Mayor of Boston to Chick-Fil-A: Get Lost!!!!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

May I set aside for a moment questions about how discriminatory they are and ask something different? I have seen many posters take the line that Chick-fil-A (or it's president) is anti-gay, homophobic, a bigot, and a hater.That seems to be the justification for the current uproar.

As far as I can tell, and this is where I'd like you to help me out, he hasn't done anything against anyone, but has stated that he believes the definition of marriage should not be changed. I can see him considered as hide-bound, old-fashioned, unwilling to change, but a hater?

As you know, 31 states have put the question to the people, and every single time the people have said they don't want the definition changed. Is the majority of the country a group of bigots and haters?

If I were to disagree with any position taken by gays, would I become a homophobe and bigot? I hope we're told which positions of theirs we are allowed to disagree with.

So, it seems a little overblown for people to be using the names employed to criticise the company and its management. But because I'm frequently wrong, I wouldn't mind a little clarification.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

If I were to disagree with any position taken by gays, would I become a homophobe and bigot? I hope we're told which positions of theirs we are allowed to disagree with.

Sorry for cherry picking, but I felt I should address this question.

The answer is, according to the militant gays and their supporters, it is hateful to take a stance on anything against them, AND it is considered, by them, and I stress those two words, by them , that any disagreement and any criticism of them of any sort will get you labeled as a homophobe and you will be berated to no end. Reasonable gays won't do this, and will treat you with reason and respect.

I have experienced this in several threads on this site, as have others, so that's why I chose to address your question.

for some strange reason, you have no right to say no to them in any way. It doesn't matter what.

I envy you that you haven't experienced it yet, but eventually, I believe you will.

Just be careful when you discuss this subject. Some people will take it very personally.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Dear EvilSadamClone,

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense. But I've heard that gays are supposed to be more tolerant, sophisticated, knowledgeable, and in general, better people than everyone else.

It doesn't take much of a brain to realize that by yelling and screaming at everyone who doesn't quite accept their beliefs, they drive people away. If I'm in a social situation with the choice to talk to a gay or someone else, why would I choose to talk to the gay, if I knew there was a good chance that some comment I thought was innocent would start a riot?

Thus my question to Benevolent Heretic, why get so furious when something, or someone, doesn't go the way you want?

Anyway, I appreciate your insight and the sharing of your experience.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I didn't claim there was discrimination suits about sexuality. But a history of discrimination (which is against the law) calls for an investigation before they are permitted to operate within the city. The purpose of an investigation into Chick-Fil-A's non-discrimination policy is to EXAMINE the cases and ensure that they don't have a policy (even an "understood" policy) of discrimination of ANY kind. It's against the law.

If that were truly the case I would expect cities to examine every business with the same degree of "due diligence". I just looked up quite a few major chains and it looks like ALL OF THEM had discrimination suits against them....so they must also have a "history of discrimination" right? If you were to apply that standard only to Chick-Fil-A and not other companies with a "history of discrimination", you would see that they are singling out Chick-Fil-A for "special attention"........isn't that being discriminatory towards them in a business sense? Just asking.........

To me it's a very slippery slope walk down when you practice this kind of municipal regulatory process. What's to stop another city from banning some company that supports illegal immigrant rights or supports pro life or pro choice causes, just because the city officials don't agree with their politics.

Think about it....

Originally posted by charles1952
As you know, 31 states have put the question to the people, and every single time the people have said they don't want the definition changed. Is the majority of the country a group of bigots and haters?

Why the answer is simple - yes. Anyone who doesn't embrace and vocalize support of the agenda of any minority group - be they gay, black, Hispanic or whatever is a "hate fueled bigot". Simple tolerance and no comment are not enough one must rally to the flag.

What amazes me about any minority group is that they claim to want to just be accepted as members of society and "equal" while in practice they scream out look how different, special and unique we are... We are special and if you can't accept that then you must be a bigot.

Originally posted by charles1952
If I were to disagree with any position taken by gays, would I become a homophobe and bigot? I hope we're told which positions of theirs we are allowed to disagree with.

Yes -

We are different, look at our clothes, the way we act, talk, walk and interact with society... We are not like you! Please take a moment from your lives while we attempt to shove our collective morality down your throats against your will till you choke then...

All the while we will be wondering....why people don't accept us and support us?

The whole thing is stupid.

Cry I'm unique and special in almost every way from speech to dress to values and conduct then cry foul when people decide they don't agree with your lifestyle? Calling anyone who should disagree a hater or whatever...

This is not limited to gays BTW; people wonder why they can't get hired with a dragon tattooed on their face or sleeves or gold teeth or dreadlocks or bright pink hair - whatever.

Why - because no sane business person wants that to be what his customers call to mind when they think of their product or service. This is good business sense.

Really.

