# Priorities: Chick-Fil-A, Starbucks, & the Economy



## celtic_crippler (Jul 28, 2012)

In a free society, you can do business with whomever you choose. That is, unless there's a monopoly, but that's another topic. 

If you want to boycott Chick-Fil-A because the CEO opposes gay marriage go ahead. 

If you want to boycott Starbucks because the CEO supports gay marriage go ahead. 

What's wrong is to try and legislate or dictate where these companies can or can not do business based soley on the values of their CEOs. 

These companies are not denying service to anyone nor discriminating against anyone in any way. As of today, it's still okay to have an opinion in this country. The "Thought Police" have not quite been established as of yet. 

Personally, I'm going to eat Chick-Fil-A *and* drink Starbucks coffee because I like their products. 

Not only that, but in case you haven't noticed, the US economy is in the proverbial toilet. Personally, I think it's more important to do my part to help businesses than to hurt them further.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't buy at Starbucks; but only because I don't like their coffee.

I agree with your statements.  People can and should boycott whatever business they want if it so moves them.  Businesses that engage in public political statements bring that on themselves; no matter what side.  It's their business if they want to engage in that arena; it's the public's business if they choose to make buying decisions based on those statements.  All good.

I will note that I chose to disassociate myself from a FB friend yesterday because they reposted a comment by Roseanne Barr stating that anyone who eats at Chick-Fil-A should get cancer.  I found that offensive in the extreme.  And I'm not playing favorites here; I also hated it years ago when people would say that gay people deserved to get AIDS.  Horrible, horrible, things to say or believe, and again, I don't care on which side of the political spectrum it comes from.

There are no Chick-Fil-A restaurants around here that I'm aware of - they were a NC thing as I recall.  I remember that they were closed on Sundays because the CEO believed that employees should be in church and home with their families on the 'Day of Rest'.  Hey, whatever.

I choose not to boycott Chick-Fil-A in principle or in fact, and that's got to be OK for me to do.  Just as it has to be OK for people to choose to drink coffee at Starbucks regardless of their political stances.

I refuse to let my life be ruled by the politics of the businesses that I might purchase goods or services from.  If their stance bothers me enough to make such a choice, that's my right.  And if it doesn't bother me enough to make such a choice, that's my right too.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 28, 2012)

I'm boycotting Chick-fil-a, and Hobby Lobby not because of the 'closed on Sundays' thing, but the donations and associations with hate groups.
I'm increasing my support for Amazon, Starbucks and yes even Microsoft due to their support of equality.
My right to do so. Your right to do otherwise.

Are there other issues to worry about? Sure, and I do.  But I can worry about more than 1 thing at a time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 28, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm boycotting Chick-fil-a, and Hobby Lobby not because of the 'closed on Sundays' thing, but the donations and associations with hate groups.
> I'm increasing my support for Amazon, Starbucks and yes even Microsoft due to their support of equality.
> My right to do so. Your right to do otherwise.
> 
> Are there other issues to worry about? Sure, and I do.  But I can worry about more than 1 thing at a time.



I fully support your right to do so.  I don't agree with your choices.  But life goes on.

Interestingly, Starbucks, whilst infuriating some with their stance on same-sex marriage, infuriates some of those who support that stance by allowing open carry in Starbucks stores in states that allow open carry.  Seems no matter what gets your undies in a twist, Starbucks has a political statements you'll like and one you won't like.  Quite humorous, actually.

I just don't like their crappy coffee.  Since I don't drink my coffee flavored, I know how truly repulsive it is.

EDIT: And I really dislike the term 'hate group' being applied to anything anyone doesn't personally like.  It actually cheapens the meaning of the word 'hate'.  A neo-Nazi group is a 'hate group'.  A group that opposes same-sex marriage (or endorses it) is not a hate group.  That's just nonsense, polarizing nonsense.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 28, 2012)

I really like the food and service at Chik-fil-a, but I don't want my money going to support hate.  So I will no longer spend my money there.  I don't have a problem with the owner's Christianity and I think him closing on Sundays is kind of refreshing.  He is putting his religious beliefs before profit.  The groups that he supports though i can't ignore.  I don't believe Boston's mayor is correct in saying Chic-fil-a has no place in the city. That really isn't up to him...or shouldn't be. 

I normally don't drink cofee, and Starbucks is too expensive when I do, so that's a moot point.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 28, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> I really like the food and service at Chik-fil-a, but I don't want my money going to support a cause *I do not support*.



There, fixed that for ya.  Just because you do not agree with it does not make it a 'hate group'.



> So I will no longer spend my money there.  I don't have a problem with the owner's Christianity and I think him closing on Sundays is kind of refreshing.  He is putting his religious beliefs before profit.  The groups that he supports though i can't ignore.  I don't believe Boston's mayor is correct in saying Chic-fil-a has no place in the city. That really isn't up to him...or shouldn't be.



I agree with you there.



> I normally don't drink cofee, and Starbucks is too expensive when I do, so that's a moot point.



Quite reasonable.  But Starbucks is a hate group.  They support open carry, after all.  And if you like open carry, then they're a hate group because they support same-sex marriage.  Whichever position you take, they're a hate group for the other reason.  See how that works?  The term 'hate group' is really inappropriate in these cases, I feel.


----------



## Takai (Jul 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Quite reasonable.  But Starbucks is a hate group.  They support open carry, after all.  And if you like open carry, then they're a hate group because they support same-sex marriage.  Whichever position you take, they're a hate group for the other reason.  See how that works?  The term 'hate group' is really inappropriate in these cases, I feel.



I think that is well spoken. It seems like anytime anyone says something that someone else doesn't like it becomes "hate speech" or the belong to a "hate group". Obviously both sides have a strong set of beliefs but, just because they don't agree doesn't mean that they are guilty of "hate". They just disagree. Last I time I check this was still the USA (even though that doesn't seem to mean much anymore) and people are still "allowed" to have their own beliefs. Do I agree with all of them. Resoundingly, NO! I respect that they have their own beliefs but do not agree so I guess that I must "hate" them? Hate is a strong emotional word that IMO, is used way out of context in many situations.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 28, 2012)

Takai said:


> I think that is well spoken. It seems like anytime anyone says something that someone else doesn't like it becomes "hate speech" or the belong to a "hate group". Obviously both sides have a strong set of beliefs but, just because they don't agree doesn't mean that they are guilty of "hate". They just disagree. Last I time I check this was still the USA (even though that doesn't seem to mean much anymore) and people are still "allowed" to have their own beliefs. Do I agree with all of them. Resoundingly, NO! I respect that they have their own beliefs but do not agree so I guess that I must "hate" them? Hate is a strong emotional word that IMO, is used way out of context in many situations.



Its part of the political game....you hope to either gain supporters or at least suppress the less radical opponents to your belief by labeling any opposition as "hate".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't know the CEO's full views but if they fall along the line of some Christians, "Hate the sin, love the sinner," and disagree over changing the definition of marriage, then technically, they aren't a hate group, since they don't hate anyone and simply disagree with some peoples definition of marriage.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 28, 2012)

Chick fila yummy
Starbucks overpriced crap DD coffee is better
As to the rest of that mess blah blah blah same old junk every 4 years


----------



## Takai (Jul 28, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Chick fila yummy
> Starbucks overpriced crap DD coffee is better
> As to the rest of that mess blah blah blah same old junk every 4 years



Unfortunately, I see this same old junk happen more often than every 4 years. ONe of the major reasons I haven't had TV service for the over a decade. I was just plain running out of tall boots every time I turned the TV on.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 28, 2012)

I boycott Chick-Fil-A because I don't like their food. I boycott Starbucks because I don't like coffee.
I am continually amused by the lack of tolerance exhibited by those who screech loudest about tolerance...


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 28, 2012)

While I do patronize the local Chick-Fil-A--my son also works there--I do NOT agree with their attitudes toward gay and lesbian Americans.

Sure, it's their 1st Amendment right to speak out against gay Americans.  But at some point, they'll have to come out from behind the 1st Amendment and continue to do business.  And that's where cities like Chicago, Boston and San Francisco are right to question whether or not Chick-Fil-A's "beliefs" translate to action.  Does Chick-Fil-A have any owners or general managers who are openly gay or lesbian?  If not, it doesn't _necessarily_ mean that they employ anti-gay hiring policies.  But by virtue of their public views, it's now a fair question to ask -- especially by local governments who have non-discriminatory requirements.

If Chick-Fil-A does have gay and lesbian managers and owners, I hope they are allowed step forward soon and put this to rest.  There are thousands of customers who don't like being caught in the middle, and would rather go back to enjoying the food and great service that the restaurants offer.


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2012)

Hmmm...yes chicago should question beliefs, for example the Nation of Islam is headquartered here, you know, the Louis Farakhan's organization.  Something tells me that if the CEO of Chick Fil A is a christian who might believe in hating the sin but loving the sinner, the  Nation of Islam hates the sin and the sinner.  Sooo...should chicago also ban any busines owned by members of the Nation of Islam?  Is that a fair question to ask the Nation of Islam?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 28, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Hmmm...yes chicago should question beliefs, for example the Nation of Islam is headquartered here, you know, the Louis Farakhan's organization.  Something tells me that if the CEO of Chick Fil A is a christian who might believe in hating the sin but loving the sinner, the  Nation of Islam hates the sin and the sinner.  Sooo...should chicago also ban any busines owned by members of the Nation of Islam?  Is that a fair question to ask the Nation of Islam?



