Originally Posted By EdisYoda And Chick-fil-a is spinning this as a "voluntary safety recall" <a href="http://consumerist.com/2012/07/chick-fil-a-claims-henson-toy-recall-unrelated-to-same-sex-marriage-controversy.html" target="_blank">http://consumerist.com/2012/07...rsy.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>"But this is a whole stick of butter on a stick dipped in a cinnamon honey batter and deep-fried. And then coated in a sugary glaze. It costs four dollars."<< And it STILL sounds more appetizing than a Jack-in-the-Box taco!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>And Chick-fil-a is spinning this as a "voluntary safety recall"<< Oooooooh!!! Liars liars liars! Jesus would be spinning in his grave ... if he was still in there. ;-)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I am sorry but nothing beats a Jack in the Box taco especially after a night of drinking.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By dshyates Mike Huckabee has declared Aug. 1st to be Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day!
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<I think I'll buy a Muppet instead.>> As long as it's not one of Gonzo's Chickens!
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>It's really amazing that in this day and age, people are still so afraid. I feel like it really comes down to fear. They're afraid of gay and lesbian people, and others who are 'not like them.' It's kind of baffling, really.<<< It's not baffling to me. People think differently from each other. They are not afraid of in the sense of "fear" of gays, they are feeling that they are upholding whatever their religious or moral beliefs are. Why does everyone and everyplace have to agree with one side of the scenario. If they are not advocating killing off all the gays, why can they not have an opinion just like everyone else. I'm not gay, but I wonder, if I were, should I be wary of every establishment run by heterosexual people. I mean, after all, they obviously don't hold the same exact opinion of gay people about what is right for them therefore, by default, are disagreeing with the gay concept. I don't fault Chick-fil-A at all, they have a right to their opinion, I do see a certain overreaction from the Henson company. What in effect they are doing is depriving every child of something because they disagree with the opinion of a COO. Seems foolish to me. Now if Chick-fil-A were to be denying jobs or services to people for being gay, then by all means, hit them hard, but I didn't really see that in this case. How, really, does Chick-Fil-A's executive influence others unless one makes a big deal about it. In this case I'm afraid that more damage is done by pulling the toys then letting it ride until it died away and no one would have even had a reason to be influenced. Bad move on Henson's part. One group should not be allowed to bully another into thinking like themselves. That's why it is bewildering. It really conflicts with the rights of anyone to think whatever they want to think. That is wrong. It's my way or the highway does not fit in well with freedom.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>What in effect they are doing is depriving every child of something because they disagree with the opinion of a COO.<< Every child? Uh, no. The Henson Company is disassociating itself with a company whose officially stated positions they find repugnant. What possible problem could you have with that? I'm sure they have plenty of Focus on the Family storybooks left over that they can give out. Besides, Chick-Fil-A just pulled the toys over some trumped up child safety excuse before the promotion is over. So it's Chick-Fil-A denying the Henson Company's freedom of speech, not the other way around. ;-)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Chick-Fil-A can hold whatever opinion it wants to. But people also are free to decide if they want to financially support a business that is run by people who use their money to support anti-gay legislation. >>How, really, does Chick-Fil-A's executive influence others unless one makes a big deal about it.<< They are using the dollars they earn by selling kids meals containing Muppet toys towards supporting legislation that the Jim Henson Company disagrees with. >>I'm not gay, but I wonder, if I were, should I be wary of every establishment run by heterosexual people.<< Only if that establishment is financially supporting anti-gay legislation and politicians.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Every child? Uh, no.<< I know, right? My first thought was, "Well I don't eat at Chick-Fil-A so my kids aren't deprived."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>They are not afraid of in the sense of "fear" of gays<< They are afraid that gay people will somehow recruit children to "choose" to become gay. It's ignorance.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "If they are not advocating killing off all the gays, why can they not have an opinion just like everyone else...It really conflicts with the rights of anyone to think whatever they want to think." The right to think what you want to think doesn't absolve you or grant you immunity from the effects of those thoughts once they become known. With the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the consequences of what you say. The owner of Chick-Fil-A expressed his position on homosexuality. That's his right. The owner of the Henson properties decided to no longer do business with a company that espoused a position that they found repugnant. That is their right. The First Amendment doesn't grant you immunity from public reaction to your words. It only says that the government isn't going to restrict your right to make an idiot of yourself.