An official will readily throw a tantrum over this, but if a company actually commits a crime or has a record for being heinous and unscrupulous in their practices.. well.. no, they can stay?

Trying to get votes much?

Just for that I'm going to Chick-Fil-A and order some food tomorrow. I don't care for their opinion but the government has no right to persecute them for practicing their freedom of speech.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

May I set aside for a moment questions about how discriminatory they are and ask something different? I have seen many posters take the line that Chick-fil-A (or it's president) is anti-gay, homophobic, a bigot, and a hater.That seems to be the justification for the current uproar.

You are aware that money from Chick Fil A (lots of money) is donated to anti-gay groups who are doing everything they can to squash the rights of gays. You don't think that's a little hateful?

As you know, 31 states have put the question to the people, and every single time the people have said they don't want the definition changed. Is the majority of the country a group of bigots and haters?

You tell me. Did you know that by 1940, 31 states had a ban on interracial marriage? What did that make the majority of the country in 1940?

If I were to disagree with any position taken by gays, would I become a homophobe and bigot? I hope we're told which positions of theirs we are allowed to disagree with.

Come on, Charles, that's not fair. Gays want the legal right to marry their partners, by getting a marriage license from the state. That is what this whole thing is about. They don't care what you think of them personally - just give them equality under the law.

So, it seems a little overblown for people to be using the names employed to criticise the company and its management.

While there is no point in being hateful in response, I do believe gays have the right to be a little upset that a company's management is spending big bucks to make sure gays can't get a marriage license from the state. And you do realize that this isn't a new battle with Chick Fil A - it's been going on for as long as Chick Fil A has been donating money to anti-gay organizations. It's just that the media is focusing on it because of the CEO's recent comments.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Dear kayaluv,

I'm really glad you're here. I can count on serious, thoughtful posts from you and I'm grateful whenever you show up.

You are aware that money from Chick Fil A (lots of money) is donated to anti-gay groups who are doing everything they can to squash the rights of gays. You don't think that's a little hateful?

I found their contributions for 2010 which are, I believe, the most recent available. These are the contributions considered to be to anti-gay groups. As you might suspect, they donate millions more to other charities as well.

Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000

www.businessinsider.com...
To some extent, semantics have entered into this. The same position can be called anti-gay, homophobic, bigoted, and hateful; and, pro-traditional marriage. I still don't see why anti-gay is the term to be used. At worst, we could probably justify "anti-gay marriage." I haven't seen any evidence that indicates Chick-fil-A or its management is opposed to gays as people.

To take a silly, but perhaps appropriate example, if first cousins wanted to marry each other and Chick-fil-A donated to opposing groups, would they then be anti-cousin?

If I were to disagree with any position taken by gays, would I become a homophobe and bigot? I hope we're told which positions of theirs we are allowed to disagree with.

Come on, Charles, that's not fair. Gays want the legal right to marry their partners, by getting a marriage license from the state. That is what this whole thing is about. They don't care what you think of them personally - just give them equality under the law.

I'm not sure. Oh, I agree that that's what this whole thing is about. But is that it? No. The push to be declared a protected class, "hate speech" rules, etc. I don't believe that if I carried a bunch of Bibles and spoke about hellfire and damnation at a Gay Pride festival, those assembled would say "We don't care what you think of us personally." I would bet a dollar I would be sued and physically damaged.

While there is no point in being hateful in response, I do believe gays have the right to be a little upset that a company's management is spending big bucks to make sure gays can't get a marriage license from the state.

I agree completely. Boycott, write letters, have a march, do the things civilized people do. Spray painting a restaurant's wall with an opposing slogan is a bit much. So, I believe, is using inflammatory language.

With respect (and gratitude),
Charles1952

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by technical difficulties
If he is planning on banning Chick-Fil-A, it's just a waste of time considering that it will probably not gain much business in Boston (given it's current public image). I can understand why he would want to do it, but still.

Originally posted by thomas81z
yea mumbles menino is an idiot !!!! who care if they are agianst mo's tieing the knot i love their food,

What a stupid comment. There's more to it than the spokesman's silly, childish views on gay marraige-They also donate their money to anti-gay groups, which is a slap to the face to the rational people who eat there.

It's their money.

True, and they're using their money to fund hate groups. No decent person would support that.

Oh really? How many wealthy liberals (who paradoxically made their millions off of the capitalist system) have pumped gazillions into groups that absolutely and utterly hate everything this country stands for?

Originally posted by charles1952
If I were to disagree with any position taken by gays, would I become a homophobe and bigot?

YEP. Definately. Even though I support gay marriage as a civil right, I was militantly told on another thread (over and over and over) that I'm anti-gay and a bigot and a homophobe because I support the right of the owner of Chick Fil A to have freedom of speech and freedom of religion - even though I totally disagree with his religion and his position on gay marriage.

