm be damned. I cited another effect - taken to it's logical conclusion, it can curtail religious freedoms - the very freedoms his own Baptist forbears came here to find. It also has effects on racial minorities that has been well documented. "Do no physical harm" is simply an ad hoc restriction introduced by KT without supporting argument for it.

 

[boobatuba]

^And that's because, when you get right down to it, KT and people like him believe that if people can't get a fair shake, well...too bad for them. They should go back to their "own kind" and stop trying to intrude upon other "chosen" peoples' territory.

Sounds a lot like people of certain churches. Say, Campbellites?

 

[nightwind1]

^And that's because, when you get right down to it, KT and people like him believe that if people can't get a fair shake, well...too bad for them. They should go back to their "own kind" and stop trying to intrude upon other "chosen" peoples' territory.

Sounds a lot like people of certain churches. Say, Campbellites?

Hey, don't dis The Chin...

 

[Knight Templar]

But KT isn't even being consistent, as he's in favor of Chick-fil-A using money to try to enforce their beliefs on me, which is the very thing he says he's against.

I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.

Why does it matter which laws they break?

Laws that should not exist.

And before you say "but that is the law" I will remind you that civil rights leaders violated laws they thought were immoral and unethical.

 

[Knight Templar]

But KT isn't even being consistent, as he's in favor of Chick-fil-A using money to try to enforce their beliefs on me, which is the very thing he says he's against.

I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.

You are in favor of CFA using their money to fund groups to actively disempower gay men and lesbians. Just come right out and say it. You believe in institutionalized homophobia.

You also believe in institutionalized racism and sexism, for, you also believe that a business should be allowed to discriminate against persons in those areas as well. That is, by definition, a form of institutionalized racism and sexism. Your protestations don't change that fact.

You also believe in institutionalizing a form of a state church by use of private means. If you had your way, you would be fine every person who owns a business in town or municipality who is of your ecclesiastical stripe refused to hire Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. This, of course, would directly affect their ability to support their local churches and associations, episcopates, and presbyteries respectively, and would be an indirect means to keep them out of your town. That would be a rather effective means to keep them out, and it would be an indirect means of establishing a civil religion and therefore a species of a state church without using government means qua government means. .

Fine with me. If that is what American people want then that is what they should get. Called democracy you know. If someones religion (or lack thereof) wins out in the marketplace of ideas then more power to them.

But the government should not be in the business of tipping the scales by telling private businesses and individuals what they can and can't do with their own resources.

 

[Balrog]

^The govt. exists to protect everyone's rights, not just the rights of the majority.

 

[Gov Kodos]

^The govt. exists to protect everyone's rights, not just the rights of the majority.

Nor is it the government's purpose to protect bigots in their oppressing the rights of others.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.

Why does it matter which laws they break?

Laws that should not exist.

And before you say "but that is the law" I will remind you that civil rights leaders violated laws they thought were immoral and unethical.

And they took responsibility for breaking those laws. But if a company can hire or fire without regard to law, why do YOU draw the line at bombs and sniper rifles? Do you waffle about this law or that law like you do about which parts of the bible do and don't apply?

 

[boobatuba]

Laws that should not exist.

And before you say "but that is the law" I will remind you that civil rights leaders violated laws they thought were immoral and unethical.

Yeah, they violated laws that allowed discrimination against certain citizens for no reason other than their skin color.

That you can compare what you've been doing in this thread to the actions of people who fought for civil rights is, frankly, hilarious.

 

[cooleddie74]

Yeah, KT's comparison of displaying bigotry to and discriminating against gay people to the black Civil Rights struggle really, really offends and sickens me.

 

[Peacemaker]

I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.

Why does it matter which laws they break?

Laws that should not exist.

And before you say "but that is the law" I will remind you that civil rights leaders violated laws they thought were immoral and unethical.

You have made no supporting arguments for the following:

1. You standard for where you draw the line at discriminatory hiring practices - physical harm. is that a biblical standard or just more ad hocery on your part?

2. You'e made no supporting argument that these laws should not exist. You've merely asserted they should not.

3. By invoking an ethical standard, apropos 1, you'll now need to provide a supporting argument for that standard, starting not only where we can find it, but a supporting argument that makes sense of it.

"It's their money, therefore they should be able to do whatever they wish with it with respect to hiring, as long as they do no physical harm" is not only an ad hoc standard, it is generally the same ethical standard atheists use for morality in general. It's nice to know that, when pressed, your "Christian" moral and ethical standards are exactly convertible with those of atheism itself - and just a few pages ago you were trying to tell me that my version of Christianity was the worthless one. Savor the irony.

 

[Peacemaker]

I'm for Chich-fil-A using THEIR MONEY the way they damn well please as long as they aren't hiring people with bombs and sniper rifles.

You are in favor of CFA using their money to fund groups to actively disempower gay men and lesbians. Just come right out and say it. You believe in institutionalized homophobia.

You also believe in institutionalized racism and sexism, for, you also believe that a business should be allowed to discriminate against persons in those areas as well. That is, by definition, a form of institutionalized racism and sexism. Your protestations don't change that fact.

