Title: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on July 27, 2012, 07:22:32 AM A friend asked me on twitter what I thought of the "Chick-fil-A debate". Not knowing what it was, I looked it up. And sure enough, there it was. The President and COO had voiced his opposition to gay marriage. And in return every idiot with a caring function in their brain has decided to start hating on him. A couple of business deals have gone down the tubes, such as a "Muppets" advertising thingamajig. It seems that it may even harm their ability to put another franchise in Chicago. Thoughts, opinions, complaints, comments, etc.?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57481176/chick-fil-a-flap-sees-calls-for-action-from-both-sides-of-same-sex-marriage-debate/ Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Ebowed on July 27, 2012, 07:27:35 AM Their convictions seem strong enough to lose business by not being open on Sundays, so I doubt the pressure will force a change on their public attitude towards marriage equality.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Brittain33 on July 27, 2012, 07:49:24 AM Interesting that his voicing his opinion was what triggered this, given that he's been donating millions in profits to anti-gay causes for years and which would provide a substantive reason for people to avoid eating there.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: useful idiot on July 27, 2012, 08:16:41 AM As Brittain said, it isn't as ifChick-fil-a's position is news. All the fuss over it now seems wholly manufactured by media. For what reason, I don't know...
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Napoleon on July 27, 2012, 08:43:46 AM I couldn't care less. As if I am going to agree with any business owner on much, ha!
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Dereich on July 27, 2012, 10:54:51 AM Heh....Last semester FSU had to have a vote on whether to bring a Chick-fil-A to campus over this very issue. In a result that shocked no one, 75% of students voted with their stomachs rather than their ideologies. The gays I know on campus weren't that upset with it, some even voted for it, but the anti-capitalist activists who brought the issue forward were furious and ranted against our closemindedness. It was the most hilarious thing to happen on campus since the pro-lifers brought giant posters of dead fetuses next to those of the holocaust.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Free Palestine on July 27, 2012, 10:58:19 AM Heh....Last semester FSU had to have a vote on whether to bring a Chick-fil-A to campus over this very issue. In a result that shocked no one, 75% of students voted with their stomachs rather than their ideologies. The gays I know on campus weren't that upset with it, some even voted for it, but the anti-capitalist activists who brought the issue forward were furious and ranted against our closemindedness. It was the most hilarious thing to happen on campus since the pro-lifers brought giant posters of dead fetuses next to those of the holocaust. Fact: college students are morons. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: WhyteRain on July 27, 2012, 11:25:40 AM Is it enough to show we care by banning Chick-fil-A restaurants from Boston and Chicago and college campuses, or should we imprison the directors and shareholders?
Seriously, I've never visited a Chick-fil-A, but I will now. While the 1%ers try to destroy Chick-fil-A by government intimidation and force, the 99%ers destroyed this by quiet boycott: () Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: 7,052,770 on July 27, 2012, 11:37:28 AM I don't see why this has erupted now -- ChickfilA has been very publicly anti-gay for years.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: patrick1 on July 27, 2012, 11:40:30 AM I know Mayor Mumbles Menino sent a letter to a landlord telling him he didn't want the business in Boston. However, he is quickly backtracking because he is likely abusing power/breaking the law.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: John Dibble on July 27, 2012, 12:53:26 PM I don't see why this has erupted now -- ChickfilA has been very publicly anti-gay for years. The reason this has erupted now is because of all the other companies that came out as being for gay marriage recently. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 27, 2012, 02:07:15 PM Is it enough to show we care by banning Chick-fil-A restaurants from Boston and Chicago and college campuses, or should we imprison the directors and shareholders? Seriously, I've never visited a Chick-fil-A, but I will now. While the 1%ers try to destroy Chick-fil-A by government intimidation and force, the 99%ers destroyed this by quiet boycott: () ...what? Dude, it's Mumbles Menino and a bunch of activists, not the full force of the United States government or something. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 27, 2012, 02:11:34 PM I know Mayor Mumbles Menino sent a letter to a landlord telling him he didn't want the business in Boston. However, he is quickly backtracking because he is likely abusing power/breaking the law. I'm not too sure about that. Certain cities and towns (like mine) have ordinances that give mayors the right to deny businesses from being established if they don't want them. I don't know anything about Boston's ordinances, though. As for me, I personally wouldn't eat at a Chick-fil-A if it were the only restaurant in the world. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on July 27, 2012, 02:15:09 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 27, 2012, 02:18:08 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Menino is hardly 'radical'. He basically is the Establishment in Boston. Regardless of one's opinions on the particular happenstance here, I would hope you would agree in principle that there are values more important than being or supporting 'a growing franchise that creates jobs'? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: patrick1 on July 27, 2012, 02:20:59 PM I know Mayor Mumbles Menino sent a letter to a landlord telling him he didn't want the business in Boston. However, he is quickly backtracking because he is likely abusing power/breaking the law. I'm not too sure about that. Certain cities and towns (like mine) have ordinances that give mayors the right to deny businesses from being established if they don't want them. I don't know anything about Boston's ordinances, though. As for me, I personally wouldn't eat at a Chick-fil-A if it were the only restaurant in the world. http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/07/26/menino-maintains-his-opposition-chick-file-but-admits-can-stop-the-chain-from-coming-boston/UTOEtdlKRipuFIbCF44STM/story.html Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on July 27, 2012, 02:37:36 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Menino is hardly 'radical'. He basically is the Establishment in Boston. Regardless of one's opinions on the particular happenstance here, I would hope you would agree in principle that there are values more important than being or supporting 'a growing franchise that creates jobs'? Yes, I suppose that is true for the individual. I would think that it be prudent for a mayor of Boston to let the 600,000 people of Boston figure that out for themselves as Chick'Fil'A has not been accused of violating any discrimination law. Indeed, it would be quite clever of them to let Chick'Fila enter Boston and them expose themselves to a financial loss due to not having customers! Unless of course, the people of Boston like Spicy Chicken. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 27, 2012, 02:40:27 PM I know Mayor Mumbles Menino sent a letter to a landlord telling him he didn't want the business in Boston. However, he is quickly backtracking because he is likely abusing power/breaking the law. I'm not too sure about that. Certain cities and towns (like mine) have ordinances that give mayors the right to deny businesses from being established if they don't want them. I don't know anything about Boston's ordinances, though. As for me, I personally wouldn't eat at a Chick-fil-A if it were the only restaurant in the world. http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/07/26/menino-maintains-his-opposition-chick-file-but-admits-can-stop-the-chain-from-coming-boston/UTOEtdlKRipuFIbCF44STM/story.html Ah. Oh, well. Hopefully there will be at least some residents that place equal rights as a higher priority than food. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 27, 2012, 02:42:14 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Menino is hardly 'radical'. He basically is the Establishment in Boston. Regardless of one's opinions on the particular happenstance here, I would hope you would agree in principle that there are values more important than being or supporting 'a growing franchise that creates jobs'? Yes, I suppose that is true for the individual. I would think that it be prudent for a mayor of Boston to let the 600,000 people of Boston figure that out for themselves as Chick'Fil'A has not been accused of violating any discrimination law. Indeed, it would be quite clever of them to let Chick'Fila enter Boston and them expose themselves to a financial loss due to not having customers! Unless of course, the people of Boston like Spicy Chicken. The people of Boston like Thomas Menino. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: opebo on July 27, 2012, 04:49:33 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Dude, the Nazis were a growing franchise in Germany in the 1930s. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on July 27, 2012, 05:03:51 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Menino is hardly 'radical'. He basically is the Establishment in Boston. Regardless of one's opinions on the particular happenstance here, I would hope you would agree in principle that there are values more important than being or supporting 'a growing franchise that creates jobs'? Yes, I suppose that is true for the individual. I would think that it be prudent for a mayor of Boston to let the 600,000 people of Boston figure that out for themselves as Chick'Fil'A has not been accused of violating any discrimination law. Indeed, it would be quite clever of them to let Chick'Fila enter Boston and them expose themselves to a financial loss due to not having customers! Unless of course, the people of Boston like Spicy Chicken. The people of Boston like Thomas Menino. That's true. And they might like spicy chicken too. Such things are not mutually exclusive. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 27, 2012, 07:50:09 PM Unless of course, the people of Boston like Spicy Chicken. If they do, they ought to find another restaurant. Were you perhaps thinking of Bojangles? Chick-fil-A may have recently added a spicy version, but it's not their main thing. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Zarn on July 27, 2012, 08:40:25 PM If I boycotted every business where I disagreed with the political views of those in charge, I might have to kill for my own food.
I really don't care what businesses think, short of "Hey, let's overthrow the republic." Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 27, 2012, 09:09:28 PM If I boycotted every business where I disagreed with the political views of those in charge, I might have to kill for my own food. I really don't care what businesses think, short of "Hey, let's overthrow the republic." I take it you don't eat at either Burger King or Dairy Queen then. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: muon2 on July 27, 2012, 09:11:47 PM The big driver of this in the news was from Chicago. In Chicago there's a tradition of Aldermen using official privilege to block zoning and subdivision changes in their respective wards. On Wednesday, after hearing company president Cathy's comments the week before, Ald. Moreno said he was going to use that privilege (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story) to block a second Chick-Fil-A in Chicago. Mayor Emanuel jumped in to support the Alderman.
The debate now rages here in that this opens the door to blocking a franchise just because the corporate parent takes has a certain belief. Many think that the city could be seeing a first amendment lawsuit. Today I heard that the Alderman is now claiming he'll block it because of the increased traffic. That sounds like a legal walkback to a safer reason to reject. However, it flies in the face of comments that Chicagoans wouldn't patronize a business with those attitudes. If so, then there wouldn't be a traffic problem. The proposed location would be a franchise not owned by the corporation. The existing store in Chicago does not discriminate on either serving or hiring. Even some liberal lawyers in the state have sounded an alarm since this type of action can cut both ways. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Vosem on July 27, 2012, 09:17:34 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Dude, the Nazis were a growing franchise in Germany in the 1930s. Political movements and businesses are different things, opebo. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Alcon on July 27, 2012, 09:41:45 PM Really disappointed to see so many people advocating for local governments to ban Chick-Fil-A. That said, I'd never eat there, because 1) I can't; 2) It looks gross; and, 3) I think their political position here is abhorrent.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Negusa Nagast 🚀 on July 27, 2012, 09:44:58 PM Blocking a proposed franchise from opening up is wrong if it's done purely on what the parent company or CEO believes in. Let them open; the consumers will punish them by making their expansion a loss if the backlash is strong enough.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Comrade Funk on July 27, 2012, 10:25:33 PM Billy Graham is an embarassment. I'll go to hell if I don't have to party with him up in heaven. Only squares go there.
