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

[WC_lun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[crushing]

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]

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

 

[Cryozombie]

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

As a Male Chauvinist pig, I concur.

 

[Carol]

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]

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]

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