Go Yankees!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 28, 2012)

From what I've read, Chick-Fil-A doesn't allow gays to move up in the company, and forbids them from owning franchises. There's an in depth interrogation as part of the franchising. It's a Christians Only club, and you must meet with the owners views.  I spoke with a few people while I was in Austin last year about possible franchises and was told point blank that I wouldn't be welcome buying in. One of the local restaurants got into deep crap because they opened on Sundays. Owners were down and literally shut the place down and threw customers out according to the person I spoke to. Take it with a grain of salt, I got it 2nd or 3rd hand.   I was well aware of Hobby Lobby's Christian overtone, and have -0- problem with it. I thought the 'closed on sunday' idea a nice one to be blunt.  But again, that's another chain with ties to discriminatory organizations, with a possible connection to the WBC (unproven, though there are real estate transactions I saw that connect the 2).  I won't do business with them as a result.

Also, Some of the groups the Chick-Fil-A owner supports are classified as 'hate' groups....I chose my words carefully Bill. Just to be clear.

As to Starbucks and open-carry, ok with me. I agree, their coffees a bit....ugh, but I like their blonde roast. I usually buy chai and tea though. My main coffee comes from Wegmans.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 28, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> From what I've read, Chick-Fil-A doesn't allow gays to move up in the company, and forbids them from owning franchises. There's an in depth interrogation as part of the franchising. It's a Christians Only club, and you must meet with the owners views.  I spoke with a few people while I was in Austin last year about possible franchises and was told point blank that I wouldn't be welcome buying in.



If true, that's my concern.  And based on Dan Cathy's comments, it's believable.  

I don't or won't defend secret policies of exclusion or discrimination.  At the same time, all they had to do was keep quiet.  The "good" thing about hatred is that it always eventually outs itself.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 28, 2012)

...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 28, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> From what I've read, Chick-Fil-A doesn't allow gays to move up in the company, and forbids them from owning franchises.



I'd like to know more about this - certainly not something I was aware of.  



> Also, Some of the groups the Chick-Fil-A owner supports are classified as 'hate' groups....I chose my words carefully Bill. Just to be clear.
> 
> As to Starbucks and open-carry, ok with me. I agree, their coffees a bit....ugh, but I like their blonde roast. I usually buy chai and tea though. My main coffee comes from Wegmans.



What groups does C-F-A's owner support that are classified as 'hate groups'?  Again, I am ignorant of this.  I see by Wikipedia (I never bothered looking into it until now) that they support Focus on the Family - not a group I'm interested in, but I don't know that they could be classified a 'hate group'.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 28, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'd like to know more about this - certainly not something I was aware of.



Quick snagging some links Bill.  Have a crisis I'm dealing with right now, but trying to put something in. I don't have the exact link to the lawsuit I saw.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...l-a-sues-gender-discrimination_n_1709645.html


I'll counter my own claim as well
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...police-sergeant-deep-chicago-roots-restaurant
http://www.11alive.com/news/article...-Fil-A-distances-itself-from-Cathys-gay-views




> What groups does C-F-A's owner support that are classified as 'hate groups'?  Again, I am ignorant of this.  I see by Wikipedia (I never bothered looking into it until now) that they support Focus on the Family - not a group I'm interested in, but I don't know that they could be classified a 'hate group'.





> Among the many groups to receive donations through Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation,  which was created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy  in 1984, were the Marriage & Family Foundation ($1,188,380), Exodus International ($1,000) and the Family Research Council (also $1,000), Equality Matters reported.
> Meanwhile, The New Civil Rights Movement's David Badash presents an even more disturbing figure: that Chick-fil-A has donated an estimated $5 million to anti-gay organizations and hate groups between 2003 and 2010. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html



See also http://www.advocate.com/business/2012/07/02/chick-fil-donates-2-mil-antigay-groups
Don't remember off the top of my head which one was pegged 'hate'. Don't bookmark everything I read I'm afraid.  But to me "I dont approve" is free speech. $5M is a lot of coin to toss at a cause to deny people rights. I'd classify that much of a push 'hate'.
YMMV.

ok, back to a disaster. >_<


----------



## harlan (Jul 28, 2012)

Two questions:

1. What is 'open carry'?
2. I don't suppose 'closed on Sundays' would have anything to do with states that have mandatory time and half pay on Sundays? ( I think MA is one of them. )

I don't have any problem boycotting something for polical purposes. For example, potatos from Idaho. And I love Menino for having the nuts to speak up, as I was unaware of the controversy until he did so.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 28, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Don't remember off the top of my head which one was pegged 'hate'. Don't bookmark everything I read I'm afraid.  But to me "I dont approve" is free speech. $5M is a lot of coin to toss at a cause to deny people rights. I'd classify that much of a push 'hate'.
> YMMV.
> 
> ok, back to a disaster. >_<



Sorry you're having a disaster.  Feel free to ignore this until you can or want to respond.

You call it denying others their rights.  Others do not see it that way.  Certainly if they did and they donated money specifically to do that, I'd be more able to see your point of view.

To make myself clear, I don't agree with the CEO of C-F-L.  Any objections I might have to same-sex marriage are based on a very different set of beliefs and not religious.  But he's got a right to believe what he wants; he's got a right to put his money towards groups that work to make laws that reflect his beliefs.  I don't want him to succeed, but I don't mistake his beliefs for hatred.  If I did, Soros would be a 'hater' for giving money to liberal causes, including anti-gun legislation.  Everyone who gives large money to groups that work for things I consider a right would be 'haters'.  Sorry, I just don't extend the use of that term to such a large extent.

You know my views on same-sex marriage.  Am I a hater?  Rosanne Barr thinks I should get cancer.  Who's the hater?


----------



## elder999 (Jul 28, 2012)

harlan said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1. What is 'open carry'?



Yeah. You live in Massachussets*stan*, all right. :lol:

"Open carry" is...well, *open carry.* If you can see the pistol, it's not concealed-it's "open carry." New Mexico is an open carry state-*anyone* can strap one on and walk around with it, as long as they don't walk into a bank or a place where alcohol is served. 

Including Starbuck's.



harlan said:


> 2. I don't suppose 'closed on Sundays' would have anything to do with states that have mandatory time and half pay on Sundays? ( I think MA is one of them. )



No-it's stated by both companies as a "family/Chrisitian values" policy, and is in effect in states that *don't* have an overtime pay for Sundays law.


----------



## harlan (Jul 28, 2012)

Thanks for that. I thought 'open carry' referred to guns, but wasn't sure if it was meant to apply to alcohol in the discussion. Restaurant talk, and all.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jul 28, 2012)

I thought the open carry applied to beer.  Because you've got to have some beer with that fried chicken.

I boycott C F L because I can get better tasting chicken that doesn't give me the runs elsewhere.

While I do enjoy the blondes at Starbucks, I don't go there because I don't drink coffee.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 29, 2012)

Blondes? As in women?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 29, 2012)

http://www.starbucks.com/coffee/blonde

blonde as in Starbucks mild roast.  Doesn't have that chared Baldrick flavor.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 29, 2012)

Let's contrast this with how another deeply religious business leader handles "_gay ickiness_":



> "Our church is very much opposed to alcohol and we&#8217;re probably one of the biggest sales engines of liquor in the United States. I don&#8217;t drink. We serve a lot of liquor. You&#8217;re in business. You&#8217;ve got to make money," he said. "We have to appeal to the masses out there, no matter what their beliefs are."
> 
> As a result, when his church actively campaigned against same-sex marriage in California, neither Marriott nor the hotel chain donated any money to the cause. Instead, he stepped into the drama by publicly reinforcing his company&#8217;s commitment to gay rights through domestic partners benefits and services aimed at gay couples.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 29, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> http://www.starbucks.com/coffee/blonde
> 
> blonde as in Starbucks mild roast. Doesn't have that chared Baldrick flavor.



Ah I see! I did it was an odd comment about women on this thread lol!


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 29, 2012)

Big Don said:


> I am continually amused by the lack of tolerance exhibited by those who screech loudest about tolerance...



"You're intolerant of my intolerance!" Worst. Argument. Ever.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> "You're intolerant of my intolerance!" Worst. Argument. Ever.



Or from another point of View:

"OMG!  These Morons are actually saying we should Boycott Oreo for having a Rainbow Cookie pic and saying they support Gays... what a bunch of Idiots.  Whats that?  Chick Fil A doesn't support Gays?  BOYCOTT CHICK FIL A!"

Same Same, IMO...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

And I get what Don was saying, despite the Rhetoric that was used to respond to him: 

 "You really should be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, opinions and lifestyles.  UNLESS IT'T NOT THE ONES WE AGREE WITH THEN YOU SUCK!"

Pretty common on all ends of the spectrum.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jul 29, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> "You really should be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, opinions and lifestyles.  UNLESS IT'T NOT THE ONES WE AGREE WITH THEN YOU SUCK!".



This is obvious nonsense if you subject it to even a moment's critical thought.  If we are to follow this "argument" to it's logical conclusion, then it would be hypocritical for one preaching acceptance and tolerance to oppose ANYTHING. Nazis? Child abusers? Spousal abusers? UFO conspiracists? Anti-vaccination idiots? Anything! "You shouldn't slap around your wife. " "Intolerant hypocrite LOL."

Every advocate of tolerance I have EVER heard does not do so for everything uncritically. You and Don are simply knocking down straw men.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

Yeah ok, you can take anything to extremes, and in that case you are right...  HOWEVER, and I'm sure you know this even if you don't want to admit it because it goes against your actual beliefs, We are *not* talking about something unreasonable like tolerating other people beating Gays with a Baseball bat here.  We're talking about telling a Religion that they MUST be tolerant of Gay Lifestyle, while at the same time refusing to be Tolerant of their personal Religious beliefs not to support said lifestyle:  Right back to my specific Example of Oreos vs Chick Fil A. 