I love this country, but this why I get so annoyed by it. This is somehow a major issue for politicians, and than idiot homophobes like the ones in GLP think it's cool to eat there now. What stupid people. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 28, 2012, 01:10:56 AM Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Miles on July 28, 2012, 01:17:55 AM The VP of Chick-fil-A's Public Relations department died suddenly yesterday. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/donald-a-perry-dead-chick-fil-a-vice-president-public-relations_n_1711438.html)
RIP, but to say the timing his death was bizarre would be a huge understatement. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on July 28, 2012, 01:21:24 AM Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place. Question to those who want to ban Chic-fil-A (if any are actually here)-should I be punished for not supporting gay marriage? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Alcon on July 28, 2012, 01:23:06 AM Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place. Totally agreed. Gay marriage is going to happen because the argument for it is better, and the argument wasn't shut down back when gay marriage was a marginal social/political position. Institutional suppression is the enemy of good social change, so this shtick really disappoints me. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Badger on July 28, 2012, 01:25:52 AM Does Chik-Fil-A actually practice anti-gay discrimination (either as official policy as Cracker Barrel has for years, or unofficially to a notable degre worse than other corporations)?
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on July 28, 2012, 01:26:48 AM Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place. Totally agreed. Gay marriage is going to happen because the argument for it is better, and the argument wasn't shut down back when gay marriage was a marginal social/political position. Institutional suppression is the enemy of good social change, so this shtick really disappoints me. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 28, 2012, 01:31:57 AM Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place. This would be the most reasonable response. Official condemnations are nice, but not to the point of overstepping one's authority. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Alcon on July 28, 2012, 01:32:32 AM Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place. Totally agreed. Gay marriage is going to happen because the argument for it is better, and the argument wasn't shut down back when gay marriage was a marginal social/political position. Institutional suppression is the enemy of good social change, so this shtick really disappoints me. I'm not sure how to feel about this...you equate the harm of enforcing ideological projects over choice via state power, and then say you oppose gay marriage because of your personal religious views...how can you entertain the belief that one is "evil" and then outwardly practice the other? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on July 28, 2012, 01:36:54 AM Does Chik-Fil-A actually practice anti-gay discrimination (either as official policy as Cracker Barrel has for years, or unofficially to a notable degre worse than other corporations)? Some ACLU press release had a good point, when they noted that if a business can be blocked from opening for opposing gay marriage, then one could also be blocked for supporting gay marriage. So yeah kind of a worrying precedent. Just organize boycotts and pickets of the place. Totally agreed. Gay marriage is going to happen because the argument for it is better, and the argument wasn't shut down back when gay marriage was a marginal social/political position. Institutional suppression is the enemy of good social change, so this shtick really disappoints me. I'm not sure how to feel about this...you equate the harm of enforcing ideological projects over choice via state power, and then say you oppose gay marriage because of your personal religious views...how can you entertain the belief that one is "evil" and then outwardly practice the other? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Alcon on July 28, 2012, 01:44:51 AM I oppose gay marriage, but I have no more of a right to force my views on gays than they do on me. The Mayor of Boston does not have the right (legally, as well as theoretically) to ban Chic-fil-A, and I don't have a right to ban gay marriage. Except you are opposing an otherwise rational state policy (sorry, but there's just no good argument there) based on your own personal religious views -- presumably because you think it's immoral to contribute state approval of a practice you personally consider immoral. You do realize that's not particularly far off from what you're calling "evil"? I realize that, in one case, it's the state refusing to allow a private business based on personal ideology; in another case, it's the state refusing to engage in an otherwise rational social policy because of personal ideology. That's a distinction. It's enough of one that one is "evil" to you and the other is a political view you actively hold? I hope I'm being clear. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Sbane on July 28, 2012, 04:18:08 AM This thread is making me crave Chick-fil-A.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Alcon on July 28, 2012, 04:50:02 AM Don't bother with EAT MOR CHIKIN. Proxy IP; he'll be gone soon.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Brittain33 on July 28, 2012, 08:58:32 AM Does Chik-Fil-A actually practice anti-gay discrimination (either as official policy as Cracker Barrel has for years, or unofficially to a notable degre worse than other corporations)? Discrimination against gays in hiring is completely legal in about 30 states, and they overlap heavily with states where CfA is based. I'd think even in a state like Mass. a lawsuit based on discrimination in a fast food joint would never get off the ground--no one would waste their time trying to build a case. That said, unlike Cracker Barrel in the 90s, I've never heard of CfA discriminating. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Link on July 28, 2012, 12:49:06 PM Chick'fila is a growing franchise that creates jobs. How amazing that some radicals would try to bash a good business. Chick-fil-A is a grease soaked sodium fest that is contributing to our health care crisis. How amazing that reactionaries ignore a problem that is killing the majority of Americans (being overweight or obese) but have the time to hate on a tiny minority of the population. If the CEO of Chick-fil-A wasn't a death merchant his comments would only be moderately disgusting. Considering the methods he uses to line his pockets, him and the rest of the delusional right need to shut the f--- up. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Redalgo on July 28, 2012, 01:08:52 PM Maybe I'm missing something important here, but this really seems to be a silly, trivial non-issue.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Link on July 28, 2012, 01:30:21 PM Maybe I'm missing something important here, but this really seems to be a silly, trivial non-issue. Well what do you mean by "this?" Do you mean the CEO of a large highly visible corporation insulting a bunch of complete strangers for no reason or the fact that some people take issue with that kind of behavior? I would characterize the CEOs behavior as "silly." I wouldn't call it trivial or a non-issue... but I'm not a bigot so... Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Redalgo on July 28, 2012, 01:51:06 PM Well what do you mean by "this?" Do you mean the CEO of a large highly visible corporation insulting a bunch of complete strangers for no reason or the fact that some people take issue with that kind of behavior? I would characterize the CEOs behavior as "silly." I wouldn't call it trivial or a non-issue... but I'm not a bigot so... Yes, that is exactly what I meant. A CEO is not the physical embodiment of the firm over which they preside, the opinions of a CEO are not necessarily relevant to the quality of goods and services rendered to consumers, and if the company is not discriminating against people on the ground of sexual orientation in the workplace, that CEO is just another windbag among tens of thousands of others who I am completely disinterested in lending my attention to for more than a couple of minutes before moving on. He has a right to his opinions just like anyone else, and even though I am a strong supporter of LGBT rights and find the bloke's views disgusting, I am not going to call him nasty names or assume he is a horrible person. I will not knowingly buy anything from his firm to avoid a cut of my money going into social causes I strongly disagree with, but banning the fast-food joints from towns is ridiculous, punishes workers far more than it does their CEO, and responding to hate and bigotry with more hate and bigotry is not going to accomplish anything constructive. Likewise, I do not think it is a big deal whether the CEOs of other firms actively support stronger LGBT rights - though associating ones company with ideas I agree with is liable to influence my behaviors of consumption in a more positive way. i.e. This issue can be personally important but socially just seems like a brief flash in the PC pan. I try to love and accept everybody - even if they make bad decisions. Is there much else to say? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Stranger in a strange land on July 28, 2012, 04:01:41 PM While I obviously vehemently disagree with Chick-fil-A's position on this issue, and while I have an even more serious problem with corporations trying to engage in social engineering like this, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to tell a business to get out of town because of it's founder's philosophy or political beliefs. That being said, I won't be eating at Chick-fil-A on August 1, or any other day for that matter, but only because the food it serves is an unhealthy abomination.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on July 28, 2012, 04:55:35 PM Does Chik-Fil-A actually practice anti-gay discrimination...? Nope, not at all. The "problem" with Chick-fil-A is NOT it's actions, but the religious beliefs of the CEO...and for those religious beliefs the mayors of Chicago and Boston are trying to get Chik-fil-A run out of town. Actually, yes, the problem is Chik-fil-A's actions. It is not really important that the owner and board of Chik-fil-A is staunchly opposed to gay marriage. What is important is that Chik-fil-A donates a large amount of its profits to groups aimed at keeping gay marriage illegal, and continuing the nightmare of discrimination us gays have to suffer each and every day because 51% of the country thinks it's "icky." This is little different, in my mind, from boycotting South Africa in the 1980s to show opposition to Apartheid. It may be a moral issue to you, but damnit, it's a moral issue to us too. Denying gays their rights is immoral. And increasingly, the public as a whole is coming to believe this. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: RI on July 28, 2012, 04:59:22 PM Corporations support things you don't agree with all the time; it's like people have different beliefs or something. If you actually boycotted every company who did something you didn't like, you'd have to make everything yourself.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: afleitch on July 28, 2012, 05:20:16 PM I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: RI on July 28, 2012, 05:40:16 PM I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities. A boycott against a corporation as large as Chick-fil-A has never been successful and certainly won't start now. It's about as effectual as spreading that Kony video. If it makes you feel good about yourself, whatever, but that's about all it would do. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: rwoy on July 28, 2012, 05:43:36 PM I'm sorry but how exactly is this a "debate". I think it is pretty simple. Chick-fil-A's owner is perfectly within his rights to express his opinion and donate to whatever he wants to donate to. Similarly, people who disagree with him are perfectly within their rights to inform others of his opinion and to discourage them from eating at his restaurants. Similarly, the KKK has the right to express their opinions, to start up a restaurant chain, and to have people protest them.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: opebo on July 28, 2012, 05:56:34 PM Corporations support things you don't agree with all the time; it's like people have different beliefs or something. If you actually boycotted every company who did something you didn't like, you'd have to make everything yourself. This is another good argument against capitalism - instead of having society controlled by these unaccountable baronies, why not have those functions performed by the State, accountable at the ballot box, etc. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Eraserhead on July 28, 2012, 06:13:57 PM I had no idea what a Chick-fil-a was until this outrage started.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 28, 2012, 09:39:23 PM I had no idea what a Chick-fil-a was until this outrage started. Really? I guess it's more of a Southern thing. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: muon2 on July 28, 2012, 11:00:56 PM I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities. This is sensible, but what Chicago is doing is quite different. If a person has an offensive position and another person disagrees a boycott is an acceptable means of protest against their organization. If a person has an offensive position and government official chooses to discriminate against their organization on a neutral matter like zoning or subdivision that is not an acceptable form of protest. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 29, 2012, 02:16:48 AM I had no idea what a Chick-fil-a was until this outrage started. As noted in the articles about it tends to be more of a "red state" (incorrect color of course, blue by the correct Atlas color scheme) thing, the only one I've ever seen is the one at my old university's food court. The only two in the Twin Cities appear to be in food courts at the University of Minnesota and the airport, so yeah outside the south they just seem to appear in food courts. I did eat at it at my university because at the time I wasn't aware of who owned it and what they supported, but their nuggets have this really weird aftertaste and the food in general has a way of making you feel gross afterwards. Probably better to avoid it anyway. I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities. This is sensible, but what Chicago is doing is quite different. If a person has an offensive position and another person disagrees a boycott is an acceptable means of protest against their organization. If a person has an offensive position and government official chooses to discriminate against their organization on a neutral matter like zoning or subdivision that is not an acceptable form of protest. That's kind of how I feel, I mean what if some mayor in the south screaming about "defending traditional marriage" decided to try to block the opening of an Apple Store because of Apple's position on this? The mayor publicizing the company's CEO's position and fundings and calling for a boycott is also an effective way of shaming and hurting the company. Trying to block them from opening then lets them play the victim card and drum up sympathy. This is now doubt winning Chik-fil-a far more business in the south that would equal far more money than just a new location in Boston and Chicago would. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: opebo on July 29, 2012, 04:39:39 AM I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities. This is sensible, but what Chicago is doing is quite different. If a person has an offensive position and another person disagrees a boycott is an acceptable means of protest against their organization. If a person has an offensive position and government official chooses to discriminate against their organization on a neutral matter like zoning or subdivision that is not an acceptable form of protest. Dude, its not 'protest', it is the democratic process. The people, through their elected representatives, don't want him to sell his chicken in their community. This is precisely the converse of the fashion by which the rich have a voice (through their money, paying for media), while the poor are silenced. Here, the Commons act to counter the overweaning power of a money-elite. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: minionofmidas on July 29, 2012, 07:04:33 AM If I boycotted every business where I disagreed with the political views of those in charge, I might have to kill for my own food. I really don't care what businesses think, short of "Hey, let's overthrow the republic." Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Torie on July 29, 2012, 09:42:36 AM The franchise should be opened, and I should boycott it. KISS.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: rwoy on July 29, 2012, 10:10:58 AM Fact: college students are morons. Just saw this and I've gotta comment. College students are like people on the internet ... they think they know more than they really do but odds are they are better informed than others. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: rwoy on July 29, 2012, 10:13:20 AM Similar to the "Chick-fil-A" story, here's one about a Mississippi church exercising their first amendment rights to be racist ...