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Why does everyone and everyplace have to agree with one side of the scenario. If they are not advocating killing off all the gays, why can they not have an opinion just like everyone else.> They do have that opinion. And they have the right to it. And the rest of us have the right to have an opinion about their opinion. <I'm not gay, but I wonder, if I were, should I be wary of every establishment run by heterosexual people.> Of course not. <I mean, after all, they obviously don't hold the same exact opinion of gay people about what is right for them therefore, by default, are disagreeing with the gay concept.> Huh? What is the "gay concept" exactly? I sometimes hear people say "I disagree with homosexuality." That's sort of like saying "I disagree with oak trees." It's just a fact of life, and it's present in hundreds of documented species, not just humans. It's neither right nor wrong, neither moral nor immoral. Like being right-handed or left-handed. (And being left-handed, if you didn't know, used to be considered "of the devil" and morally wrong too.) Lots and lots of heterosexuals understand this. The Chick-Fil-A folks seem not to. <I don't fault Chick-fil-A at all, they have a right to their opinion, I do see a certain overreaction from the Henson company.> They also have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they please. <What in effect they are doing is depriving every child of something because they disagree with the opinion of a COO. Seems foolish to me.> Seems courageous to me. They're depriving themselves of exposure (I think the kids will live) to stand up for something THEY believe in - treating people equally. <Now if Chick-fil-A were to be denying jobs or services to people for being gay, then by all means, hit them hard, but I didn't really see that in this case. How, really, does Chick-Fil-A's executive influence others unless one makes a big deal about it.> He gives lavishly to anti-gay groups. Groups whose only purpose is to make life harder for gay people and to deny them equal treatment under the law. Would you feel the same way if he gave lavishly to the KKK or an anti-Semitic group or some other hate group? <In this case I'm afraid that more damage is done by pulling the toys then letting it ride until it died away and no one would have even had a reason to be influenced. Bad move on Henson's part.> I disagree. Great move on Henson's part. <One group should not be allowed to bully another into thinking like themselves.> That's not the case here. The Chick-Fil-A folks will think exactly the same way. The Henson folks found out the extent of the C-F-A folks' bigotry and decided they did not want to be associated with them any more. That's their freedom of association, or non-association. That's why it is bewildering. It really conflicts with the rights of anyone to think whatever they want to think. That is wrong. It's my way or the highway does not fit in well with freedom.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That's why it is bewildering. It really conflicts with the rights of anyone to think whatever they want to think. That is wrong. It's my way or the highway does not fit in well with freedom.> Everyone here is thinking what they like. No freedom being hurt here.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "What is the "gay concept" exactly?" A TV show based on clothing designers?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Every child? Uh, no.<<< Attempting to prove a point by distorting and exaggerating a statement will not win support. You know as well as I do what I meant by that statement. >>>They are afraid that gay people will somehow recruit children to "choose" to become gay. It's ignorance.<<< I have to respectfully disagree. That ship sailed years ago except for the "actually" ignorant. The fear is that they are upsetting god because of their religious beliefs. They feel that if they want to "get to heaven" they must not waver from the teachings of their church. Is that wrong, probably, but that is the fear that they are experiencing not recruitment. >>>"I disagree with homosexuality."<<< That ties directly into what I just said above. One can disagree with homosexuality and not be denying it's existence. Where would the section of the bible get the "Sodom and Gomorrah" reference if it hasn't been around and recognized even back then. >>>They also have the right to associate or not associate with whomever they please.<<< True, but by doing so, they have pushed a point that wasn't necessary. That focused in on a problem that was totally not related to the Muppets and made those that back the COO more determined that they are right, not less. >>>Seems courageous to me. They're depriving themselves of exposure (I think the kids will live) to stand up for something THEY believe in - treating people equally.<<< It is courageous but counter productive. All that happens is that those that disagree with Hanson will continue to do so and those that support will continue, but in the process created a fight that wasn't worth fighting. If Chick was discriminating directly against gays, then fine, but expressing a belief concerning a point of legislation is not grounds for boycotting. What would the word be if the shoe were on the other foot and a group that heterosexuality was accepted completely, decided that they should boycott gay establishments. Would that then be unfair, while the other way around was fair? Isn't it all a two way street? >>>to stand up for something THEY believe in<<< Isn't that what Chick-fil-A was doing also or does only one belief count towards courageous?