Aka "I don't agree with it so they don't have the right to do it."

See, maybe I am the lunatic here, but I Support same sex marriage.  I don't care if you are Gay, Straight, Bi, or Like Sheep (I really don't care), BUT if confronted by someone of a different mindset, I wouldn't be like "OMG HOW DARE YOU! I HATE YOU AND EVERYTHING YOU STAND FOR!" like so much of the crap I am seeing directed at Chick-Fil-a.  Guess what?  They are entitled to their beliefs too,* EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.    *I don't agree with them.  I might debate the issue with them... but I wouldn't resort to threats, name calling and a bunch of this other B.S. 

And, BTW, if my argument was a Straw man, you lose, because you brought up Nazis.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I might debate the issue with them... but I wouldn't resort to threats, name calling and a bunch of this other B.S.



^ Usually.  Sometimes I lose my temper.  I like to call people names. They usually start with a "C" end in "Bag" and are universally hated by women.  So take that for what it's worth.  I'm human.  Sue me.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 29, 2012)

Empty Hands said:


> This is obvious nonsense if you subject it to even a moment's critical thought.  If we are to follow this "argument" to it's logical conclusion, then it would be hypocritical for one preaching acceptance and tolerance to oppose ANYTHING. Nazis? Child abusers? Spousal abusers? UFO conspiracists? Anti-vaccination idiots? Anything! "You shouldn't slap around your wife. " "Intolerant hypocrite LOL."
> 
> Every advocate of tolerance I have EVER heard does not do so for everything uncritically. You and Don are simply knocking down straw men.




Isn't this a "Godwin's Law Lite"?

Is CFA suggesting that we "ultimate solution" all homosexuals?


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 29, 2012)

Before the point gets lost ...

The councilman (in Chicago) in charge of the permit that CFA actually wants, is on record as saying that he has no problem with CFA's "speech" in regard to gay rights.  The permit application is now under scrutiny because of the possibility that CFA might put action to their beliefs.  And it makes sense.

If CFA does not believe in gay marriage, fine.  But is it unreasonable to presume that they don't believe in openly gay managers or owners?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> If CFA does not believe in gay marriage, fine.  But is it unreasonable to presume that they don't believe in openly gay managers or owners?



Nope.  Its a fair presumption, and if they *act upon it*, they are, I believe, breaking the law.

I don't know if I agree with denying them a permit in case they *MIGHT* do it.   Now, if they have a demonstrated history of doing so, that is another matter.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 29, 2012)

I still don't get why everyone needs to agree with everyone.  Why can't people dislike things we have gotten so PC you can't speak your mind anymore .  People hate me just because of the uniform I wear to work but I don't care if your gay get thicker skin why care what others think its your life be happy.  At least chick fila let's you know how they feel up front so you can choose to go there or not.  That's better then giving money to someone that's smiles to your face and flips you off when you turn your back.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I still don't get why everyone needs to agree with everyone. Why can't people dislike things we have gotten so PC you can't speak your mind anymore . People hate me just because of the uniform I wear to work but I don't care if your gay get thicker skin why care what others think its your life be happy. At least chick fila let's you know how they feel up front so you can choose to go there or not. That's better then giving money to someone that's smiles to your face and flips you off when you turn your back.



No one has taken anyone's right to speak their mind away. No one has said everyone needs to agree with *anyone*.

The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has spoken his mind-the consequences are that other people's opinion's differ, and they can express them as well-and with their wallets. They can also express it by asking others to do so. 

Can't really have one without the other.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 29, 2012)

elder999 said:


> The CEO of Chick-Fil-A has spoken his mind-the consequences are that other people's opinion's differ, and they can express them as well-and with their wallets. They can also express it by asking others to do so.



I agree with this 100%

But tell me if I am wrong to think it's ok to call ******** on the people who are doing so after expressing how stupid,wrong, and narrow minded the people calling for the boycott of Oreo were for doing the exact same thing...


----------



## elder999 (Jul 29, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I agree with this 100%
> 
> But tell me if I am wrong to think it's ok to call ******** on the people who are doing so after expressing how stupid,wrong, and narrow minded the people calling for the boycott of Oreo were for doing the exact same thing...



Can't have one without the other-of course, the media has a lot to do with this, but-and this is the bottom line-the Chick-Fil-A position, and the position of those who called for a boycott of Oreo, is rapidly becoming the minority _narrative_, if not minority position in this country. Consequently, it gets shouted down-especially since most of its justifications are either arbitrarily based on religion or revulsion, and thus simply illogical to most Americans, who really, really, *really* don't care what anyone else does, and don't see how it affects them.


----------



## bluewaveschool (Jul 29, 2012)

Oreos are far more tasty than CFA, so no one gave a crap.  Also, the Prez of Nabisco wasn't on TV going 'I support the gays so much I give them millions each year!'  They just quietly do their thing and go on.  I think if the Prez of Nabsico had done that, there would have been much more outcry.  

As for denying CFA permits to build based on past actions... that depends on state laws.  Federal law does not protect gays, some states do.  If CFA willingly discriminated against homosexual employees becoming managers, or denied potential franchise owners based on being homosexual, then those states can (and should) bring the hammer down for violating the law.  Kentucky does not offer such protections, they can discriminate all they want here.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 29, 2012)

The president of chick fila wasn't on TV saying he supports traditional marriage either he gave an interview to a Christian paper and the national news grabbed it took parts out of context and ran with it.  If you read the entire interview he was talking about how there are no Christian companies only Christian people.  Jesus didn't die for a company.  He was then asked about gay marriage and replied he believed in the traditional family of a man and woman.  So he didn't bring it up or even mention it until he was asked by a reporter.  He answered honestly and didn't try to blow smoke like most people now days


----------



## Tgace (Jul 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> The president of chick fila wasn't on TV saying he supports traditional marriage either he gave an interview to a Christian paper and the national news grabbed it took parts out of context and ran with it.  If you read the entire interview he was talking about how there are no Christian companies only Christian people.  Jesus didn't die for a company.  He was then asked about gay marriage and replied he believed in the traditional family of a man and woman.  So he didn't bring it up or even mention it until he was asked by a reporter.  He answered honestly and didn't try to blow smoke like most people now days



Well...that must make you a hater and your business needs to be boycotted into failure I guess....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I still don't get why everyone needs to agree with everyone.  Why can't people dislike things we have gotten so PC you can't speak your mind anymore .  People hate me just because of the uniform I wear to work but I don't care if your gay get thicker skin why care what others think its your life be happy.  At least chick fila let's you know how they feel up front so you can choose to go there or not.  That's better then giving money to someone that's smiles to your face and flips you off when you turn your back.


Nothing wrong with freedom of speech; i.e., disagreeing with each other.  The concern is that some want to make freedom of speech the same as freedom of association.  
Title VII has a lot to say about freedom of association when it comes to hiring, firing and promoting.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 29, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Nothing wrong with freedom of speech; i.e., disagreeing with each other.  The concern is that some want to make freedom of speech the same as freedom of association.
> Title VII has a lot to say about freedom of association when it comes to hiring, firing and promoting.


I've never seen any evidence chick fila discriminates against anyone.  If its out there please show it.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I've never seen any evidence chick fila discriminates against anyone.  If its out there please show it.


Tolerance and the appearance of impropriety are both one way streets apparently...


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I've never seen any evidence chick fila discriminates against anyone.  If its out there please show it.


Show it?  Like a full page newspaper ad saying "gays need not apply"?  Seriously, I've not concluded that they do discriminate (and I've said as much in several of my posts that it's fair to at least investigate their management hiring and franchise awarding practices to be sure).  

Beyond that, Bob Hubbard has offered plausible, if not anecdotal evidence that Chick-Fil-A does not hire openly gay or lesbian owners and managers.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 29, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Show it?  Like a full page newspaper ad saying "gays need not apply"?  Seriously, I've not concluded that they do discriminate (and I've said as much in several of my posts that it's fair to at least investigate their management hiring and franchise awarding practices to be sure).
> 
> Beyond that, Bob Hubbard has offered plausible, if not anecdotal evidence that Chick-Fil-A does not hire openly gay or lesbian owners and managers.


&#8220;The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender,&#8221; the company said in a statement released by its corporate headquarters in Atlanta
The statement goes on to say that Chick-fil-A is a &#8220;family-owned and family-led&#8221; company founded by Truett Cathy that is managed on &#8220;biblically based principles&#8221; that include &#8220;closing on Sundays, *operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities*.&#8221;


Yep sounds evil to me shut them down


----------



## Steve (Jul 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I've never seen any evidence chick fila discriminates against anyone.  If its out there please show it.



Would be pretty stupid, considering its illegal to discriminate based in sexual orientation in many areas of the country, not to mention the other nationally protected categories.  Kind of a pointless request.  Isn't it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Big Don (Jul 29, 2012)

*Defining Religious Liberty Down*

*By  ROSS DOUTHAT*
NY TIMES EXCERPT:
*Published: July 28, 2012    *

               THE words freedom of belief do not appear in the First Amendment. Nor  do the words freedom of worship. Instead, the Bill of Rights  guarantees Americans something that its authors called the free  exercise of religion.        