http://news.yahoo.com/mississppi-church-refuses-marry-black-couple-205218322--abc-news-topstories.html Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Yelnoc on July 29, 2012, 10:56:58 AM Relevant Personal Anecdote:
Today at Sunday school my regular teacher as MIA, so we got lumped into a group with sophomores. And lo and behold, one of the men who teach the class is a corporate employee at Chick-fil-A. The topic was 'leadership' but he got off on a tangent about his job and mentioned the Chick-fil--A president, whose name escapes me. He said "that interview which stirred up so much controversy, was given by [The President] on his back porch after mowing the lawn to a baptist organization. He didn't have his Monday-Friday business mentality on when he said those things, you know, he was just speaking for himself. But then the AJC and then national media latched onto the story and..." and then he went on and on about how the President is "strong in his walk withe The Lord." Some pipsqueak behind me said "The bible says Homosexuality is an abomination, you know" and I just buried my head in my hands. God, how I hate the Baptist Church. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on July 29, 2012, 03:04:48 PM God, how I hate the Baptist Church. I went back to Church today, for the first time in a few months, and was actually invited to join (despite that fact that I don't even live in the same county) and I must say, all opposition to gay marriage I had just yesterday was and is wrong. The point that won me over: Quote Every person is made in God's image, and thus, homosexuality is perfectly fine. I wish other Christian churches would take up the old Baptist beliefs that are still practiced at my church. This still does not change my opinion on the Chick-fil-A debacle, of course. I still think they have a right to their opinion, just as I have mine (which is now the opposite of theirs), and that the outrage is uncalled for. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 29, 2012, 04:37:15 PM SOUTHERN Baptists are the problem. Lots of other Baptists are liberal.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: afleitch on July 29, 2012, 04:41:01 PM I went back to Church today, for the first time in a few months, and was actually invited to join (despite that fact that I don't even live in the same county) and I must say, all opposition to gay marriage I had just yesterday was and is wrong. The point that won me over: Quote Every person is made in God's image, and thus, homosexuality is perfectly fine. :) Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 29, 2012, 04:49:03 PM God, how I hate the Baptist Church. I went back to Church today, for the first time in a few months, and was actually invited to join (despite that fact that I don't even live in the same county) and I must say, all opposition to gay marriage I had just yesterday was and is wrong. The point that won me over: Quote Every person is made in God's image, and thus, homosexuality is perfectly fine. I wish other Christian churches would take up the old Baptist beliefs that are still practiced at my church. This still does not change my opinion on the Chick-fil-A debacle, of course. I still think they have a right to their opinion, just as I have mine (which is now the opposite of theirs), and that the outrage is uncalled for. () Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 29, 2012, 04:52:19 PM BTW since Yelnoc has been fairly defensive of Catholicism in the past (inexplicably, since he obviously isn't Catholic), he might want to familiarize himself with this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Nienstedt): http://www.citypages.com/2012-06-20/news/archbishop-john-nienstedt-crusades-against-gay-marriage
He's probably even worse than the Chik-fil-A president. Oh, and congratulations Sanchez! Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 29, 2012, 06:33:23 PM I think boycotting a company that donates millions to organisations that funds 'ex-gay' shams is a sensible thing to do if you have 21st Century sensibilities. This is sensible, but what Chicago is doing is quite different. If a person has an offensive position and another person disagrees a boycott is an acceptable means of protest against their organization. If a person has an offensive position and government official chooses to discriminate against their organization on a neutral matter like zoning or subdivision that is not an acceptable form of protest. Dude, its not 'protest', it is the democratic process. The people, through their elected representatives, don't want him to sell his chicken in their community. This is precisely the converse of the fashion by which the rich have a voice (through their money, paying for media), while the poor are silenced. Here, the Commons act to counter the overweaning power of a money-elite. One thing I like about you opebo is you don't even bother with consistency. After all, I presume you don't intend to stop complaining about your worries that the Thai people, through their elected representatives, will decide they no longer want to sell their girls in their communities. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Yelnoc on July 29, 2012, 07:09:34 PM BTW since Yelnoc has been fairly defensive of Catholicism in the past (inexplicably, since he obviously isn't Catholic), he might want to familiarize himself with this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Nienstedt): http://www.citypages.com/2012-06-20/news/archbishop-john-nienstedt-crusades-against-gay-marriage He's probably even worse than the Chik-fil-A president. Oh, and congratulations Sanchez! ;) Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: muon2 on July 30, 2012, 08:30:33 AM Mayor Emanuel does a partial backtrack (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Rahm-Chick-fil-A-Chicago-164043916.html).
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: MaxQue on July 30, 2012, 09:43:32 AM BTW since Yelnoc has been fairly defensive of Catholicism in the past (inexplicably, since he obviously isn't Catholic), he might want to familiarize himself with this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Nienstedt): http://www.citypages.com/2012-06-20/news/archbishop-john-nienstedt-crusades-against-gay-marriage He's probably even worse than the Chik-fil-A president. Again, the average Catholic is quite far of the teachings of the Church. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 30, 2012, 12:45:05 PM BTW since Yelnoc has been fairly defensive of Catholicism in the past (inexplicably, since he obviously isn't Catholic), he might want to familiarize himself with this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clayton_Nienstedt): http://www.citypages.com/2012-06-20/news/archbishop-john-nienstedt-crusades-against-gay-marriage He's probably even worse than the Chik-fil-A president. Again, the average Catholic is quite far of the teachings of the Church. That might be true, but I fail to see how that exonerates the church itself (note that he said he hates "the Baptist church", which is a far looser affiliation than the Catholic church), or why people with such extreme disagreement continue to be that way (and in many cases are still giving them money too.) You can just leave the church, it's not hard. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: tmthforu94 on July 30, 2012, 01:22:25 PM Having attending a camp sponsored by Chick-Fil-A (and being a roomate with a Cathy!), I'm probably one of the biggest Chick-Fil-A supporters out there. Not necessarily because of their strong moral convictions, but because they have the best chicken sandwich in America.
I'm hungry now. Guess where I'm going??? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Joe Republic on July 30, 2012, 01:31:44 PM Speaking of "strong moral convictions", Chick-Fil-A's next crusade is to ensure its female employees have the opportunity to spend more time raising their families. Just like Jesus would have wanted.
http://wonkette.com/479516/chick-fil-a-now-firing-women-so-they-can-stay-home-and-make-babies-for-jesus () What a fantastic company! Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: afleitch on July 30, 2012, 01:37:59 PM Having attending a camp sponsored by Chick-Fil-A (and being a roomate with a Cathy!), I'm probably one of the biggest Chick-Fil-A supporters out there. Not necessarily because of their strong moral convictions, but because they have the best chicken sandwich in America. I'm hungry now. Guess where I'm going??? Sad :( Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 30, 2012, 05:02:08 PM Romney probably would eat at Chick-fil-A. After all, Mr. Etch-a-Sketch should like Waffle Fries.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Stranger in a strange land on July 30, 2012, 06:25:25 PM Romney probably would eat at Chick-fil-A. After all, Mr. Etch-a-Sketch should like Waffle Fries. I expect him to be questioned on this issue when he returns from his overseas trip, and to come up with an half-baked response that dodges the question, confuses the issue, and fails to take a side. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 30, 2012, 06:28:27 PM Is 'chick-fi-a' a sort of poultry-based polyfilla?