Originally posted by pavil
I would expect cities to examine every business with the same degree of "due diligence".

There you go! If the Mayor of Boston tells Chick Fil A to get lost all because the owner of the chain is a fundamentalist Christian with views that don't match that of the Mayors .. then I would expect that a food chain owned by a Muslim should be turned away as well. Afterall ... the Muslim religion is anti-gay as well, and anti-womens rights too. Would the Mayor of Boston tell a fast food chain owned by a Muslim to 'get lost'?? I doubt it.

reply to post by charles1952


With all due respect and it very much is due you so please don't take my passion and disagreement with you as me feeling negative toward you.

As far as I can tell, and this is where I'd like you to help me out, he hasn't done anything against anyone, but has stated that he believes the definition of marriage should not be changed. I can see him considered as hide-bound, old-fashioned, unwilling to change, but a hater?

Yes a hater and yes he has acted against people.

Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010
July 02, 2012 9:26 am ET
In early 2011, Chick-fil-A came under fire for its donations and political ties to a number of anti-gay groups. Though Chick-fil-A continues to deny supporting an anti-gay agenda, the company has donated over $3 million to organizations like the Family Research Council and Exodus International between 2003 and 2009. And in 2010 alone, Chick-fil-A donated over $1.9 million to anti-gay causes, more than any other year for which public records are available.

Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm Gave Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010

WinShape Is Chick-Fil-A's Charitable Arm. The WinShape Foundation is Chick-fil-A's charitable arm, created by Chick-fil-A founder and chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1984. WinShape has received a substantial amount of funding from Chick-fil-A: in 2010 alone, WinShape received $8,067,161 from Chick-fil-A Inc. [WinShape 2010, Publicly Available IRS 990 Form via Foundation Center, accessed 6/27/12]

WinShape Gave Over $1.9 Million To Anti-Gay Groups. In 2010, WinShape donated $1,974,380 to a number of anti-gay groups:

Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500

Equality Matters

Here is the Family Foundations' take on the Constitution:

On July 4, 1776, the United States of America was founded upon the Christian principles of liberty and justice. To this day, we have a responsibility to maintain these tenets set up by our Founding Fathers for us. Government was created to manage certain aspects of American life, but other aspects were distinctly left to individuals and families. The size and scope of government and how government spends our money are a direct reflection of the values government endorses and the priority it holds.

... and here are what they claim are their political victories:

Teach the Benefits and Value of Marriage in Family Life Education
Added a Marriage Amendment to the VA State Constitution
Increased Penalties for Possession of Child Pornography
Defeated the Inclusion of Sexual Orientation in Employment and Hate Crimes

Family Foundation

My problem is that to me this is financially supporting unconstitutional policy making. The Constitution is very clear on freedom of religion and it certainly was not meant to be interpreted as free to be Christian, otherwise the authors would have stated so. The intent of "their creator" is crystal clear as is the lack of mention of Jesus.

Marriage also predates Christianity therefor it has no business claiming religious authority over it. Marriage in this country as in most cultures is a legal contract that grants special status to couples choosing to employ it. That special status is not granted to same sex unions.

Liberty and Equality are not meant to be selective and it's time we stop allowing them to be.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
As far as I can tell, and this is where I'd like you to help me out, he hasn't done anything against anyone, but has stated that he believes the definition of marriage should not be changed.

If a person donated millions to the Aryan Nations, because they didn't believe that non-whites should have the same rights as white people, might he be considered anti-black or Anti-Semitic? I think so. The Aryan Nations are just proud of their race... They're not haters, right? They just believe that they are entitled to something that the rest of the people are not. They are guilty of nothing but having and stating their beliefs, right? And they have a right to those beliefs, but people are going to have not-so-nice opinions of them.

As far as the other names, I haven't used them, so you'll have to check with those who have. I have said that Cathy is "anti-gay", because of his support of anti-gay groups.

People who use the excuse of "preserving the definition of marriage" are just copping out. There is NO indication whatsoever that traditional marriage would be affected in ANY way by marriage equality, yet they use that as their flimsy reasoning to deny legal rights to a group of people. I call that anti-gay.

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
But I've heard that gays are supposed to be more tolerant, sophisticated, knowledgeable, and in general, better people than everyone else.

Really? Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder.

Gay people are JUST like everyone else. You keep grouping them as though they share one mind, have all the same opinions and are a centralized group who think alike. That's the problem with stereotyping. "Gay people think this" or "Black people feel that" or "atheists believe this other thing"... It's incredibly shallow and unthinking to believe that gay people hold common opinions, any more than straight people do. It's funny... If you asked, "How do straight people feel about politics"?, you can see the folly in your argument.

Some gay people are VERY intolerant. Some are hateful, stupid or judgmental... You simply CANNOT group people because they share one trait. That's highly ignorant.

Thus my question to Benevolent Heretic, why get so furious when something, or someone, doesn't go the way you want?