 Its a significant choice of words, because it suggests a recognition  that religious faith cannot be reduced to a purely private or individual  affair. Most religious communities conceive of themselves as peoples or  families, and the requirements of most faiths extend well beyond  attendance at a sabbath service  encompassing charity and activism,  education and missionary efforts, and other exercises that any  guarantee of religious freedom must protect.        

 I cannot improve upon the way the first lady of the United States  explained this issue, speaking recently to a conference of the African  Methodist Episcopal Church. Our faith journey  isnt just about showing up on Sunday, Michelle Obama said. Its  about what we do Monday through Saturday as well ... Jesus didnt limit  his ministry to the four walls of the church. He was out there fighting  injustice and speaking truth to power every single day.        
 But Mrs. Obamas words notwithstanding, there seems to be a great deal  of confusion about this point in the Western leadership class today.         
 <<SNIP>>
   But they cannot be exercised in ways  that might deny, say, employer-provided sterilizations to people who  really dont want kids. Nor can they be exercised to deny ones  offspring the kind of sexual gratification that anti-circumcision  advocates claim the procedure makes impossible. They certainly cannot be  exercised in ways that might make anyone uncomfortable with his or her  own sexual choices or identity.        
 It may seem strange that anyone could look around the  pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued  West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But its  clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.        
 It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without  the of course we respect religious freedom facade.        
 If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching,  or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban  Chick-fil-A in Boston, then dont tell religious people that you respect  our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our  religion threatens all thats good and decent, and that youre going to  use the levers of power to bend us to your will.        
 There, didnt that feel better? Now we can get on with the fight.
END EXCERPT
Surprised to see that in the NY Times...


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 29, 2012)

Steve said:


> Would be pretty stupid, considering its illegal to discriminate based in sexual orientation in many areas of the country, not to mention the other nationally protected categories.  Kind of a pointless request.  Isn't it?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Wouldn't be the first company to get in trouble for discrimination.  Some on here have no problem making suggestions to illegal employment practices I was just curious if there were any proof or lawsuits out there against them I couldn't find any.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2012)

Only ones I could find on a quick check


> Former Chick-Fil-A employee Brenda Honeycutt is suing Chick-Fil-A for wrongful termination  based on gender discrimination. According to a lawsuit which is  circulating today on Twitter, on June 27, 2011, owner and operator of  Duluth, GA&#8217;s Chick-Fil-A restaurants Jeff Howard terminated Honeycutt,  whose employee performance was satisfactory-to-above satisfactory, so  that she could be a &#8220;stay home mother.&#8221; Honeycutt was terminated by Howard after meetings with restaurant  management (during which she was not present), and was replaced by a  male employee. The lawsuit cites a pattern of discrimination against female employees, who, after being terminated, were also replaced by male employees in Northern Georgia&#8217;s Chick-Fil-A restaurants.


http://www.glaad.org/blog/chick-fil-sued-gender-discrimination



> The women allege in their lawsuit that when they complained to the  restaurant's owner, Mandy Medlin, they were ignored. They also claim  Chick-fil-A's corporate headquarters ignored their complaints and  instead of taking action to stop the harassment, the three of the women  were fired.


http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ks...arassed-at-chickfila-20120105,0,2055463.story



> A Muslim  former employee of a Christian-based fast-food chain has sued the  company claiming religious bias. In a lawsuit filed Monday, Houston  resident Aziz Latif, 25, said Chick-fil-A's Christian stance runs deeper  than simply being closed on Sundays, "The Houston Chronicle" reported.
> 
> 
> Latif alleges that the Atlanta-based chain's corporate purpose to  glorify God discriminates against its non-Christian employees. Latif  claims he was fired a day after he refused to pray to Jesus during a  training session in November 2000.
> ...


http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2002/10/Muslim-Sues-Chick-Fil-A-For-Discrimination.aspx



Rather small number in my opinion. 


How to get your own Chik Fil A franchise


> [h=4]Step 4[/h]Play an active role in your church. Chick-fil-A's  owners are devout Christians and expect all of their operators to share  Christian values. Operators do not need to be Christian, but must be  willing to close the restaurant on Sundays, espouse Christian values and  be willing to participate in group prayers during training and  management meetings.
> 
> [h=4]Step 5[/h]Be willing to undergo a very long vetting process.  Some potential operators must undergo dozens of interviews over the  course of a year or more before gaining approval. Chick-fil-A will also  interview members of a potential operator's family.
> 
> [h=4]Step 6[/h]Disclose your marital status. Chick-fil-A founder  and chairman S. Truett Cathy prefers franchise operators who are married  and requires all candidates to be open about the state of their  relationship. One-third of all Chick-fil-A operators have attended  Christian relationship-building retreats at the urging of the company.  Cathy notes that he would probably terminate the contract of an operator  who had done something sinful or harmful to his family.


http://smallbusiness.chron.com/approved-open-chickfila-11450.html

The official reason the gay couple was rejected?
"We don't feel that you have the business dedication/ your backup funding appears to be inadequate / You don't have prior experience/..."

They will never say "you can't have it because you're a pagan homosexual high priestess and her living in sin heathen harlot".  That would get them a lawsuit and they are smarter than that. There is -always- another reason you can dig up to disguise.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Only ones I could find on a quick check
> http://www.glaad.org/blog/chick-fil-sued-gender-discrimination
> 
> 
> ...


1st guy if he really fired her so she could be a stay at home mom is a moron and should be fired
2nd one you have woman claiming sexual harassment against a female owner
A muslim upset over christan values in a christan business kinda like a chevy fan taking a job at the ford dealer that gets upset he needs to work on fords  



> Rather small number in my opinion.


I agree for the number of stores.  I personally have been sued more then 3 times so far as a cop.



> How to get your own Chik Fil A franchise
> http://smallbusiness.chron.com/approved-open-chickfila-11450.html
> 
> The official reason the gay couple was rejected?
> ...



We applied for a Chick Fila about 5 years ago and we were told the same thing we didnt have enough business background.  They adivsed us to take some classes and try again.  3 years later someone opend a store up where we wanted to and its PACKED all day its one of the top stores in the state.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 30, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> 1st guy if he really fired her so she could be a stay at home mom is a moron and should be fired
> 2nd one you have woman claiming sexual harassment against a female owner
> A muslim upset over christan values in a christan business kinda like a chevy fan taking a job at the ford dealer that gets upset he needs to work on fords
> 
> ...



Your last point is on point.  Chick-Fil-A has a great business model, and some of the individual owners are absolutely great people.  Not saying that you weren't qualified as a franchisee; just saying that they are understandably demanding in who they award franchises to.

As to the lawsuits ... it's not surprising that there are some.  Every large business that's open to the public and is integrated, will likely face some kind of employment discrimination suits.  And they won't all be frivolous.  Some of the suits will have merit.

Your analogy about the Muslim American employee is interesting.  On the one hand, CFA has said that they are not a "Christian business" but that they espouse "Christian values".  Yet any follower of Christ knows that you do not demand a non-believer to pray.  You especially don't demand that he or she pray in exchange for something of value (like their job).  

Ironically, when it comes to employee treatment it may be Chick-Fil-A that needs a strong lesson on "Christian values".


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

The ultimate lesson here...if you are a business owner, don't voice your opinion on religion or sexual politics. Regardless of how you try to frame it you will be targeted by the media and your opinion reframed as "hate".


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

Bear with me, this is just a thought experiment...and a question, because I honestly don't know the business legalities of the following.

If I wanted to start a coffee shop called "Christs Cafe" and I served "Crucifiction Cappuccino" with "Basicalla Brownies" in an atmosphere with stained glass windows, Christian Music playing, Bibles on the tables and the Pope Channel playing on the television 24/7 would that be legal?

If I employed members of my Church there (as in I only placed help wanted ads in the Church program or announced it at Church functions) would that be legal?

If it became successful and I opened 10 more in my part of the country would that change things?


----------



## rickster (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Bear with me, this is just a thought experiment...and a question, because I honestly don't know the business legalities of the following.
> 
> If I wanted to start a coffee shop called "Christs Cafe" and I served "Crucifiction Cappuccino" with "Basicalla Brownies" in an atmosphere with stained glass windows, Christian Music playing, Bibles on the tables and the Pope Channel playing on the television 24/7 would that be legal?
> 
> ...



Would you serve Muslims, Neo Nazis, and Atheists?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

rickster said:


> Would you serve Muslims, Neo Nazis, and Atheists?



Sure...what better way to convert them than when they read the scripture I have printed on all the cups and napkins?


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> The ultimate lesson here...if you are a business owner, don't voice your opinion on religion or sexual politics. Regardless of how you try to frame it you will be targeted by the media and your opinion reframed as "hate".
> 
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


Or, alternatively, voice your opinions, but don't co-mingle your personal opinions on religion or sexual politics with your business.

Or alternative number 2, do so understanding that co-mingling personal politics and business will potentially help OR harm your business, and be prepared to accept the consequences.

Either way, don't be a baby about it and cry about how the media is targeting you, wah, wah, wah.


----------



## rickster (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Sure...what better way to convert them than when they read the scripture I have printed on all the cups and napkins?



You wont be converting them, they will be (in some way) trying to convert your shop

And what about those who think they are vamps or lykens, or those wearing up-side down crosses?


----------



## rickster (Jul 30, 2012)

Perhaps the gay community/culture should start their own calling "Chick Fil Gay"?