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: opebo on July 30, 2012, 06:42:59 PM One thing I like about you opebo is you don't even bother with consistency. After all, I presume you don't intend to stop complaining about your worries that the Thai people, through their elected representatives, will decide they no longer want to sell their girls in their communities. No, I will not. Obviously it is an issue of personal freedom and feminism that they be free from interference with their provision of services (and their winning of handsome incomes!) Another way of putting this is - democracy is obviously better than plutocracy, but personal physical freedom (to take drugs for example, or have sex with whomever you like) is more important than democracy. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 30, 2012, 07:12:30 PM One thing I like about you opebo is you don't even bother with consistency. After all, I presume you don't intend to stop complaining about your worries that the Thai people, through their elected representatives, will decide they no longer want to sell their girls in their communities. No, I will not. Obviously it is an issue of personal freedom and feminism that they be free from interference with their provision of services (and their winning of handsome incomes!) Another way of putting this is - democracy is obviously better than plutocracy, but personal physical freedom (to take drugs for example, or have sex with whomever you like) is more important than democracy. Yes and no. For somebody who accepts elements of the Marxist critique, you've always been remarkably (willfully?) oblivious as to the circumstances under which many women come to prostitution. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on July 31, 2012, 02:51:11 PM http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Hidden-Chick-fil-A-Billionaires-Hatched-as-3750621.php
Chick-fil-A generated $492 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $1.12 billion in 2011, the PrivCo report said. It added that the company’s 44 percent Ebitda margin was “virtually unheard of in the restaurant industry.” The chain has the biggest sales per unit in fast-food, according to QSR Magazine. In 2011, the company generated gross sales of $2.9 million per location, outpacing the average unit sales of runner-up McDonald’s Corp. by $400,000, the magazine said in its August 2012 issue. These men are quite accomplished and living the American Dream. Kudos. America can certainly use more job creators and less whiners. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 31, 2012, 02:59:50 PM http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Hidden-Chick-fil-A-Billionaires-Hatched-as-3750621.php Chick-fil-A generated $492 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $1.12 billion in 2011, the PrivCo report said. It added that the company’s 44 percent Ebitda margin was “virtually unheard of in the restaurant industry.” The chain has the biggest sales per unit in fast-food, according to QSR Magazine. In 2011, the company generated gross sales of $2.9 million per location, outpacing the average unit sales of runner-up McDonald’s Corp. by $400,000, the magazine said in its August 2012 issue. These men are quite accomplished and living the American Dream. Kudos. America can certainly use more job creators and less whiners. To some people there are things more important than accumulation of profit. I don't understand what you think this proves. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: fezzyfestoon on July 31, 2012, 05:39:34 PM After giving this bizarre turn of events some time to percolate, this is my list of things in order of how much they bother me:
1. That a f(Inks)ing fast food crap hole is taking a political stance that instantaneously puts all of their customers and employees in the uncomfortable, unfair, and unnecessary position of defending their eating habits with regards to politics. 2. That conservatives are ignorantly rallying behind Chick-fil-A as though there's some sort of moral power to this ridiculous action. 3. That there's more of a backlash against those that oppose Chick-fil-A than support it (in true conservative victimization tradition) by way of an argument for "free speech" 4. That gay marriage is still a political issue. This is so utterly humiliating for American culture on so many levels, yet I find it ultimately appropriate. Ideally, politics and fast food would be about as far removed from each other as you could expect two entities to be. Upon a little critical thinking it's disappointingly apropos. Americans approach food and politics in much the same way. They believe only the loudest voices and consequently consume their product with vigor. Quality be damned, if you somehow manage to get Americans talking about your version junk, they'll eventually take a hard-line stance on it and you'll be set for life with the half that take your side. It doesn't matter what it is, if there's a division possible we'll find it and dig in as deep as possible regardless of our actual tastes for it. Because we don't have tastes beyond what we're told we love or hate. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on July 31, 2012, 06:27:55 PM http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Hidden-Chick-fil-A-Billionaires-Hatched-as-3750621.php Chick-fil-A generated $492 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $1.12 billion in 2011, the PrivCo report said. It added that the company’s 44 percent Ebitda margin was “virtually unheard of in the restaurant industry.” The chain has the biggest sales per unit in fast-food, according to QSR Magazine. In 2011, the company generated gross sales of $2.9 million per location, outpacing the average unit sales of runner-up McDonald’s Corp. by $400,000, the magazine said in its August 2012 issue. These men are quite accomplished and living the American Dream. Kudos. America can certainly use more job creators and less whiners. To some people there are things more important than accumulation of profit. I don't understand what you think this proves. I merely make some observations of the successful American business of American values; namely, success in the free market. I suspect they will use this amusing course of events to further their business. Incidentally, the man who said this was not subject to exile from Chicago. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on July 31, 2012, 06:51:52 PM You appear to be restricting American values to the definition 'success in the free market'. I don't think that's all that American values are. I think they're other things as well.
Bear in mind that the particular chain of 'restaurants' we're talking about operates primarily (although not exclusively) in geographical areas and along cultural lines where these sorts of shenanigans help them. Others don't. I'm well aware of President Obama's relative mendacity on this particular subject, but I don't recall him doubling down on 'God's judgment on our nation' or donating massive amounts of money to stridently anti-gay organizations and causes. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: All Along The Watchtower on July 31, 2012, 07:03:43 PM You appear to be restricting American values to the definition 'success in the free market'. I don't think that's all that American values are. I think they're other things as well. Like being homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist, and generally bigoted against the "Other"? Oh, sorry. Not the values you're looking for. :P Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 31, 2012, 10:27:22 PM You appear to be restricting American values to the definition 'success in the free market'. I don't think that's all that American values are. I think they're other things as well. Bear in mind that the particular chain of 'restaurants' we're talking about operates primarily (although not exclusively) in geographical areas and along cultural lines where these sorts of shenanigans help them. Others don't. Why the scare quotes around restaurants? Whatever you might think of the ownership's political opinions, Chick-fil-A is most definitely a restaurant chain, albeit one that has always operated with a conservative Christian viewpoint, which is most emblematic in its refusal to be open on Sundays. [Not that they have absolutely no one there on such days. When I drove by one two days ago, the parking lot was getting a power-washing while the restaurant was closed for the Christian sabbath.] Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on July 31, 2012, 11:28:20 PM http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Hidden-Chick-fil-A-Billionaires-Hatched-as-3750621.php Chick-fil-A generated $492 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization on revenue of $1.12 billion in 2011, the PrivCo report said. It added that the company’s 44 percent Ebitda margin was “virtually unheard of in the restaurant industry.” The chain has the biggest sales per unit in fast-food, according to QSR Magazine. In 2011, the company generated gross sales of $2.9 million per location, outpacing the average unit sales of runner-up McDonald’s Corp. by $400,000, the magazine said in its August 2012 issue. These men are quite accomplished and living the American Dream. Kudos. America can certainly use more job creators and less whiners. To some people there are things more important than accumulation of profit. I don't understand what you think this proves. Don't even try to debate with this person, he seems to be a deluded child. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: SPC on July 31, 2012, 11:32:30 PM Having eaten at Chick-fil-A once again this afternoon, I must say that their chicken sandwiches are delicious (especially with honey roasted BBQ sauce). I don't plan on patronizing tomorrow for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: minionofmidas on August 01, 2012, 03:48:26 AM You appear to be restricting American values to the definition 'success in the free market'. I don't think that's all that American values are. I think they're other things as well. Bear in mind that the particular chain of 'restaurants' we're talking about operates primarily (although not exclusively) in geographical areas and along cultural lines where these sorts of shenanigans help them. Others don't. Why the scare quotes around restaurants? Whatever you might think of the ownership's political opinions, Chick-fil-A is most definitely a restaurant chain, albeit one that has always operated with a conservative Christian viewpoint, which is most emblematic in its refusal to be open on Sundays. [Not that they have absolutely no one there on such days. When I drove by one two days ago, the parking lot was getting a power-washing while the restaurant was closed for the Christian sabbath.] Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: opebo on August 01, 2012, 08:22:07 AM Yes and no. For somebody who accepts elements of the Marxist critique, you've always been remarkably (willfully?) oblivious as to the circumstances under which many women come to prostitution. Yeah, because that's mostly a fiction concocted by prudes. They don't come to it any differently than anyone comes to any toil. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 05:25:02 PM You appear to be restricting American values to the definition 'success in the free market'. I don't think that's all that American values are. I think they're other things as well. Bear in mind that the particular chain of 'restaurants' we're talking about operates primarily (although not exclusively) in geographical areas and along cultural lines where these sorts of shenanigans help them. Others don't. I'm well aware of President Obama's relative mendacity on this particular subject, but I don't recall him doubling down on 'God's judgment on our nation' or donating massive amounts of money to stridently anti-gay organizations and causes. That's true, I suppose he only singled down on it. Incidentally, Obama's reprieve seems to have extended to others such as Louis Farrakhan and Bill Clinton. I will try to wrap my head around this emanuel logic. Incidentally, Chick Fil A day has been a rousing success! Lines are going out the door and into the street. Certainly if there is another American value to be championed, it is freedom of expression and speech by the hundreds of thousands of Americans who went there today to show their support for Mr. Huckabee and Mr. Cathy. http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/usa-gaymarriage-chickfila-idINL2E8J19AM20120801 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-hundreds-flock-to-northridge-restaurant.html https://plus.google.com/107508786997767901955/posts/6xcRMmPVbao I suppose the so called tolerant left has placed millions of dollars in the pocketbooks of Mr. Cathy and the franchises. Even at the DC truck,lines were long. Turns out people like the 'hate' chicken. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 05:34:20 PM ()
Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 05:46:36 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. Hey, someone made up a graph on the internet and wished illness on others! You must be proud. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 05:51:25 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. Hey, someone made up a graph on the internet and wished illness on others! You must be proud. I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 06:18:42 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Donerail on August 01, 2012, 06:22:31 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Those are pictures of one day of groups of crazies who have come out of the woodwork because Huckabee told them to, not, say, a survey of perceptions of a corporation across a large swathe of America. For every crazy who dropped everything today to go buy hate chicken, there's at least 50 other Americans who didn't. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 06:33:19 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Photos? That's all you have? Meaningless. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers, though. Math teachers are bad, right? But really, even if the boycotts were meaningless, what does that say? I could put a huge swastika sign outside of a McDonalds, and people would still eat there. People tend to think with their stomachs, not with their values. And you don't have to drive around much to see that. () So the fact that there's a national 'Stuff Your Face' Day for means of political protest isn't very surprising. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 06:36:17 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Those are pictures of one day of groups of crazies who have come out of the woodwork because Huckabee told them to, not, say, a survey of perceptions of a corporation across a large swathe of America. For every crazy who dropped everything today to go buy hate chicken, there's at least 50 other Americans who didn't. And yet, despite random chumps of the internet making up whatever they want and whining like babies, Chick Fil a's financial metrics far exceed the competition. I like how reality works. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Joe Republic on August 01, 2012, 06:43:37 PM Guys, leave krazey alone. If people want to eat disgusting junk food and support appalling bigotry at the same time, that's their right. USA! USA! USA!