You also believe in institutionalizing a form of a state church by use of private means. If you had your way, you would be fine every person who owns a business in town or municipality who is of your ecclesiastical stripe refused to hire Baptist, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. This, of course, would directly affect their ability to support their local churches and associations, episcopates, and presbyteries respectively, and would be an indirect means to keep them out of your town. That would be a rather effective means to keep them out, and it would be an indirect means of establishing a civil religion and therefore a species of a state church without using government means qua government means. .

Fine with me. If that is what American people want then that is what they should get. Called democracy you know. If someones religion (or lack thereof) wins out in the marketplace of ideas then more power to them.

But the government should not be in the business of tipping the scales by telling private businesses and individuals what they can and can't do with their own resources.

The marketplace of ideas is a concept that applies to the free exchange of ideas and the freedom of speech and expression. It is not convertible with colluding together to blackball "them people" from your town via direct or indirect economic means as I described because you don't like their religion. That is exactly what your Baptist forefathers did not believe about the concepts of freedom of religion and the marketplace of ideas. That is exactly the sort of thing that they left Britain to find here. You have perverted their intentions and their ideas and substituted your own.

I think now is also a really, really nice place to remind you for at least the third time that this world you want is not coming here anytime within your lifetime, so, you're going to have to come up with something other than "I don't like them Baptists" or "I don't like them gays" or "I don't like - insert ethnic group here" to justify your positions. Right now all we have is that and a rather thin cloak of religion that seems to be proving thus far what I stated earlier, when the real KT shows himself, it's not the pious man he wants to project for us to see, what's there is a bigot using his religion as a cloak and support for his bigotry.

Put another way, you stated it'd be fine by you "if that's what the American people want." Well, guess what bucko, the American people have spoken on some of these already, and are in the process of doing so on another item on the menu, and they are not on board with your ideas - you know "democracy" and all that, so you, by your own standard, need to get with the program. Apparently, you are okay when democracy favor you, but you're not so okay when it doesn't. Apparently, you want government to do what you want it to, but when it works in a manner you don't like, you're not so okay with it. I believe that's been pointed out to you already. Again, savor the irony that you seem to miss this when it's pointed out, yet you later prove it's truth as you dig your grave further as the discussion ensues. Thanks for helping out your own opponents here.

 

[marillion]

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.

 

[Amaris]

The thing about Islam is that, like Christianity and many other religions, there are liberals, moderates, and extremists. A dear friend of mine is Muslim, and he's a moderate.

 

[shivkala]

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)...

I think that's what a majority of us in this thread are saying.

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.

So, either we protest EVERYTHING or we shouldn't protest anything? Everything is equal in your eyes, then?

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?

The problem is you're not comparing apples here, you're comparing a company that sells chicken to those who control a lot of the oil. It would be more fair to compare Chick-Fil-A with Exxon Mobil. Otherwise, you're argument is that a company that sells fast-food chicken should be compared with Muslim countries which produce oil. You might as well go back and find out what the farmers who raised the chickens think and feel about this subject.

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

*sigh* Your argument is sounding a lot like "The Jews control Hollywood," but you replace "Jews" with "Muslims" and "Hollywood" with "oil." You do realize those in the Muslim communities in Chicago and Boston are not the same ones who control OPEC, right? And, there could, possibly be some Muslims in those communities who support equal rights for homosexuals, right?

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?

Tell you what, if Louis Farrakhan opens up a fast-food restaurant, I'll protest that one as well. I'm no fan of Farrakhan or Rahm Emmanuel, for that matter. But, living in Florida, should I make up a sign and protest on a local street corner?

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

Except one side wants equal rights and the other group is actively working to take those rights away. You're absolutely right though that it's not a fair fight. Speaking just for those of us on the board who are against Chick-Fil-A's stance and are against their support of anti-homosexual organizations, we seem (and my fellow posters can correct me if I'm wrong) to be average citizens on one side, protesting an organization. We don't have the money behind us of a corporation, we just have our wallets.

And if I want to avoid giving my money to Chick-Fil-A, I think that's my right. I don't see why, to fit your view of fairness, I also have to boycott gas stations, and the mayor of Chicago to be "equal."

And, unless I misread something, I never saw anyone in the thread argue that the government should prevent Chick-Fil-A from donating their money to these charities. I've seen the argument that the government should be involved in making sure their hiring practices are non-discriminatory. But no one I've seen has argued that Dan Cathy should not have the right to give his and his corporation's money to whatever charities he wants to.

If anything, the unfairness is on their side, since, as much of a difference as I'd like it to make, I don't think the money I spent at Chick-Fil-A over the past six months (since I don't go there often) makes one damn bit of difference to them. Meanwhile, they are making millions of dollars.

Edited to add: I don't see you arguing that those supporting Chick-Fil-A should only support organizations and groups that are anti-equality for homosexuals. Again, your argument seems to be that if we disagree with Chick-Fil-A, we must do everything possible to disagree with every other group and person who agrees with their stance. Yet, I don't see you arguing the opposite. Why should the supporters of Chick-Fil-A get to support them and then get to order from Amazon.com without being accused of being unfair in their protests?

 

[boobatuba]

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.

 

[cooleddie74]

Bull butter.

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