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Bear with me, this is just a thought experiment...and a question, because I honestly don't know the business legalities of the following.
> 
> If I wanted to start a coffee shop called "Christs Cafe" and I served "Crucifiction Cappuccino" with "Basicalla Brownies" in an atmosphere with stained glass windows, Christian Music playing, Bibles on the tables and the Pope Channel playing on the television 24/7 would that be legal?
> 
> ...


I'm no lawyer, but based on my understanding, your business model is probably okay, but only hiring people from your church is pretty clearly discrimination based on a protected class.

Whether you opened up 10 or 100, I think that the situation would be pretty much the same, although you'd have to deal with variations in State and local anti-discrimination laws and such.  For example, in Washington, it is legal to discriminate based upon sexual orientation (IIRC), although sexual orientation is a protected class in Seattle.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

rickster said:


> You wont be converting them, they will be (in some way) trying to convert your shop
> 
> And what about those who think they are vamps or lykens, or those wearing up-side down crosses?


In and Out does this.  Don't they?  They don't proselytize, but they do include a quote from scripture on the bottom of every drink cup.



rickster said:


> Perhaps the gay coomunity/culture should start their own calling "Chick Fil Gay"?


I know this is a joke, but someone already beat you to it.  http://hilahcooking.com/chick-fil-a-copycat/

It's grubbin, too.  I tried it after reading the tip about marinating in pickle juice.  That's genius, right there.


----------



## rickster (Jul 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'm no lawyer, but based on my understanding, your business model is probably okay, but only hiring people from your church is pretty clearly discrimination based on a protected class.
> 
> Whether you opened up 10 or 100, I think that the situation would be pretty much the same, although you'd have to deal with variations in State and local anti-discrimination laws and such.  For example, in Washington, it is legal to discriminate based upon *sexual orientation *(IIRC), although *sexual orientation *is a protected class in Seattle.



I like sexual orientations


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

rickster said:


> You wont be converting them, they will be (in some way) trying to convert your shop
> 
> And what about those who think they are vamps or lykens, or those wearing up-side down crosses?



Im just trying to experiment with the concept of mixing religion with your business..is it allowed? Where are the lines (in terms of law)? What can you do in terms of business decision making when you do mix them?

In my little shop here...how long till people intentionally try to get jobs with the express purpose of some sort of "protest"... or come to the shop with a plan to catch a lawsuit against me because they dont approve of my "theme"? I suppose that is all part of the risk, but what are the actual legal limits?


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

Steve said:


> I'm no lawyer, but based on my understanding, your business model is probably okay, but only hiring people from your church is pretty clearly discrimination based on a protected class.
> 
> Whether you opened up 10 or 100, I think that the situation would be pretty much the same, although you'd have to deal with variations in State and local anti-discrimination laws and such.  For example, in Washington, it is legal to discriminate based upon sexual orientation (IIRC), although sexual orientation is a protected class in Seattle.




I didnt say I "would only hire" from my Church..only that the only place I put my adds for help would be at Church related functions and publications...

Is there law stating that I have to place help wanted ads in a public place were people of all types can see them (legit question..I dont know).


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Your analogy about the Muslim American employee is interesting.  On the one hand, CFA has said that they are not a "Christian business" but that they espouse "Christian values".  Yet any follower of Christ knows that you do not demand a non-believer to pray.  You especially don't demand that he or she pray in exchange for something of value (like their job).
> 
> Ironically, when it comes to employee treatment it may be Chick-Fil-A that needs a strong lesson on "Christian values".



a few complaints out of how many thousand employees seems to me that treat people just fine.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I didnt say I "would only hire" from my Church..only that the only place I put my adds for help would be at Church related functions and publications...


And by only placing ads for help at the church, you're going to end up hiring only people who are from the church.  Clearly, you're overtly trying to only hire Christians, which is overtly discriminatory.  And religion happens to be a protected class.

Look at it like this.  Say I don't like people with kinky, curly, black or dark brown hair.  Fine.  Hair color isn't a protected category and I don't want anyone with kinky, curly, black or dark brown hair on my staff.  But if, by never hiring someone with kinky, curly, black or dark brown hair, my staff ends up looking like the cast of Mad Men or pre-Wyatt Cenac Daily Show, I'm just ASKING for a racial discrimination suit.  I could explain all day that it's not that they're African American.  It's because I don't like their hair.  But, my hiring practices are overtly discriminatory and race is a protected category.

So, again, you're trying to be cute with the law, but in an EEOC dispute, the court doesn't care about cutesiness.  Bottom line is that you have a Christian themed store (fine) but are actively discriminating against potential applicants based upon religious preference (not fine).


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

Yup.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359497


> *EXAMPLE 8
> Recruitment*
> Charles, the president of a company that owns several gas stations, needs managers for the new convenience stores he has decided to add to the stations.  He posts a job announcement at the Hindu Temple he attends and asks other members of the temple to refer only Hindu friends or family members who may be interested in the position.  He does no other recruitment.  By limiting his recruitment to Hindus, Charles is engaging in unlawful discrimination.



hmmm..."and asks other members of the temple to refer only Hindu friends or family members who may be interested in the position." Thats an important addition isnt it? Of course even if you didn't add that you would still draw eeoc troubles most likely.

Of course I dont think that precludes me from placing ads in the Church flyers as well. Which...if I get a Church applicant and a "Hindu" applicant, which should I hire? Of course any intelligent employer knows that he will pretty much have to hire a non-Christian to try and avoid discrimination accusations. Of course a coffee shop like mine may as well have a big Lawsuit Target placed on it because it would be nieve to believe that people would not intentionally target my business for a lawsuit simply because they dont like my religious beliefs.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 30, 2012)

Woman put an ad in her church bulletin looking for a 'Christian Room Mate'. Got sued and lost on a discrimination case.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Woman put an ad in her church bulletin looking for a 'Christian Room Mate'. Got sued and lost on a discrimination case.



That was dropped:

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/...-against-woman-looking-for-Christian-roommate

http://blog.ceb.com/2012/04/20/fair-housing-acts-dont-apply-to-roommate-listings/



> Fair Housing Acts Don&#8217;t Apply to Roommate Listings





> The Ninth Circuit interpreted this definition of &#8220;dwelling&#8221; as applying only to an independent living unit, noting that it would be difficult to divide a single-family house or apartment into separate &#8220;dwellings&#8221; for purposes of the Act.
> 
> The court found no indication that Congress, in enacting the FHA, intended to interfere with personal relationships inside the home; rather, Congress wanted to address the problem of landlords discriminating in the sale and rental of housing.



But she did have to go through the court hassle over it...which I guess is the real lesson here.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Yup.
> 
> http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359497
> 
> ...


Whew.  I feel like I passed a mid-term exam! 


> Of course I dont think that precludes me from placing ads in the Church flyers as well. Which...if I get a Church applicant and a "Hindu" applicant, which should I hire? Of course any intelligent employer knows that he will pretty much have to hire a non-Christian to try and avoid discrimination accusations.


Presuming the Hindu applicant was at least equally qualified for the position, you'd be asking for trouble.  You're right.  If you have a list of applicants who are otherwise equally well qualified for a position, you'd likely move onto other considerations.  

If the Hindu applicant was less qualified, you'd be smart to document your interviews well, but I wouldn't necessarily shy away from hiring the right person for the job.


----------



## Tgace (Jul 30, 2012)

So...knowing the "theme" of my business...what happens if one of my employees engages in "anti Christian" conversation with my customers? Or suddenly takes offense at the "marriage is between a man and a woman" coasters?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199 (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I didnt say I "would only hire" from my Church..only that the only place I put my adds for help would be at Church related functions and publications...
> 
> Is there law stating that I have to place help wanted ads in a public place were people of all types can see them (legit question..I dont know).


I don't think so.  I think you're fine so long as, were someone to walk in and ask about a job, they got honest consideration and that, if rejected, it wasn't for any of the prohibited.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So...knowing the "theme" of my business...what happens if one of my employees engages in "anti Christian" conversation with my customers? Or suddenly takes offense at the "marriage is between a man and a woman" coasters?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


That would be case by case.  But if you're asking me my opinion, I'd say that "anti-Christian" conversations are a bad idea regardless of the theme of your business.  Anti-any religion is probably a bad idea.  Why is the employee discussing religion at all, beyond the specific nature of selling a product?  The presumption is that your "business" is to sell goods and make money, and isn't about proselytizing.  Which leads to your second question...

If you're selling product, it's reasonable to expect your employees to sell the product you stock.  People do it in sales all the time, even with products they don't personally like or use.  If I owned a Christian book store, I'd expect my employees to try and sell my christian books, by golly.


----------



## Carol (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I didnt say I "would only hire" from my Church..only that the only place I put my adds for help would be at Church related functions and publications...
> 
> Is there law stating that I have to place help wanted ads in a public place were people of all types can see them (legit question..I dont know).



I dont know if it's a law or a "guideline" with a force similar of law, but once you have a certain number of employees, you need to file EEO reports that show outreach to many peoples, including underrepresented minorities.

There is likely a point where it would be good business to do so to minimize liability risk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Wo Fat (Jul 30, 2012)

> I didnt say I "would only hire" from my Church..only that the only place I put my adds for help would be at Church related functions and publications...
> 
> Is there law stating that I have to place help wanted ads in a public place were people of all types can see them (legit question..I dont know).



I think if you had more than 100 employees and were "corporate", you'd have EEO-1 filing requirements.  But even if you were smaller, you would probably still be subject ot Title VII.  

Placing adds where only church members would see them, is more of a "tap-on-the-shoulder" form of employing people.  And it's one of the things that hurts you if someone sues.