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 06:45:01 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Photos? That's all you have? Meaningless. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers, though. Math teachers are bad, right? But really, even if the boycotts were meaningless, what does that say? I could put a huge swastika sign outside of a McDonalds, and people would still eat there. People tend to think with their stomachs, not with their values. And you don't have to drive around much to see that. () So the fact that there's a national 'Stuff Your Face' Day for means of political protest isn't very surprising. No, I like numbers. I just laugh at how some think that such numbers particularly matter, especially given that Chick Fil A is not a national chain. They certainly have expressed no desire to go to, say, Connecticut, to my knowledge. Here are some numbers for you. http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2012-top-50-chart?sort=avg_sales&dir=asc Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 06:53:02 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Photos? That's all you have? Meaningless. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers, though. Math teachers are bad, right? But really, even if the boycotts were meaningless, what does that say? I could put a huge swastika sign outside of a McDonalds, and people would still eat there. People tend to think with their stomachs, not with their values. And you don't have to drive around much to see that. () So the fact that there's a national 'Stuff Your Face' Day for means of political protest isn't very surprising. No, I like numbers. I just laugh at how some think that such numbers particularly matter, especially given that Chick Fil A is not a national chain. They certainly have expressed no desire to go to, say, Connecticut, to my knowledge. Here are some numbers for you. http://www.qsrmagazine.com/reports/qsr50-2012-top-50-chart?sort=avg_sales&dir=asc I'm willing to bet that at least half those people didn't know what they stood for on this issue before that interview. That's why they've lost business as a result and had to have a bunch of teabagger talkshow trash bail them out. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 06:56:21 PM I'm willing to bet that at least half those people didn't know what they stood for on this issue before that interview. That's why they've lost business as a result and had to have a bunch of teabagger talkshow trash bail them out. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers. This is really fun for me watching you just make stuff up. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 06:58:46 PM I'm willing to bet that at least half those people didn't know what they stood for on this issue before that interview. That's why they've lost business as a result and had to have a bunch of teabagger talkshow trash bail them out. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers. This is really fun for me watching you just make stuff up. People don't like doing their research and would rather think with their stomachs. You don't need numbers to figure that out. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 01, 2012, 07:04:35 PM I'm willing to bet that at least half those people didn't know what they stood for on this issue before that interview. That's why they've lost business as a result and had to have a bunch of teabagger talkshow trash bail them out. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers. This is really fun for me watching you just make stuff up. People don't like doing their research and would rather think with their stomachs. You don't need numbers to figure that out. I agree with that. They've been a growing franchise for a decade by providing good service and a good price, and now, thanks to the oppressive left, have free publicity. I don't believe they got there by calling people names; I suspect they leave that to you. Of course, if people did the research, well, landslide majorities of the public has agreed with Chick Fil A in the jurisdictions in which they are located. I'm sorry you don't like those numbers either. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on August 01, 2012, 07:09:57 PM I've never liked when companies get involved in political debates. That being said, they have the right to do so, but they also have to be willing to take the heat if they do. If people want to boycott Chick-Fil-A for their stances on gay marriage, Chick-Fil-A should've seen that coming. But on the other hand, cities and people trying to block restaurants from opening based on that go too far.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: John Dibble on August 01, 2012, 07:41:01 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. Hey, someone made up a graph on the internet You know, saying that a graph is just made up when it clearly shows the source the graph came from without verifying whether the source is reputable or not is kind of dumb. In this case the source is a well known marketing research agency. http://www.brandindex.com/article/chick-fil-takes-hit-fast-food-eaters Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on August 01, 2012, 07:56:57 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. I'd be interested to see what's happened in the last week. Have the pro-CFA people made a difference or have they not really made a dent? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 07:59:42 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. I'd be interested to see what's happened in the last week. Have the pro-CFA people made a difference or have they not really made a dent? What do you mean? According to the graphic, they lost business. Also, for those who think it's exclusively anti-gay people that went to these shops today- () This was on Facebook. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: John Dibble on August 01, 2012, 08:14:14 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. I'd be interested to see what's happened in the last week. Have the pro-CFA people made a difference or have they not really made a dent? What do you mean? According to the graphic, they lost business. Actually the graph only shows public perception - it doesn't state anything about how much business they did. Their public perception could be down but business could be up if their supporters started going more frequently. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 08:21:34 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. I'd be interested to see what's happened in the last week. Have the pro-CFA people made a difference or have they not really made a dent? What do you mean? According to the graphic, they lost business. Actually the graph only shows public perception - it doesn't state anything about how much business they did. Their public perception could be down but business could be up if their supporters started going more frequently. Ah. Well, it seems that could have one of two effects- either their supporters will buy there more frequently or the negative public perception will drive away would-be customers. Conventional wisdom is that the latter will happen, but I guess it all depends. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on August 01, 2012, 08:27:28 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. I'd be interested to see what's happened in the last week. Have the pro-CFA people made a difference or have they not really made a dent? What do you mean? According to the graphic, they lost business. I mean, I want to see what's happened in the last week. That graph is a week old. It seems like the pro-CFA people lagged behind the anti-CFA people. And Dibble, is that graph an indicator of their impression or some sort of index of visits? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 01, 2012, 08:43:51 PM () Yup, business is booming! I wonder if there was a weird salmonella breakout recently. Boy, wouldn't that make headlines.. I'd be interested to see what's happened in the last week. Have the pro-CFA people made a difference or have they not really made a dent? What do you mean? According to the graphic, they lost business. I mean, I want to see what's happened in the last week. That graph is a week old. It seems like the pro-CFA people lagged behind the anti-CFA people. And Dibble, is that graph an indicator of their impression or some sort of index of visits? Oh, that I'm not sure about. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 01, 2012, 08:59:02 PM I don't recall actually wishing anything on someone, but hey, that's your own interpretation. Feel free to reject the graph, though. It's not the first time you've shot down statistics not in your favor. :) Oh I shall. Seeing is believing. I thank you for mobilizing the people. http://washingtonexaminer.com/45-photos-of-insanely-long-lines-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/article/2503792&rct=j&sa=X&ei=M7YZUOf7M7LF0AGM-ICAAw&ved=0CGUQ-AsoATAI&q=chick+fil+a&usg=AFQjCNFtfnr0xnXsn3zIjrOMXoA4Eg84Dg Photos? That's all you have? Meaningless. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers, though. Math teachers are bad, right? But really, even if the boycotts were meaningless, what does that say? I could put a huge swastika sign outside of a McDonalds, and people would still eat there. People tend to think with their stomachs, not with their values. And you don't have to drive around much to see that. () So the fact that there's a national 'Stuff Your Face' Day for means of political protest isn't very surprising. Since when did you start using clarence's image collection? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 01, 2012, 11:13:19 PM I'm willing to bet that at least half those people didn't know what they stood for on this issue before that interview. That's why they've lost business as a result and had to have a bunch of teabagger talkshow trash bail them out. I suppose I can understand why you don't like reading the numbers. This is really fun for me watching you just make stuff up. People don't like doing their research and would rather think with their stomachs. You don't need numbers to figure that out. I agree with that. They've been a growing franchise for a decade by providing good service and a good price, and now, thanks to the oppressive left, have free publicity. I don't believe they got there by calling people names; I suspect they leave that to you. Of course, if people did the research, well, landslide majorities of the public has agreed with Chick Fil A in the jurisdictions in which they are located. I'm sorry you don't like those numbers either. As always, you have a really weird definition of 'landslide' and a weirder inability to distinguish between past, present, and future, but that's not really what I'm interested in right now. I'm interested in what sense you mean the word 'service' in '[Chick-fil-A] provid[es] good service'. How exactly is the left being more 'oppressive' than the people supported and donated to by the good people at Chick-fil-A on this complex of issues? Are you really that offended by boycotts and disapprobation from public officials? Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Sbane on August 01, 2012, 11:23:37 PM Why is this thread 8 pages long?
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Vote UKIP! on August 01, 2012, 11:57:44 PM I ate at Chick-fil-A twice today: for breakfast and for dinner. For the latter, my family arrived at 8:50 and received our food at the end of the drive through at 10:15. The place was packed, and the lines were long. I don't believe any single restaurant chain has made the kind of profit they had made in a single day.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 01, 2012, 11:58:21 PM You know, we don't really have many Chick-fil-A joints in the Northeast, but we do have KFC, which, while similarly unhealthy, is politically a bit more...
...palatable. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on August 02, 2012, 01:40:32 AM I also saw on the local NBC News today the huge lines to go get Chick-fil-a today. How unbelievably uninformed. They aren't going to show their proud defense of free speech. They are going because of the issue at hand.
We are not against Chick-fil-a because of the owners stance on gay marriage. We don't like them because they donate to HATE GROUPS. End of story. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Phony Moderate on August 02, 2012, 04:36:28 AM I believe in their right to free speech, and I also believe in the rights of city governments to deny them planning permission.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: John Dibble on August 02, 2012, 08:11:07 AM Ah. Well, it seems that could have one of two effects- either their supporters will buy there more frequently or the negative public perception will drive away would-be customers. Conventional wisdom is that the latter will happen, but I guess it all depends. If I had to guess they might get a temporary spike from the supporters, but they'll likely go back to normal habits after a while. I think the people against them are more likely to be able to sustain a long term change in behavior. And Dibble, is that graph an indicator of their impression or some sort of index of visits? The methodology is explained in this article: http://www.brandindex.com/article/chick-fil-takes-hit-fast-food-eaters Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Joe Republic on August 02, 2012, 08:45:40 AM Ah. Well, it seems that could have one of two effects- either their supporters will buy there more frequently or the negative public perception will drive away would-be customers. Conventional wisdom is that the latter will happen, but I guess it all depends. If I had to guess they might get a temporary spike from the supporters, but they'll likely go back to normal habits after a while. For these types of people, eating disgusting junk food is a 'normal habit'. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: John Dibble on August 02, 2012, 09:46:44 AM Ah. Well, it seems that could have one of two effects- either their supporters will buy there more frequently or the negative public perception will drive away would-be customers. Conventional wisdom is that the latter will happen, but I guess it all depends. If I had to guess they might get a temporary spike from the supporters, but they'll likely go back to normal habits after a while. For these types of people, eating disgusting junk food is a 'normal habit'. Yes, but most of them probably don't eat at the same fast food joint every day. Having worked at a Burger King I know there are those who do, but most people who currently don't eat at Chick-fil-A aren't likely to make it a permanent habit just because they support their political stance. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 02, 2012, 09:50:22 AM Care to guess how many millions of dollars in advertising these guys got for free? Countless.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Redalgo on August 02, 2012, 12:11:46 PM Grumps has a decent point - I didn't even realize Chick-fil-A existed until this issue came up. xD
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 02, 2012, 12:21:34 PM Grumps has a decent point - I didn't even realize Chick-fil-A existed until this issue came up. xD I doubt he meant to cause this fussaria, but I bet he's smiling all the way to the bank, at least for now. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: opebo on August 02, 2012, 12:43:52 PM Lets not forget that while chain-food is junk, fried chicken is not junk.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Brittain33 on August 02, 2012, 01:58:44 PM http://storify.com/homophobes/top-50-homophobic-chick-fil-a-tweets
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 02, 2012, 02:36:42 PM http://storify.com/homophobes/top-50-homophobic-chick-fil-a-tweets That's real? Damn, man, people are f[inks]ed up. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on August 02, 2012, 03:10:18 PM http://storify.com/homophobes/top-50-homophobic-chick-fil-a-tweets That's real? Damn, man, people are f[inks]ed up. Here ya go, conservatives. Your crowd. Lovely people. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on August 02, 2012, 03:30:21 PM NOTICE: I've long since lost interest in seeing what goes on in this thread. However, I feel obligated to tell you of the name change in light of the fact that this thread has gone on for longer than expected and it is apparently the only one of its kind. It is now the Official Chick-fil-A Thread.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Likely Voter on August 02, 2012, 03:33:49 PM This thing has shown that Mike Huckabee still has a lot of pull in the party. I still think he would have walked away with the nomination of he ran, but he seems happier making $ at Fox.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: FEMA Camp Administrator on August 02, 2012, 03:53:31 PM This thing has shown that Mike Huckabee still has a lot of pull in the party. I still think he would have walked away with the nomination of he ran, but he seems happier making $ at Fox. Sadly so. A rerun of Mitt vs. Huck in the primaries would've been quite entertaining, and possibly yielded a better result than what the party is currently facing. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on August 02, 2012, 04:20:09 PM Huckabee would've swept the map.
Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Torie on August 02, 2012, 04:55:10 PM http://storify.com/homophobes/top-50-homophobic-chick-fil-a-tweets Faceless cowards, even last f'ing one of them. A bunch of buffed up gays should hit the joint and hold hands together, and maybe kiss a few times for emphasis. They should select as their fare whatever is the loss leader offering of the day while doing it. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Holmes on August 02, 2012, 05:02:47 PM They're not faceless; their faces are literally their profile pictures. :) Just little things that make me hate the world more, but hey, as a gay man, you have a lot to hate. I try not to let it get to me.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: John Dibble on August 02, 2012, 05:39:28 PM Apparently the appreciation day saw record sales for Chick-fil-A - a boon for them to be certain, but time will tell how long term sales are affected.
