Originally Posted By TomSawyer "If Chick was discriminating directly against gays, then fine, but expressing a belief concerning a point of legislation is not grounds for boycotting." Why not? Why can't people decide who they will and won't do business with based on things that they think are important?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>>"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.> One can't disagree with homosexuality any more than one can disagree with oak trees. One might not LIKE oak trees, but you can't "disagree" with them. They exist. When one says he "disagrees" with homosexuality, what he's really saying is that either he dislikes it, or he disagrees with someone "chooses" to be gay. Except that it's not a choice, so once again we're back to an irrational statement. <Where would the section of the bible get the "Sodom and Gomorrah" reference if it hasn't been around and recognized even back then.> Actually, the Sodom story, most Biblical experts agree, has nothing to do with homosexuality, despite the misnomer that "sodomy" became in retrospect. It has to do with turning over to his enemies someone who was entrusted to your hospitality. The phrase in the Bible to turn them over "so that we may know them" has been misinterpreted as "know in the Biblical sense." (i.e. sex, as the KJ version used "know" as a euphemism.) But if you look at the original text, the word used for the English word "know" is NOT the same word used elsewhere in the Bible when they do mean sex. It's just the more generic term for "know." So it's almost certainly not a sexual reference. And if it is, it's a reference to unwanted sex, i.e. rape, which is obviously wrong no matter if it's straight or gay. There are other (though not very many!) references to homosexuality in the Bible, but Sodom is actually not one of them. Jesus even states explicitly later what the "sin of your sister Sodom was" and it wasn't sex - it was turning over a guest to his enemies. Your Bible lesson for today. >>>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.> In your opinion. Henson obviously thought it was necessary. I know I wouldn't have my company associate with someone I knew was donating to the Klan. Would you? Henson's point is that CFA donates to hate groups. How is that "unnecessary" as a point? <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.> Maybe in the short term. But a). Henson did the right thing as they saw it regardless of whether CFA will agree, and b). perhaps if enough people make the point that this sort of bigotry is unacceptable, "unchangeable" positions will change. Look at the Mormon church changing its position on blacks in the 70's. >>>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.> Sure it's worth fighting. Bigotry is always worth fighting. And you've got tons of people who just went to CFA because it was in the mall and convenient and they had no idea about their politics... and now they know. <If Chick was discriminating directly against gays, then fine, but expressing a belief concerning a point of legislation is not grounds for boycotting.> Why not? That's not up to you. And they don't just express concern, they give scads of money to hate groups. <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?> If they want to do that, they can do that. Hell, the Baptists DID (try to) boycott Disney because they offered domestic partner benefits to gay employees. These groups like Focus on the Family are ALWAYS boycotting someone they think is too gay-friendly. And that's their right. >>>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?> As I said, that's exactly what CFA is doing. On one level I respect that, even though they're horribly misguided. But now they may have to pay the price for being so misguided. As someone else said, they have every right to take this stand, but they can't cry foul (or fowl) when people object to that stand.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I don't fault Chick-fil-A at all, they have a right to their opinion,<< Oh .... even if that opinion was at the tune of nearly 2 million dollars in support of Prop 8? <a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/10810/you-would-never-believe-which-anti-gay-companies-you-support-with-your-money" target="_blank">http://www.policymic.com/artic...ur-money</a> If you actively just don't like gay people, that's one thing. But to actively go out of your way, to pull marriage from a group ... that's more than just "opinion"!
Originally Posted By oc_dean Goofermost ... Do you support opinions if they are bigoted/hypocritical/homophobic, and just down right WRONG?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>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.<< The undistorted and unexaggerated version of your statement was something to do with the Henson Company infringing on the free speech rights of Chick-Fil-A by refusing to do further business with them. Which indicates that you are willing to throw logic under the bus and spin donuts on it if it'll support your pals at the gay-bashing chicken restaurant. >>That focused in on a problem that was totally not related to the Muppets<< It IS totally not related to the Muppets. The Henson Company does not own the Muppets. Some outfit called Disney does. They're not involved in this (although they sure are keeping mighty quiet about it, ain't they). >>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<< I believe you meant to say "par for the course". See: Southern Baptist boycott of Disney (which was coincidentally lifted just in time for all the Baptists to see the Narnia movie). >>One might not LIKE oak trees, but you can't "disagree" with them.<< Never been hit on the head with an acorn, I take it?
Originally Posted By dshyates "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?" Some of our biggest fans: <a href="http://www.godhatesfags.com/" target="_blank">http://www.godhatesfags.com/</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean I've been following their Facebook page today. The posts are coming in by the thousands. I eventually lost track ... because you can only scroll down to just so many posts .. that it stops .. even though there are much, much more. And I caught this: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/07/25/chick-fil-a-has-completely-lost-control-of-its-facebook-page/" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/sites/ka...ok-page/</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean Formatting on Facebook can be bit confusing sometime .. but actually, I see that all 10,000 posts are there to see(and that's just one day's worth).
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Thanks, Dabob2, for giving info about the Sodom and Gomorah story, I was going to post that too, but you beat me to it. The story has been distorted, and focused on singularly as a reason to "disagree" with homosexuality, when the real intent of the story had nothing to do with it.
Originally Posted By mawnck An interesting read for those who claim Chick-Fil-A isn't discriminating with their hiring practices: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html" target="_blank">http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2...080.html</a> Excerpt: >>But Danielle Alderson, 30, a Baltimore operator, says some fellow franchisees find that Chick-fil-A butts into its workers' personal lives a bit much. She says she can't hire a good manager who, say, moonlights at a strip club because it would irk the company. "We are watched very closely by Chick-fil-A," she says. "It's very weird."<< >>Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.<< >>Bureon Ledbetter, Chick-fil-A's general counsel, says the company works hard to select people like Yokum, who "fit." "We want operators who support the values here," Ledbetter says.<<
Originally Posted By mawnck Love this! Linked from the CFA Facebook comments: <a href="http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/000/942/loljesus.jpg" target="_blank">http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/i...esus.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 >>But Danielle Alderson, 30, a Baltimore operator, says some fellow franchisees find that Chick-fil-A butts into its workers' personal lives a bit much. She says she can't hire a good manager who, say, moonlights at a strip club because it would irk the company. "We are watched very closely by Chick-fil-A," she says. "It's very weird."<< I think that one might raise an eyebrow with a lot of employers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think that one might raise an eyebrow with a lot of employers.> Possibly. But firing a Muslim because he didn't participate in a Christian prayer? Religion is one of the basics "you can't discriminate on account of..." categories, along with race, gender, etc. (Sexual orientation is included in about a dozen states, but it's still perfectly legal in all the rest, sadly.) But all of them AFAIK include "religion." So this would seem to be illegal as well as unethical, and I'm sure they were quick to settle.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Bureon Ledbetter, Chick-fil-A's general counsel, says the company works hard to select people like Yokum, who "fit."<< Am I reading an excerpt from Forbes or Lil Abner?
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Possibly. But firing a Muslim because he didn't participate in a Christian prayer?>> Which is why I picked the one I did.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Well no they can't. Honestly they only thing I ever knew about CFA before this was, they were mostly in malls and they sponsor the Chick Fil-A Bowl which usually pits a team from the ACC and SEC.