----------



## Carol (Jul 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> So...knowing the "theme" of my business...what happens if one of my employees engages in "anti Christian" conversation with my customers? Or suddenly takes offense at the "marriage is between a man and a woman" coasters?
> 
> Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk



Well, what is "anti-Christian conversation"?   Who gets to decide what that is, and how does it affect the business of your cafe?

What if they do take offense at such coasters?  How do those coasters translate to their overall work environment and their ability to advance?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 30, 2012)

One of the groups that the CEO contributes money to, Focus on Family, believes and has taken action on the belief that anti-bullying campaigns in our schools are nothing more than shell games to insert "the gay agenda" into our schools. For them, it is more damaging that thier little Joe is exposed to other students who happen to be gay than the bullying those gay students experience.  In my opinion, that is the beliefs of a hate group...and ignorant.  

I see no solid proof that CFA has discriminated against gAy or non-Christian employees, though the anedotal evidence seems to be growing.  If they are not guilty of any such wrongdoing, this will blow over quickly.  If they are guilty of such a thing, then it was not very smart for the ceo to open up this particular can of worms.  Such contreversy would embolden anyone wronged by CFA to make those claims public.

The owners of Chick-fil_a has a right to thier opinions and run thier bussiness as they like, up to a point.  That point is discrimintory practices. Up to that point it is free speach.  As they have thier opinions on gay marriage, others have thier opinions for gay marrriage and may also voice them, even not spending thier money at that bussiness.  That is also free speech.

Keep in mind also, the Christian values they espouse are not the Christian values other agree with.  Being Christian does not neccesarily equate with disagreeing with gay marriage, so attacks on CFA stance on gay marriage is not the attack on Christiandom some would like to make it out to be.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 30, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> One of the groups that the CEO contributes money to, Focus on Family, believes and has taken action on the belief that anti-bullying campaigns in our schools are nothing more than shell games to insert "the gay agenda" into our schools. For them, it is more damaging that thier little Joe is exposed to other students who happen to be gay than the bullying those gay students experience.  In my opinion, that is the beliefs of a hate group...and ignorant.


I disagree with your opinion on Focus on the Family but since you already have made up your mind that they are a "hate" group no point in discussing it.  I will only say the word "Hate group" is thrown around way too freely these days.  Makes it hard to distinguish between a REAL hate group   



> I see no solid proof that CFA has discriminated against gAy or non-Christian employees, though the anedotal evidence seems to be growing.  If they are not guilty of any such wrongdoing, this will blow over quickly.  If they are guilty of such a thing, then it was not very smart for the ceo to open up this particular can of worms.  Such contreversy would embolden anyone wronged by CFA to make those claims public.


problem is it also emboldens people looking to make a quick buck.  Once accused of wrong even when later proven not to be your still always wrong in the public opinion. 


> The owners of Chick-fil_a has a right to thier opinions and run thier bussiness as they like, up to a point.  That point is discrimintory practices. Up to that point it is free speach.  As they have thier opinions on gay marriage, others have thier opinions for gay marrriage and may also voice them, even not spending thier money at that bussiness.  That is also free speech.
> 
> Keep in mind also, the Christian values they espouse are not the Christian values other agree with.  Being Christian does not neccesarily equate with disagreeing with gay marriage, so attacks on CFA stance on gay marriage is not the attack on Christiandom some would like to make it out to be.


If its not an attack on Christiandom then why is it the first thing people attack "oh Its a Christian company what do you expect they dont even open on Sunday"


----------



## billc (Jul 30, 2012)

The anti-bullying campaign, is that the one run by the anti-bullying bully?  You know, the one who attacked the christian kids at his anti-bullying speech.


----------



## Steve (Jul 30, 2012)

It's important to remember that if they are discriminating against a protected category, they are breaking the law.  If they're mixing up a personal/political agenda with business, we can vote with our pocket books.  When companies do this, they aren't breaking the law.  They're playing the odds that their political statement will net them more customers than it will lose them.  

Starbucks has done it.  Microsoft has done it.  Amazon has done it, too.  Chick Fil A as a company is perfectly okay having a well established political position.  That's not against the law.  It's not right and it's not wrong.  It's an opinion that a company chooses to make it's "official" position on a specific political issue.

Edit:  Just want to add that personally, my opinion is that when a company takes a position in favor of something, it can go pretty well.  Pro gun rights.  Pro gay rights.  Pro anything, really.  But when a company comes out against something, it tends to go wrong.  Anti-whatever...  typically backfires.  Just my unscientific observation.


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 31, 2012)

Hate Groups - A *hate group* is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. - Wikipedia

I believe Focus on Family does fit.  Just thier campaign against stopping bullying of kids because some of those kids might be gay fits into this description.  That these gay kids cannot change who they are and often take thier lives because of bullying just intensifies my opinion.  So while CFA is not a hate group, the owner is just expressing his opinion, he gives money to an organization that is a hate group.  Understand I do not use the "hate" moniker lightly, but I won't shy away from calling it when I see it.

_If its not an attack on Christiandom then why is it the first thing people attack "oh Its a Christian company what do you expect they dont even open on Sunday"
_Really? I haven't heard anyone say that or post it.  Half the people I see that don't agree with CFA's stance on gay marriage are Christians.  In fact, if you notice, at least one member on our forum that doesn't agree with thier stance is a Christian pastor.  Its' not an anti-Christian thing at all.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2012)

Steve said:


> Edit:  Just want to add that personally, my opinion is that when a company takes a position in favor of something, it can go pretty well.  Pro gun rights.  Pro gay rights.  Pro anything, really.  But when a company comes out against something, it tends to go wrong.  Anti-whatever...  typically backfires.  Just my unscientific observation.



Was that the case here tho?  There has been SO MUCH back and forth and round and round that at this point I don't remember the exact beginning... Did they come out as "Pro Christianity" in the article, and then that got picked up and run with to be "Anti Gay"  or was the article about their Anti-Gay stance?  I need to go back and read it again.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2012)

> "That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries," Cathy added.
> 
> Some  have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well,  guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
> 
> ...



The Above is what I saw... Support for Christianity and their Definition of the Traditional Family.  Of course, we know that generally means that their stance is Anti Gay (I happen to be Christian AND Support whatever kind of Marriage people want... to quote the Rent is Too Damn High guy, They can Marry a Shoe if thats what they want) but it looks to me like they came out in Support of one thing, and that got turned into an against something else.  (And I'm not trying to imply that they aren't against it, I'm just saying that it doesn't look _in this particular case_ like Steve's hypothesis played out)


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 31, 2012)

Take a look at the web sites of the organisations Mr Cathy has donated CFA proceeds to.  It is hard to argue he isn't anti-gay after you read some of the nonsense in those sites.  Keep in mind those aren't just opinion sites either.  They are for organizations that recieve and spend money to support actions against LGBT interest.

I like the resteraunts.  I love thier customer service.  If that is a by product of thier Christian structure, I'm okay with that.  While Mr Cathy's comments are distasteful to me, he has a right to them and I'd still probably eat at the resteraunts.  However, he gives money to organizations that are more than distasteful, in my opinion.  If I spend money at CFA, then part of that money would go to those organizations.  I won't do that.  If someone else feels its okay, then it is thier money.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Take a look at the web sites of the organisations Mr Cathy has donated CFA proceeds to.  It is hard to argue he isn't anti-gay after you read some of the nonsense in those sites.



I'm not arguing that he's not anti gay... I can infer from what he said that he probably is.  What I was saying, was that in response to Steve's thought that you are better off saying you are For something than saying you are against something, was that as far as I can tell, he did just that in the article, and people ran with the "If you are for that you must be against this!" and then went looking for (and apparently found) the evidence that supports it... so In this particular case, I don't think that worked out the way Steve expected it should.  

Being as that we don't have any Chick Fil A around me, and I've never eaten at one, I don't even have a pony in this race, other than my dander being riled by my idiot friends on Facebook screaming about "How stupid are you for wanting to boycott oreo you damn Gay Hatin Fundies: ZOMG WE NEED TO BOYCOTT CHICK FIL A THEY ARE A BUNCH OF GAY HATIN FUNDIES!"

*Shrug* To me that's like a girl walking around topless, and then getting mad that you looked at her Ta-tas.


----------



## Carol (Jul 31, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> The Above is what I saw... Support for Christianity and their Definition of the Traditional Family.  Of course, we know that generally means that their stance is Anti Gay (I happen to be Christian AND Support whatever kind of Marriage people want... to quote the Rent is Too Damn High guy, They can Marry a Shoe if thats what they want) but it looks to me like they came out in Support of one thing, and that got turned into an against something else.  (And I'm not trying to imply that they aren't against it, I'm just saying that it doesn't look _in this particular case_ like Steve's hypothesis played out)



He also said on radio that there are "all kinds of twisted up things going on" because "we have not acknowledged God" and that we are inviting God's judgment on a nation because such prideful, arrogant generation has the audacity to define marriage or something like that.   Those were the comments that seemed to set off Mayor Menino...not the comments in the Christian paper that said he believed in a biblical definition of marriage.

Partisan politics may well be playing a role, the letter Menino wrote was cc'ed to to Steve Binnie of Carlise Capital.  Menino is a Democrat.  The Binnie family is one of the wealthiest and most influential families in NH, and they are strong Republicans. Mark my words, if Obama gets a second term, Bill Binnie will be a RNC contender in 2016.


----------



## Steve (Jul 31, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Was that the case here tho?  There has been SO MUCH back and forth and round and round that at this point I don't remember the exact beginning... Did they come out as "Pro Christianity" in the article, and then that got picked up and run with to be "Anti Gay"  or was the article about their Anti-Gay stance?  I need to go back and read it again.