Meanwhile, at KFC... (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e86050c415/kfc-loves-gays-with-john-goodman) Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 02, 2012, 06:22:27 PM A bunch of buffed up gays should hit the joint and hold hands together, and maybe kiss a few times for emphasis. They should select as their fare whatever is the loss leader offering of the day while doing it. Chick-fil-A doesn't typically engage in loss leader marketing. The closest they come to that is with the coupons in their annual cow calendar, which you have to buy. If gays want to have a really weird Chick-fil-A protest, they need to camp out at one of the new store openings with rainbow tents and get the coupons for lots of free food given out to the first 100 customers. Having 100 obvious LGBTers get the vouchers would definitely raise a few eyebrows. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 02, 2012, 06:45:36 PM Went to Chick-Fil-A today and it was PACKED. It was awesome.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on August 02, 2012, 10:23:02 PM Went to Chick-Fil-A today and it was PACKED. It was awesome. Same. It was also delicious. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Comrade Funk on August 02, 2012, 10:35:53 PM I'm embarassed as an American that people are standing in line for over an hour, to receive a synthetic god awful chicken sandwich for the name of "free speech" (homophobia for 95% of the customers).
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Phony Moderate on August 02, 2012, 11:07:39 PM Actively helping a business by buying it's products is really not the same thing as supporting it's right to free speech.
Let's say you have a neighbor who runs a lemonade stand. You have never bought any lemonade from the stand. One day, this neighbor decides to go on a protest against high taxes. He is arrested, despite not having done anything wrong other than voicing his opinion. You may not agree with him, but you believe that he has the right to voice that opinion. So you decide to buy some lemonade from him. Doesn't make much sense does it? I realise that the libertarians (and perhaps even liberals?) who participate in "Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day" have good intentions, but there are more effective ways to support free speech, such as writing to your representative or local government, or perhaps running for office. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Miles on August 02, 2012, 11:29:02 PM For the past two days, I had lunch at KFC; I actually never was big on Chick-fil-A, the recent controversies nonwithstanding....The chicken at KFC is better too, IMO.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 03, 2012, 05:12:01 AM If only all these "devout" Christians could gather together to work at a food bank or something, like Jesus actually told them to do. But I guess it's easier to buy disgusting chicken as a way of sticking it to the f****ts instead.
On the bright side, these fat old bigots stuffing themselves full of greasy fried "food" should speed up their deaths so that we can finally live in a country not ruled by hatred and close-mindedness. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Joe Republic on August 03, 2012, 05:24:43 AM ()
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 03, 2012, 05:52:42 AM Went to Chick-Fil-A today and it was PACKED. It was awesome. Have you given business to the companies who support gay marriage and gay rights but have been boycotted by the religious right in solidarity with their freedom of speech? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Phony Moderate on August 03, 2012, 06:21:25 AM Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Brittain33 on August 03, 2012, 08:32:52 AM Am I the only gay who doesn't care that much about the outcome here? It's just like those referenda, only it's purely symbolic. Of course loads of people oppose SSM and will stand for companies that agree with them. Of course CfA isn't going to budge in this issue. Let them have their Chik-Fil-A party and photo ops. This is one Dem issue where I know we're winning in the long term.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: 7,052,770 on August 03, 2012, 09:04:45 AM The sandwiches are pretty good, but waiting in line more than 5 minutes for one is idiotic...
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 03, 2012, 09:07:12 AM If only all these "devout" Christians could gather together to work at a food bank or something, like Jesus actually told them to do. But I guess it's easier to buy disgusting chicken as a way of sticking it to the f****ts instead. Lief, my good friend, with all due respect, that's the 1000th time I've seen that statement.....mostly on FB and not by you. It' s old......and it's not even good. JMO. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 03, 2012, 09:45:58 AM http://storify.com/homophobes/top-50-homophobic-chick-fil-a-tweets Faceless cowards, even last f'ing one of them. A bunch of buffed up gays should hit the joint and hold hands together, and maybe kiss a few times for emphasis. They should select as their fare whatever is the loss leader offering of the day while doing it. If you actually read the Twitter feeds of some of those people, you'd realize that some of them are actually gay and were tweeting sarcastically. Of course, sarcasm doesn't come across if you pick and choose for a Storify roundup based on a simple twitter search for the words "fag" and "chick-fil-a." Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Phony Moderate on August 03, 2012, 10:12:50 AM And all of those people use Twitter, so they actually support gay rights.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 03, 2012, 11:10:29 AM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it.
This coming from a fervent gay rights supporter. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: krazen1211 on August 03, 2012, 11:40:13 AM A chick fil a gets vandalized.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: fezzyfestoon on August 03, 2012, 11:50:14 AM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. This coming from a fervent gay rights supporter. Oftentimes, when you look past the surface of a conflict, you begin to delve into the roots of the motivations behind the positions people take. Sure, it's not a cause and effect, but it's hard to assert that the "traditional values" crowd isn't rooted in a strong preference against a certain group of people. Why else would a heavily anti-government chunk of the populace suddenly want the government to be extremely involved in something so unnecessary for it to have a position on? The complete lack of any rationale behind the movement also begs the question of what the motivation is. Being pro-gay marriage is a manifestation of small government. Yet the anti-government, anti-gay marriage crowd relies entirely on the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition. There's no reason to ban gay marriage other than the made up fact that it has to be between a man and a woman. Granted, Christian culture takes that fact as definitive, but you'd also think that a group of people evidently VERY concerned with religious freedom would recognize that not all peoples' religious beliefs are the same as theirs and that government should never mandate a religious belief. But I expect you know this as a fervent gay rights supporter. So I'm not sure where there's any room to doubt that homophobia is the root of opposition to gay marriage. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: krazen1211 on August 03, 2012, 11:54:15 AM As always, you have a really weird definition of 'landslide' and a weirder inability to distinguish between past, present, and future, but that's not really what I'm interested in right now. I'm interested in what sense you mean the word 'service' in '[Chick-fil-A] provid[es] good service'. How exactly is the left being more 'oppressive' than the people supported and donated to by the good people at Chick-fil-A on this complex of issues? Are you really that offended by boycotts and disapprobation from public officials? Chick Fil A provides good tasting food with clean restrooms and very polite customer service. Generally some consider these things hallmark of a leader in this industry. I merely notice how one side is using the freedom of speech and freedom of commerce in the marketplace, and the other side is threatening questionably legal government coercion, which, to their credit, people like Emanuel and Menino have retracted. Certainly the leftists are quite free to use boycotts and disapprobation provided that they are not soliciting or otherwise breaking the law. Why they chose to escalate beyond that is unclear. I particularly like the last image from the link above where Chick Fil A kindly provided beverages to those protesters! But that is because they are good and nice people. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Brittain33 on August 03, 2012, 12:38:12 PM http://www.businessinsider.com/gay-chick-fil-a-employees-reveal-what-it-has-been-like-to-work-there-lately-2012-8
Anyone who takes their anger out on the employees is a jackass. The other side of it is the old folks who assume the young guy at the cash register shares their disdain for homos. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Mechaman on August 03, 2012, 12:50:40 PM Man this is the stupidest issue in history.
Seriously, the fact that this is even an issue is mindblowing. Dan Cathy is against gay rights? Newsflash: So is Tom Monaghan, the owner of Domino's Pizza. Where the f*** are the rallies against/for Domino's Pizza (nevermind that protesting an entire company because of the views of one old fart is ridiculous)? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Oakvale on August 03, 2012, 01:12:21 PM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. This coming from a fervent gay rights supporter. You're using boilerplate Republican lingo, are we to assume you'll soon be talking about "preserving traditional marriage" and so on? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Brittain33 on August 03, 2012, 01:34:12 PM Man this is the stupidest issue in history. Seriously, the fact that this is even an issue is mindblowing. Dan Cathy is against gay rights? Newsflash: So is Tom Monaghan, the owner of Domino's Pizza. Where the f*** are the rallies against/for Domino's Pizza (nevermind that protesting an entire company because of the views of one old fart is ridiculous)? How do you rally against a delivery place? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 03, 2012, 01:36:11 PM Man this is the stupidest issue in history. Seriously, the fact that this is even an issue is mindblowing. Dan Cathy is against gay rights? Newsflash: So is Tom Monaghan, the owner of Domino's Pizza. Where the f*** are the rallies against/for Domino's Pizza (nevermind that protesting an entire company because of the views of one old fart is ridiculous)? How do you rally against a delivery place? Kiss when the delivery driver shows up? ;) Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Tender Branson on August 03, 2012, 01:47:15 PM Whats Chick-fil-a and what happened ?
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 03, 2012, 01:57:32 PM Whats Chick-fil-a and what happened ? ::) Chick-fil-A is a chain restaurant that operates mainly in the U.S whose signature product is a CHICKen FILET sandwich. The CEO and principle owner made remarks that were against same-sex marriage and a couple of northern politicos made noises about preventing the restaurant from opening up locations in their fair cities. Predictable salvoes from both right and left have ensued. Title: Re: No threads on the Chick-fil-A debate? Post by: Queen Mum Inks.LWC on August 03, 2012, 02:00:03 PM I particularly like the last image from the link above where Chick Fil A kindly provided beverages to those protesters! But that is because they are good and nice people. To be fair, that's one restaurant that did that. You can't base your opinion on everyone at Chick-fil-A based on a single restaurant. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on August 03, 2012, 03:12:10 PM I understand that it boils down to people arguing over a fast food joint, and that can seem insanely trivial, but the reason myself and a lot of other people are pissed off is...
1) we knew they were a Christian company, we did not know they donated money to the Family Research Council and their ilk. (I personally used to go there all the time knowing the operators were devout Christians. I like their spicy chicken sandwiches. Knowing now that some of my hard-earned money is going to find its way into the pockets of the FRC? Heh... not so much.) and later on... 2) that conservative talking heads encouraged thousands of people to show up at the restaurants to take a public shot at gays. Free speech and traditional values, my ass. This crowd takes a shot at the LBGT community every chance they get. it's not the issue in and of itself; it's that it reflects very poorly on our society and a large segment of it. Fortunately, as a previous poster said, this issue is a massive win for the left in America down the line. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Yelnoc on August 03, 2012, 03:42:57 PM For the record, Chick-fil-A's chicken isn't awful. Their trade mark chicken sandwich is actually pretty good, as are the breakfast biscuits. I'm not the kind of person who eats at fast food much (usually only when I'm on the road or something unusual is going on) but when I do, Chick-fil-A is one of the fast food joints I look for.