Well, I don't know if anyone's got the entire story, but my understanding is that they came out anti-gay marriage and then the Jim Hensen company pulled their support, which is what got it in the news.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 31, 2012)

Many people are offended by Hooters' policy of only hiring female servers, and forcing them to dress in skimpy attire.  I have not yet seen any Mayors or Aldermen declaring that Hooters may not open a branch in their city or neighborhood because of it.  Why is that?  Being sexist is OK, but being anti-gay is not?

I'm a member of the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's organization.  We do not allow women, nor non-Catholics, to become members.  That also means we have no same-sex married couples as members.  I am unaware of any attempts to keep the Knights from forming a chapter in any city.  There are many other fraternal religious and secular organizations which likewise restrict membership to certain genders, religions, or those of a particular set of beliefs.  No one fighting to keep them out, eh?

Has any city politician attempted to keep the KKK from forming a group inside their city?  I mean, no one in their right mind supports them, but yet they have chapters, memberships, hold meetings, and all totally legally in every major city.  Where is the outrage?  Guess it's OK to be racist, just not anti-gay, eh?

Like I said, I don't have a problem with people choosing to support CFA with their patronage or likewise not to support it.  The consumer (and the advertiser and affiliated suppliers, etc) have every right to decide with whom they are going to do business.  I find it somewhat disingenuous that so many would line up behind attempts to 'punish' CFA for their 'incorrect' political beliefs by using the law to keep them from opening new branches.  I don't see similar efforts being made to stop other non-PC groups.  I wonder why that is?


----------



## Carol (Jul 31, 2012)

Hooters has been the subject of several lawsuits (google hooters lawsuit for some of the higher profile ones).   Hooters has indeed been denied a chance to operate in certain towns, including a city where I used to live.  A skanky motel was on a major thoroughfare...and there some absolutely wretched stories about the things that happened there,

Skank motel burned down (I'm sure it was just an accident).  A hooters franchisee that owned a Boston restaurant tried to scoop up the property and rehab it in to a brand nee restaurant.  City aldermen resisted based on Hooters being offensive.   Franchisee tried to fight the city.   Franchisee lost, and opened in NH where I currently live instead (before going bankrupt).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 31, 2012)

Carol said:


> Hooters has been the subject of several lawsuits (google hooters lawsuit for some of the higher profile ones).   Hooters has indeed been denied a chance to operate in certain towns, including a city where I used to live.  A skanky motel was on a major thoroughfare...and there some absolutely wretched stories about the things that happened there,
> 
> Skank motel burned down (I'm sure it was just an accident).  A hooters franchisee that owned a Boston restaurant tried to scoop up the property and rehab it in to a brand nee restaurant.  City aldermen resisted based on Hooters being offensive.   Franchisee tried to fight the city.   Franchisee lost, and opened in NH where I currently live instead (before going bankrupt).
> 
> ...



OK, thanks, I was unaware of that.  That's one...not exactly a big news item...but still, point made.


----------



## crushing (Jul 31, 2012)

Steve said:


> Well, I don't know if anyone's got the entire story, but my understanding is that they came out anti-gay marriage and then the Jim Hensen company pulled their support, which is what got it in the news.



I started seeing a lot of anti-Cathy and anti-Chik-fil-a stuff being posted on social networking sites (not all of it from opportunistic vegan friends  ) and articles popping up on popular opinion sites like HuffPo a week or two before the Jim Hensen Corporation cut their ties.


----------



## rickster (Jul 31, 2012)

I have nothing agianst Hooters, really I dont mind when they are against me


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 31, 2012)

rickster said:


> I have nothing agianst Hooters, really I dont mind when they are against me



As a Male Chauvinist pig, I concur.


----------



## Carol (Jul 31, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, thanks, I was unaware of that.  That's one...not exactly a big news item...but still, point made.




Sure, matters like this typically aren't major news items.  Today there was a similar issue published in the Boston Business Journal, a nearby church isn't happy about a restaurant moving nearby that features scantily clad wait staff: http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2012/07/quincy-tilted-kilt.html  So...it happens but more to your point, it didn't have anywhere near the populist groundswell.

Much like Mayor Menino backtracking on his letter that went viral and admitting that it was a mistake, and that he can't do anything about Chick Fil A opening a restaurant in Boston.  His turnabout didn't have the same virulence (for lack of a better word) as his letter.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 31, 2012)

Things keep going the way they are, soon you'll start reading about people being denied the chance to get married because of their skin color again.


----------



## Carol (Jul 31, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Things keep going the way they are, soon you'll start reading about people being denied the chance to get married because of their skin color again.



How soon is now?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/wedding-banned_n_1711201.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Jul 31, 2012)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Things keep going the way they are, soon you'll start reading about people being denied the chance to get married because of their skin color again.


All the more reason to get the govt out of the wedding permission business


----------



## billc (Jul 31, 2012)

On a related topic the mayors of each city calling for Chick fil A to no longe run businesses in their cities can also be expected to call for all businesses run by practicing Muslims to also close up their businesses and move out of the city limits.  Please insert the term "islamaphobe," whenever you mentions these mayors from this point forward.  For example, Islamaphobic Mayor Rahm Emanuel, of chicago...Islamaphobic Mayor Menino of Boston...


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 31, 2012)

Wow billi, that's a stretch even for you.  LOL


----------



## granfire (Jul 31, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Wow billi, that's a stretch even for you.  LOL



Stretch billie?


----------



## Big Don (Aug 1, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Wow billi, that's a stretch even for you.  LOL


Because Islam embraces gay marriage...


----------



## billc (Aug 1, 2012)

It isn't a stretch.  Islam is the same as Christianity as far as gay marriage goes and you could say they go even further.  So, if Chick fil A can't run businesses in these cities because they believe in the traditional definition of marriage, then neither can businesses owned by members of the Muslim community.  How is that a stretch?


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 1, 2012)

Because not every Christian or Muslim in this country is against gay marriage.  Far from it.  It is amusing to me that some Christians are claiming this is about anti-Christianity when a very large percentage of those that believe gays should have the right to marry are Christian as well.  It is about bigotry, not religion.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 1, 2012)

Are these the Muslims who all want to kill us, or a different Muslim group?  I can't tell them apart, what with their women all dressing like ninjas.


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2012)

billcihak said:


> It isn't a stretch.  Islam is the same as Christianity as far as gay marriage goes and you could say they go even further.  So, if Chick fil A can't run businesses in these cities because they believe in the traditional definition of marriage, then neither can businesses owned by members of the Muslim community.  How is that a stretch?


When Chick Fil A chooses to mix personal politics and business, they should be prepared to accept the consequences.  Should a muslim owned company do the same, they should also be prepared to accept the consequences.

But, this doesn't mean in any way that a christian owned or muslim owned business should be banned strictly because of who owns it.  That's as overtly discriminatory as anything we've discussed in the thread so far.  It's not who owns a business that is being discussed.  It's whether or not the owner(s) of a business choose to take a principled stand on a political issue unrelated to their business, and whether or not they should be made to accept the consequences or protected from those consequences by the government.

Chick Fil A gambled, and it remains to be seen how this will play out.  So far, it's garnered them some supporters, but a whole lot of bad press.  Starbucks has done well with principled stands, as has Microsoft, Costco, Amazon.com and many, many other companies.  Many others wisely choose not to mix personal politics with business, the safer alternative, to be sure.


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Because not every Christian or Muslim in this country is against gay marriage.  Far from it.  It is amusing to me that some Christians are claiming this is about anti-Christianity when a very large percentage of those that believe gays should have the right to marry are Christian as well.  It is about bigotry, not religion.


But again, even if there is a Muslim who is against gay marriage who owns, let's say a chain of chicken sandwich fast food restaurants, the key here is whether or not this Muslim chooses to take a position on behalf of his company denouncing gay marriage.  Again, not him.  Not his position.  But now, it's the position of his company, as well.  THAT is the issue here.


----------



## rickster (Aug 1, 2012)

Steve said:


> But again, even if there is a Muslim who is against gay marriage who owns, let's say a chain of chicken sandwich fast food restaurants, the key here is whether or not this Muslim chooses to take a position on behalf of his company denouncing gay marriage.  Again, not him.  Not his position.  But now, it's the position of his company, as well.  THAT is the issue here.



But a Muslim can get away with before a Caucasian Christian Group


----------



## granfire (Aug 1, 2012)

rickster said:


> But a Muslim can get away with before a Caucasian Christian Group



LOL, where? 
I mean outside the middle east!

Around here these days they cant even build a house of worship....


----------



## Steve (Aug 1, 2012)

rickster said:


> But a Muslim can get away with before a Caucasian Christian Group


???  What?


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 1, 2012)

Stopped in to chick fila today on my way to work it was PACKED I didn't realize today was support chick fila day.  I'm starting to wonder if this was done by Cathy on purpose to get free advertisement.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2012)

*http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012..._support_chicken_chain_s_anti_lgbt_views_.htm
UPDATE:* Seems like quite a few chicken-loving, same-sex marriage foes turned out for Wednesday's Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.
Based on reports from around the country, many Chick-fil-As had lines out the door come lunchtime. Attendees emphasized a mix of support for the company's stance against equal marriage rights and for what's being billed as an underlying free speech issue in the initial backlash against the fast food chain's officially outed politics. Mayors in a handful of cities, including Boston and Chicago, responded to CEO Dan Cathy's recent remarks on his "Biblical" view of marriage by insinuating that the chain was not welcome within city limits.