I bring that up because eventually I'll eat another Chick-fil-A sandwich. Not because I support the views of the owners, but because it's decent quality for fast food (only joint I've never found hair in my food at). I don't think it's some travesty to buy the products of companies whose views or practices may be unethical or immoral. Most people do it all the time; if you own an Apple product for instance you are guilty. But choosing not to buy their product is only going to leave you out of the money, or in the case of Chick-fil-A, with McDonald's rubber "chicken" floating around in your stomach. From my point of view, don't be afraid to buy their products, but have fun with it. If you're gay, make sure to make out with your boy/girlfriend while sitting at your booth, or whatever. No need to be so serious. The outpouring of support we're seeing is homophobia in its death throes. Time is on the side of gay rights, so there's no need to get outraged about the moral failings of the Chick-fil-A ownership. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Sbane on August 03, 2012, 04:58:09 PM The people who say Chick-fil-A is awful probably haven't ever eaten there. It's actually pretty good as far as fast food goes and while it may be unhealthy, fried chicken made by anybody is going to be unhealthy. Them being closed on Sunday is super annoying though.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 03, 2012, 05:02:51 PM Herman Cain says that Cathy told him that Chick-Fil-A would be donating their Wednesday profits to anti-gay groups. Frightening if true.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Holmes on August 03, 2012, 05:30:33 PM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. Don't be a dumb. For a same-sex couple that wants to get married, being told that they can't and that it's not because opponents "hate the gay" is bullsh**t. It really does mean that those people hate the life that gay men and women lead and don't want their commitment to be official before the law, which means yes, "hating the gay". I at least have some respect for opponents of same-sex marriage who are upfront about it and say it's because they hate gay people. None for opponents who say they don't hate gay people, and civil unions are "good enough" or some dumb sh**t like that. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on August 03, 2012, 09:54:35 PM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. Don't be a dumb. For a same-sex couple that wants to get married, being told that they can't and that it's not because opponents "hate the gay" is bullsh**t. It really does mean that those people hate the life that gay men and women lead and don't want their commitment to be official before the law, which means yes, "hating the gay". I at least have some respect for opponents of same-sex marriage who are upfront about it and say it's because they hate gay people. None for opponents who say they don't hate gay people, and civil unions are "good enough" or some dumb sh**t like that. In the Bible, it does clearly condemn homosexual marriage. It also clearly says that we are made in Gods image. And scissors cuts paper. Thus, in my opinion, homosexuality is reconciled with Christianity, with God’s law being more important than ancient Israeli old testament beliefs. But, some Christians disagree with me on this. Some do believe that the Old Testament is important as a stepping stone for the Gospel. That does not make them hateful. I think some gay rights activists are hateful. I think they downright hate Christians just because a bunch of closeted Catholic bishops and radical Southern Baptists and Pentecostals claim to represent Christianity and “family values”. If “family values” automatically is “hate”, than it would be equally logical to say that aids is to be totally blamed on homosexuals-which is an incredibly illogical and stupid statement. Opponents of gay marriage look at gay marriage the way gays look at it. They feel it should be prevented on religious grounds as much as gays feel it should be pushed through on civil rights grounds. Yes, it is true that the Rick Santorums and Mike Huckabees of the world condemn gay rights only to turn around and say “oh no, were being discriminated against for our Christian faith” and what have you, but the people on the “family values” side of the issue are just as well intentioned as those who are on the side of gay marriage. Again, I believe that gay marriage can be reconciled with Christianity (IE-The Gospel, not the Old Testament),so I am on the side of those who seek marriage equality in the state of Florida (marriage is entirely a state by state issue), but too condemn those who support family values as homophobes is just as bad as to condemn homosexuals for their lifestyle. Both sides of the issue are right, and both are wrong, in many, many ways. That is why this issue is one of the most needlessly passionate and distracting issues in American politics. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 03, 2012, 10:03:25 PM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. This coming from a fervent gay rights supporter. You're using boilerplate Republican lingo, are we to assume you'll soon be talking about "preserving traditional marriage" and so on? Absolutely not, but I'm defending people's right to hold "traditional" values. Do I think they're wrong? Totally. I believe marriage should indeed be between two people who love each other, regardless of gender. Straight people have so thoroughly f**ked up the "institution of marriage" that I say give the gays a shot to prove everyone wrong. On the other hand, this is America and everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how stupid I think it is. Just because Dan Cathy opposes gay marriage does not mean you should boycott his company. Boycott him, protest him, call him an idiot, do not take it out on his employees. Not everyone who works at Chick-Fil-A is a Christian, nor are they all supporters of "traditional" marriage. Let's face it: Christianity is the dominant religion in America and a lot of Christians support 1 man 1 woman marriages, that does not mean they're homophobes, it means they care greatly about their religion and want to have society reflect those values. Again, I think they're 100% wrong and I believe religion and politics should not be mixed, as it only leads to flamewars and unnecessary bickering, but I believe they are entitled to that opinion. Freedom is for all, no matter how stupid the person is in my opinion. I absolutely believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to do their protests and whatnot. Let them make fools of themselves, don't ban their right to do so. But that's just my two sense. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Rooney on August 03, 2012, 10:19:17 PM I decided to eat at a Chick-fil-A in Davenport in order to "stand in solidarity" with free enterprise or some such nonsense. I wish I had not. Their chicken was not that good and I think that the tweenaged girl who prepared it had never used cooking tools before. The drink I purchased tasted like waffle fries and in the food court a rather fat, odorous family decided to sit next to me. That last issue is not the fault of Chick-fil-A but the rest of it is. In short, if any more gay groups wish to protest the place keep this in mind: the food that this company produces may well harm it more than anything that it's CEO says about gay issues.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on August 03, 2012, 10:49:27 PM Opponents of gay marriage don't have to live with any of the consequences that come with a lack of civil rights and are either ignorant or bigoted. I don't care about them suffering from a tiny iota of disdain that comes from gay rights activists, many of them who have dealt with abuse because of the world view of those in support of "family values". They're not the victims and if you think they are, you need to get your panties un-bunched.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Tender Branson on August 03, 2012, 11:20:45 PM A very effective marketing gag for the company ...
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Napoleon on August 03, 2012, 11:49:11 PM I'm put off by the excessive politicization of our daily lives. I don't care to defend or attack Chik-fil-a per se but where is the line drawn? I feel like anyone spending money at places like this would understand that some people in the organization will probably donate to causes they support and others to causes they don't. That is how a business works.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: dead0man on August 04, 2012, 12:28:08 AM I'm in the camp of "why the hell is this a story?". Seriously, 12 pages?
Though the douchebag getting fired for uploading a video of him being a douchebag is pretty freaking funny. Douchebags that know they are douchebag can be alright in small doses, but douchebags that have NO CLUE that they are douchebags, well they are unbearable to deal with, but just awesome to watch get sh**t on. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: ZuWo on August 04, 2012, 04:01:43 AM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. Don't be a dumb. For a same-sex couple that wants to get married, being told that they can't and that it's not because opponents "hate the gay" is bullsh**t. It really does mean that those people hate the life that gay men and women lead and don't want their commitment to be official before the law, which means yes, "hating the gay". I at least have some respect for opponents of same-sex marriage who are upfront about it and say it's because they hate gay people. None for opponents who say they don't hate gay people, and civil unions are "good enough" or some dumb sh**t like that. In the Bible, it does clearly condemn homosexual marriage. It also clearly says that we are made in Gods image. And scissors cuts paper. Thus, in my opinion, homosexuality is reconciled with Christianity, with God’s law being more important than ancient Israeli old testament beliefs. But, some Christians disagree with me on this. Some do believe that the Old Testament is important as a stepping stone for the Gospel. That does not make them hateful. I think some gay rights activists are hateful. I think they downright hate Christians just because a bunch of closeted Catholic bishops and radical Southern Baptists and Pentecostals claim to represent Christianity and “family values”. If “family values” automatically is “hate”, than it would be equally logical to say that aids is to be totally blamed on homosexuals-which is an incredibly illogical and stupid statement. Opponents of gay marriage look at gay marriage the way gays look at it. They feel it should be prevented on religious grounds as much as gays feel it should be pushed through on civil rights grounds. Yes, it is true that the Rick Santorums and Mike Huckabees of the world condemn gay rights only to turn around and say “oh no, were being discriminated against for our Christian faith” and what have you, but the people on the “family values” side of the issue are just as well intentioned as those who are on the side of gay marriage. Again, I believe that gay marriage can be reconciled with Christianity (IE-The Gospel, not the Old Testament),so I am on the side of those who seek marriage equality in the state of Florida (marriage is entirely a state by state issue), but too condemn those who support family values as homophobes is just as bad as to condemn homosexuals for their lifestyle. Both sides of the issue are right, and both are wrong, in many, many ways. That is why this issue is one of the most needlessly passionate and distracting issues in American politics. FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27). Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 04, 2012, 07:40:59 AM FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27). I could argue with you the nuances of the language and specifically what Paul is condemning but for a change read what Paul says afterwards; Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Is Paul right? Are people who undertake same-sex acts wicked, evil. Are they full of deceit, malice, murder. Do we disobey parents, do we have no love? Because if you think Paul is right on 26-27, surely you must think he's right at 28-32? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: ZuWo on August 04, 2012, 08:28:29 AM FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27). I could argue with you the nuances of the language and specifically what Paul is condemning but for a change read what Paul says afterwards; Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Is Paul right? Are people who undertake same-sex acts wicked, evil. Are they full of deceit, malice, murder. Do we disobey parents, do we have no love? Because if you think Paul is right on 26-27, surely you must think he's right at 28-32? Paul refers to human beings who live in sin in general, he doesn't single out homosexuals. He makes a list of actions he regards as sins - he says that certain actions are sinful but he doesn't suggest that if you do action A you also do B, C and D etc. Just because a person does one of the actions that are mentioned in these verses he/she does not necessarily do all of the others. As Romans 1, 18 and the verses that follow make clear, the personal pronouns "they" and "them" which Paul makes use of refer to sinning human beings in general, not homosexual people in particular. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 04, 2012, 08:43:21 AM FTR, it's not only the Old Testament which contains passages that condemn same-sex acts. Have a look at Paul's epistle to the Romans (specifically Romans 1, 26-27). I could argue with you the nuances of the language and specifically what Paul is condemning but for a change read what Paul says afterwards; Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Is Paul right? Are people who undertake same-sex acts wicked, evil. Are they full of deceit, malice, murder. Do we disobey parents, do we have no love? Because if you think Paul is right on 26-27, surely you must think he's right at 28-32? Paul refers to human beings who live in sin in general, he doesn't single out homosexuals. He makes a list of actions he regards as sins - he says that certain actions are sinful but he doesn't suggest that if you do action A you also do B, C and D etc. Just because a person does one of the actions that are mentioned in these verses he/she does not necessarily do all of the others. As Romans 1, 18 and the verses that follow make clear, the personal pronouns "they" and "them" which Paul makes use of refer to sinning human beings in general, not homosexual people in particular. Paul says 'In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness... It's clear that the 'they/them' he is referring to are those who committed sexual acts. Even if you read before when he's talking about those who do not glorify god he says that 'God gave them over to shameful lusts.' In each case he's talking about the same group of people and linking them step by step to every act his overactive mind can think of. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: ZuWo on August 04, 2012, 09:02:51 AM No. Everything Paul writes between verse 18 and verse 32 must be regarded as a coherent whole. In the opening of this passage, Paul sets the topic and talks about the godlessness of the human race; the personal pronoun "they" hence always refers to godless human beings. What follows is a list of all the wrongdoings people can be guilty of; same-sex acts are one of many examples "they", i.e. human beings in general, can engage in. The entire second half of chapter 1 is dedicated to the wickedness of the human race, and since actions or attitudes like "envy" or "murder" occur among people regardless of their sexual orientation, it makes sense to assume that Paul addresses all people who live in sin, not just a particular group.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 04, 2012, 09:22:17 AM No. Everything Paul writes between verse 18 and verse 32 must be regarded as a coherent whole. In the opening of this passage, Paul sets the topic and talks about the godlessness of the human race; the personal pronoun "they" hence always refers to godless human beings. What follows is a list of all the wrongdoings people can be guilty of; same-sex acts are one of many examples "they", i.e. human beings in general, can engage in. The entire second half of chapter 1 is dedicated to the wickedness of the human race, and since actions or attitudes like "envy" or "murder" occur among people regardless of their sexual orientation, it makes sense to assume that Paul addresses all people who live in sin, not just a particular group. But why does it? The only people he talks about are those who exhanged 'the glory of god' for idolatry. So what did god do in return? Made them becomes sexually impure and gave them over to 'shameful lusts' Then there's lots of sex and he also gives them an extra crime; depravity. There is a narrative; he is talking about the same people. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 04, 2012, 09:37:42 AM How is supporting traditional values homophobic? I'm sick of seeing that term thrown around and misused so often. Supporting 1 man 1 woman marriage =/= hating the gays. Get over it. This coming from a fervent gay rights supporter. You're using boilerplate Republican lingo, are we to assume you'll soon be talking about "preserving traditional marriage" and so on? Absolutely not, but I'm defending people's right to hold "traditional" values. Do I think they're wrong? Totally. I believe marriage should indeed be between two people who love each other, regardless of gender. Straight people have so thoroughly f**ked up the "institution of marriage" that I say give the gays a shot to prove everyone wrong. On the other hand, this is America and everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how stupid I think it is. Just because Dan Cathy opposes gay marriage does not mean you should boycott his company. Boycott him, protest him, call him an idiot, do not take it out on his employees. Not everyone who works at Chick-Fil-A is a Christian, nor are they all supporters of "traditional" marriage. Let's face it: Christianity is the dominant religion in America and a lot of Christians support 1 man 1 woman marriages, that does not mean they're homophobes, it means they care greatly about their religion and want to have society reflect those values. Again, I think they're 100% wrong and I believe religion and politics should not be mixed, as it only leads to flamewars and unnecessary bickering, but I believe they are entitled to that opinion. Freedom is for all, no matter how stupid the person is in my opinion. I absolutely believe that the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to do their protests and whatnot. Let them make fools of themselves, don't ban their right to do so. But that's just my two sense. I'll ask you this again. Have you shown solidarity to businesses that the organisations Chick-Fil-A donates to have asked supporters to boycott? Like JCPenney, Target etc because they support gay marriage? I've not seen you suporting them or changing your sig in support. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 04, 2012, 09:58:27 AM To be honest, I don't really care if a business supports or opposes gay marriage, if they make a product I like, I will buy it and continue buying it. If a group of gay marriage opponents decided to boycott a pro-gay rights company, I would specifically go out and purchase from that company that is being boycotted. For the same reason that I bought from Chick-Fil-A: because I support free speech.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Phony Moderate on August 04, 2012, 10:15:31 AM Surely you don't seriously believe that a company's freedom of speech is stifled if some people choose not to buy it's products.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: afleitch on August 04, 2012, 10:16:35 AM To be honest, I don't really care if a business supports or opposes gay marriage, if they make a product I like, I will buy it and continue buying it. If a group of gay marriage opponents decided to boycott a pro-gay rights company, I would specifically go out and purchase from that company that is being boycotted. For the same reason that I bought from Chick-Fil-A: because I support free speech. But that's already been happening. Quite alot actually. Never heard anything from you or any of the other 'free speech' crowd about actively helping those companies. Just this one. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Torie on August 04, 2012, 10:20:07 AM Surely you don't seriously believe that a company's freedom of speech is stifled if some people choose not to buy it's products. Isn't that akin to saying a politician's free speech is stifled if you don't vote for him or her based on what he or she says? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Miles on August 04, 2012, 11:28:59 AM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: John Dibble on August 04, 2012, 11:59:09 AM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Even if it wasn't a major crime it is still a crime. Using a criminal act as a form of protest when plenty of legal means of protest exist only gives the other side ammunition. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 04, 2012, 12:19:20 PM Surely you don't seriously believe that a company's freedom of speech is stifled if some people choose not to buy it's products. Absolutely not. To be honest, I don't really care if a business supports or opposes gay marriage, if they make a product I like, I will buy it and continue buying it. If a group of gay marriage opponents decided to boycott a pro-gay rights company, I would specifically go out and purchase from that company that is being boycotted. For the same reason that I bought from Chick-Fil-A: because I support free speech. But that's already been happening. Quite alot actually. Never heard anything from you or any of the other 'free speech' crowd about actively helping those companies. Just this one. I purchase from Target regularly, I use Twitter, Facebook, Apple products regularly, I think I give more time and money to pro-gay companies than anti-gay groups. You're right regarding the free speech crowd, but I can't speak on behalf of them, only myself. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 04, 2012, 01:14:31 PM I suppose this is an ideal Atlas thread these days. Unhealthy food plus homosexuality and all kinds of identity politics stuff. Perhaps it will be the new PA-13.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: krazen1211 on August 04, 2012, 01:55:31 PM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Yelnoc on August 04, 2012, 02:11:16 PM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Miles on August 04, 2012, 02:39:50 PM For the record, I'm posting now from KFC...came to have lunch here again ;)
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Yelnoc on August 04, 2012, 05:29:02 PM For the record, I'm posting now from KFC...came to have lunch here again ;) Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on August 04, 2012, 06:44:50 PM I think KFC is way overrated. The biscuits are to die for though.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 04, 2012, 06:53:06 PM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on August 04, 2012, 07:25:18 PM I think KFC is way overrated. The biscuits are to die for though. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 04, 2012, 07:26:40 PM KFC, Chik Filla, etc. are all disgusting. Eat real food please.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: hawkeye59 on August 05, 2012, 10:03:23 AM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Sbane on August 05, 2012, 04:20:16 PM KFC, Chik Filla, etc. are all disgusting. Eat real food please. Please don't compare chic-fil-a with KFC. One is barely edible while the other serves real, yet unhealthy food. You have never eaten at a chic-fil-a have you? Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: krazen1211 on August 06, 2012, 12:58:11 PM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for? The 3 of you use quotes in a very bizarre manner. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 07, 2012, 05:36:26 PM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for? The 3 of you use quotes in a very bizarre manner. What's bizarre about it? Miles doesn't consider the person in question a thug, I mentally classify fast-food joints separately from restaurants, and Hawkeye appears to have serious questions about the fairness of the American judicial and penal systems. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Iosif on August 07, 2012, 06:19:57 PM The most troubling thing about this farce is how often many of you eat sh**t.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Small Business Owner of Any Repute on August 07, 2012, 09:12:20 PM The most troubling thing about this farce is how often many of you eat sh**t. Amen. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: hawkeye59 on August 08, 2012, 08:48:19 AM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for? The 3 of you use quotes in a very bizarre manner. What's bizarre about it? Miles doesn't consider the person in question a thug, I mentally classify fast-food joints separately from restaurants, and Hawkeye appears to have serious questions about the fairness of the American judicial and penal systems. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 08, 2012, 09:01:45 AM A chick fil a gets vandalized. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-vandalism-hate.html Hopefully these thugs are thrown in prison. Liberal big shot screams at a fast food worker, loses his job. http://www.businessinsider.com/vante-cfo-bullies-chick-fil-a-worker-then-promptly-gets-fired-for-it-2012-8 That "thug" was a local artist. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-graffiti-torrance_n_1738807.html) And as for the vandalism: Quote At the end of the day, said Castro, "It's paint on a wall. It got removed in less than an hour. It's not that much of a crime -- it's a protest." Good. That makes it easy to catch him and throw him in jail for a year. http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/594.html What, other than successful business models of chicken 'restaurants', do you actually have respect for? The 3 of you use quotes in a very bizarre manner. What's bizarre about it? Miles doesn't consider the person in question a thug, I mentally classify fast-food joints separately from restaurants, and Hawkeye appears to have serious questions about the fairness of the American judicial and penal systems. Straw man! Yeah!!! Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 08, 2012, 09:30:50 AM Never ate at Chick-Fill-A, never will. But even I don't think cities and towns shouldn't try to block it. Just let people boycott it instead.
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 08, 2012, 01:27:58 PM In particular, the fact that Texas just executed a mentally retarded man, and the courts didn't do anything, and the fact that we are not doing anything about our prison overcrowding. The Texas prison population just got smaller by one. ;) More seriously, it's way past time to demilitarize the war on drugs. We have a war on cancer yet we don't lock up people with lymphoma. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: 7,052,770 on August 08, 2012, 06:21:33 PM I ate at Chick fil A yesterday. I made sure to order a Coke with it to balance things out, gay-wise.
It was a zoo, as always, but no more crowded than it ever is. I guess the fundie craze is dying down. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: hawkeye59 on August 09, 2012, 10:36:08 AM In particular, the fact that Texas just executed a mentally retarded man, and the courts didn't do anything, and the fact that we are not doing anything about our prison overcrowding. The Texas prison population just got smaller by one. ;) More seriously, it's way past time to demilitarize the war on drugs. We have a war on cancer yet we don't lock up people with lymphoma. [/quote Yeah, if we legalized just marijuana, that could help a huge amount in the prison overpopulation, and would devastate the drug cartels. Go after the harder drugs, and go after the dealers, not the users. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 10, 2012, 11:50:19 AM The most troubling thing about this farce is how often many of you eat sh**t. Amen. For real. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 14, 2012, 01:41:36 PM Now that this kerfuffle is over can we go back to hating Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store?
Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on August 14, 2012, 01:52:42 PM Now that this kerfuffle is over can we go back to hating Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store? never stopped ; ) Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: Grumpier Than Uncle Joe on August 14, 2012, 01:56:48 PM Now that this kerfuffle is over can we go back to hating Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store? never stopped ; ) Thank God!!!!!! Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on August 14, 2012, 08:58:35 PM Now that this kerfuffle is over can we go back to hating Wal-Mart and the Dollar Store? Go back? My hatred of Wal-Mart is constant. Title: Re: Official Chick-fil-A Thread Post by: King on August 16, 2012, 02:10:41 AM This is one of the most embarrassing civil rights battles ever. A chicken sandwich restaurant. Please.
|