According to CNN, the company won't say exactly how much the demonstrations boosted the company's bottom-line, but has confirmed that Wednesday was a "*record-setting day*." [Elsewhere in *Slate*, David Weigel reports on the scene at a Chick-fil-A in Pennsylvania.]


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 2, 2012)

It amazes me that so many in this country have no idea what the right to free speech actually means.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> It amazes me that so many in this country have no idea what the right to free speech actually means.



So being an owner of a busniess means you loose your right to say what you want?  And I should loose my right to eat where I want because you dont like it?


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 2, 2012)

Absolutely not.  You can say whatever you want as a bussiness and eat where you like.  That is free speech.  Free speech is not the freedom from the consequences of your speech.  Just as you have the right to say whatever you like, others have a right to say they disagree.  If that effects your bussiness then that is a consequence that you don't get to avoid.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Absolutely not.  You can say whatever you want as a bussiness and eat where you like.  That is free speech.  Free speech is not the freedom from the consequences of your speech.  Just as you have the right to say whatever you like, others have a right to say they disagree.  If that effects your bussiness then that is a consequence that you don't get to avoid.


So people showing up for support for Chick Fila dont know what free speech actually means but people boycotting do?  I guess I dont understand your point.  In this case the consequence was record profits


----------



## Steve (Aug 2, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So people showing up for support for Chick Fila dont know what free speech actually means but people boycotting do?  I guess I dont understand your point.  In this case the consequence was record profits


I may be wrong, but I think the point was more that the owner and many people in this thread believe that the owner should be exempt from all but positive consequences of his own speech.  I don't want to speak for wc-lun, but that was my impression.  

For me, this is exactly what I was talking about.  Chick Fil-a, a company that really has no exposure outside of its own region is now being discussed on a national level.  They're in the news.  Free publicity.  The executive leadership took a gamble, and the dialogue continues.  Will it eventually hurt them or help them?  Hard to say.  Depends upon who spins it and how compelling they are.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 2, 2012)

Steve said:


> I may be wrong, but I think the point was more that the owner and many people in this thread believe that the owner should be exempt from all but positive consequences of his own speech.  I don't want to speak for wc-lun, but that was my impression.


I think most people bring up support for the free speech aspect are more upset with the mayors that are coming out saying they want to Ban Chick Fila from there city.  



> For me, this is exactly what I was talking about.  Chick Fil-a, a company that really has no exposure outside of its own region is now being discussed on a national level.  They're in the news.  Free publicity.  The executive leadership took a gamble, and the dialogue continues.  Will it eventually hurt them or help them?  Hard to say.  Depends upon who spins it and how compelling they are.


The more I see it the more I think your 100% correct.  I think he knew exactly what he was saying.  Besides the Olympics this is one of the top national stories.  Most of the people opposed to what he said live in the northern (DEM) part of the country or in Big Dem contorlled cities.  Well most of these places dont even have a Chick Fil-a so hes not hurting his bottom line.  Most of his stores are located in the south where its more religious and more in line with his beliefs and he basically had them all close ranks around him all the way to the bank.  My wifes aunt and uncle came to town Monday from Minn. they said they dont have any Chick Fila where they live but they knew the story and actully went out of the way to make sure they went to one while they were here just to try it and see what all the fuss was about.  They are not political at all but said they just wanted to try it.


----------



## Wo Fat (Aug 4, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> I think most people bring up support for the free speech aspect are more upset with the mayors that are coming out saying they want to Ban Chick Fila from there city.
> 
> 
> The more I see it the more I think your 100% correct.  I think he knew exactly what he was saying.  Besides the Olympics this is one of the top national stories.  Most of the people opposed to what he said live in the northern (DEM) part of the country or in Big Dem contorlled cities.  Well most of these places dont even have a Chick Fil-a so hes not hurting his bottom line.  Most of his stores are located in the south where its more religious and more in line with his beliefs and he basically had them all close ranks around him all the way to the bank.  My wifes aunt and uncle came to town Monday from Minn. they said they dont have any Chick Fila where they live but they knew the story and actully went out of the way to make sure they went to one while they were here just to try it and see what all the fuss was about.  They are not political at all but said they just wanted to try it.



As true as that might be, I would welcome a cogent and Biblically-supported explanation as how is this very calculated geo-political play ... in any way a "Christian virtue"? 

For the record, I contend that it's not; that CFA's leadership knows it's not; and that the vast majority of those who supported this calculated effort, also know it's not.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 4, 2012)

Interesting read from a gay man's perspective...http://www.owldolatrous.com/


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 4, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Interesting read from a gay man's perspective...http://www.owldolatrous.com/



I disagree with him on several points.  No one here not even Chick-Fil-A is trying to have him killed.  That is just a straw man argument based on how gays in some other countries are treated... As best as I can see, (other than as a result of criminal assault, not by policy) no one is executing Gays in the USA.

Boycotting Chick-fil-a is his right.  Yours, mine, theirs, that's all fine.  But it goes beyond that when our elected leadership use their power to prevent Chick-fil-a from opening in their town/state based on their personal bias.  You cannot argue that supporting Chick-fil-a is "Bullying and no bullying of any kind should be tolerated" while supporting said ban... that too is Bullying and you are a Hypocrite.

which brings me to the "If I disagree with you it doesn't cost you anything, but if you disagree with me it does, so I can disagree with you without being wrong, but you are an evil bully for disagreeing with me" argument is to me just a justification to be a hypocrite.  

_*This shouldn't even be a ****ing issue people.*_  CFA is entitled to believe whatever they want, to spend their money any way they want, and as long as their is no wrongdoing in their ACTUAL buisness practices (i.e. refusing to Hire gays, refusing to serve gays) to practice their business anyway they want.  The LBGT community and their supporters are also entitled to believe whatever they want, to spend their money any way  they want, and as long as their is no wrongdoing in their interaction with these businesses, (i.e Vandaizing a building, blocking consumers (which they tried to do here in Aurora IL the other night) or using political influence to shut them down) to practice their consumerism anyway they want.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 4, 2012)

Many Islamic countries execute gays. This, is not fodder for protests...


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 4, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Many Islamic countries execute gays. This, is not fodder for protests...



I understand it happens in other countries as a matter of policy; that's why, if you read what I wrote it says: (and I'm bolding for emphasis here)



Cryozombie said:


> No one *here* not even Chick-Fil-A is trying to have him killed.  That is just a straw man argument based on how gays in some other countries are treated... As best as I can see, (other than as a result of criminal assault, not by policy) *no one is executing Gays in the USA.*


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 4, 2012)

Easy there.  I didn't say I agreed with everything he said.  However, it is the viewpoint of a gay person in the US.  I also do think he has a lot of valid points as well.  Gays are discriminated against in this country.  If an organization were trying to make it illegal to be of a certain ethnic, religious, or even social statuses, most everyone in the US would think them idiotic and hateful.  A group wants to make it illegal to be gay and there are a significant amount of people that not only agree, but donate to that cause.  Mr Cathy is one of those people.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 4, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I understand it happens in other countries as a matter of policy; that's why, if you read what I wrote it says: (and I'm bolding for emphasis here)



I wasn't responding to you. Just to the rather blatant hypocrisy and cowardice of the gay community and their supporters. Were they truly interested in rights for gays, instead of punishing those who think differently, they would protest outside the consulates and embassies of nations where homosexuality is a capital crime.


----------



## Cryozombie (Aug 4, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Easy there.  I didn't say I agreed with everything he said.



And just to be clear, in my post when I say "You" I was referring to the author of the Article... not you personally.


----------



## billc (Aug 4, 2012)

Sorry, I tend to be more libertarian on this issue.  If you own a business, it belongs to you, you should be able to serve, not serve whoever you want, hire, fire whoever you want for whatever reason you want.  If you like certain types of people or don't like others you should be able to act on those likes/dislikes as much as you want.  The only organization that should be forced to engage in equality on all fronts is the government.  The government should not be allowed to discrimanate in its hiring/firing practices.  Much like you have a choice as a property owner, your home, you can hire or fire a plumber for whatever reason you want, without regard to explaining the reason.  A business should be no different.


----------



## rickster (Aug 6, 2012)

I go for the food......


----------



## billc (Aug 9, 2012)

Some interesting thoughts...

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/08/does-the-left-really-care-abou



> [h=2]Does the Left Really Care About Gay Marriage?[/h]By AARON GOLDSTEIN on 8.8.12 @ 6:08AM
> Only if it's a white conservative Christian who opposes it. Otherwise
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rickster (Aug 9, 2012)

billcihak said:


> Some interesting thoughts...
> 
> http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/08/does-the-left-really-care-abou



It is called "Horse/Mule Blinders"


----------



## elder999 (Sep 19, 2012)

And in the latest news:



> Chick-fil-A, the fast food chain that sparked a firestorm earlier this year after its president made public comments against same sex marriage, has agreed to stop funding anti-gay groups, a Chicago alderman says.
> Joe Moreno, the alderman whose opposition of a proposed Chick-fil-A on Chicago's north side helped fuel the controversy, told the Chicago Tribune the company has pledged to include a statement of respect for all sexual orientations in a memo to staffers and has promised that the WinShape Foundations, its not-for-profit arm, would no longer contribute money to groups that oppose gay marriage. Moreno said he will recommend that Chick-fil-A's construction plans be approved.



Thoughts?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2012)

elder999 said:


> And in the latest news:
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



See if they do the Christian thing and keep their word.


----------