I guess you'll have to ask that of someone who's furious. I'm not upset about the fight for equality. I'm excited about it. I know times are changing and before you know it, many states (or maybe all of them) will support marriage equality. As long as the civil rights of people are being denied, people will fight for them, whether angrily or happily.

Secondly, most people get upset (to differing degrees) when things don't go their way. It's not just gay people or equality advocates.

.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

If a person donated millions to the Aryan Nations, because they didn't believe that non-whites should have the same rights as white people, might he be considered anti-black or Anti-Semitic? I think so.

You are almost at the Godwins Law stage in the argument BH. Are the Aryan Nations a designated by the US Government as a Legal 501- c3 Nonprofit? Are any of the groups that the owners of Chick-Fil-A Illegal to donate to? I get that they donate to causes some deem unworthy, but to others it is exactly the opposite. As long as they are donating their money legally to legal non profits.....what exactly is the issue? It's their money, to do with as they see fit as long as they do it legally. I would say the same about other groups and donors with whose causes I don't agree with.

reply to post by charles1952

But I've heard that gays are supposed to be more tolerant, sophisticated, knowledgeable, and in general, better people than everyone else.

oh, come now...

there be some belying in your post... (and a bit of childishness as well)

Thus my question to Benevolent Heretic, why get so furious when something, or someone, doesn't go the way you want?

You think this is just about a bunch of people making a needless fuss because they aren't getting what they want?

OK then - what is it that they want that they aren't getting?

reply to post by pavil


Of course it's legal. I'm not suggesting he's doing anything illegal. But, as we all know, just because it's legal, don't make it "right".

To all,

In all honesty and seriousness, I can't recall coming across a group of posters that I admire more, all in the same page. It's an honor to me that you've taken the time to respond. Please allow me to try to clarify (or, "back off" if you prefer) my comments. If I repeat myself, please accept my apologies.

One thing striking me about the discussion, here and nationally, is the insistence that Chick-fil-A and it's management are at best, anti-gay, and at worst, well, you've seen the names.

Yes a hater and yes he has acted against people.

I don't see the justification for that. Perhaps I'm being too literal, but opposing the new, gay, definition of marriage just doesn't seem like being against the person. I can be strongly opposed to a position taken by Speaker John Boehner and the House, but that doesn't mean that I'm anti-Republican. Refer again to my "cousin" example.

Gay people are JUST like everyone else. You keep grouping them as though they share one mind, have all the same opinions and are a centralized group who think alike. That's the problem with stereotyping. "Gay people think this" or "Black people feel that" or "atheists believe this other thing"... It's incredibly shallow and unthinking to believe that gay people hold common opinions, any more than straight people do. It's funny... If you asked, "How do straight people feel about politics"?, you can see the folly in your argument.

I can only conclude from this that some gays oppose gay marriage, otherwise they would all have the same opinion and think alike. If some gays do oppose gay marriage, are they then anti-gay gays?

You think this is just about a bunch of people making a needless fuss because they aren't getting what they want?

OK then - was is it that they want that they aren't getting?

I think they want a change in the definition and, therefore, purpose of marriage.

My problem is that to me this is financially supporting unconstitutional policy making.

I thought the issue was still be fought out in courts. DOMA, as objectionable as it may be, is still valid law. If he were foolish enough to support a policy that has already been declared unconstitutional, then you could consider him to be throwing his money away. But even then, the Court has been known to change it's mind.

I may have missed some of the important points you raised, that was not intentional. This is an important discussion for me because I don't yet understand the depth of feeling the GBLT community has on the issue, or the prime motivation for fighting this.

No one here has been offensive to me and I admire and appreciate the restraint you've shown. Again, I'm honored.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I can only conclude from this that some gays oppose gay marriage,

Some do, yes. Gays against gay marriage

If some gays do oppose gay marriage, are they then anti-gay gays?

People who go to clinics to try to be "cured" of being gay. Plenty of them. Many deny their sexuality and live their entire lives "passing" as straight.

I think they want a change in the definition and, therefore, purpose of marriage.

There is no one definition OR purpose to marriage.

This is an important discussion for me because I don't yet understand the depth of feeling the GBLT community has on the issue, or the prime motivation for fighting this.

You should talk with people of the LGBT community to find out how they really feel about it. Most who are fighting for marriage equality see it as a matter of civil rights (and so do I). All of the talk about religion, procreation, and the purpose and definition of marriage is beside the point. Our states have made laws denying rights to certain groups. That's the bottom line.

Or imagine that you wanted to marry the person of your dreams and your state told you that you couldn't because of some arbitrary reason that's none of their business.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Dear Benevolent Heretic,

All of the talk about religion, procreation, and the purpose and definition of marriage is beside the point. Our states have made laws denying rights to certain groups. That's the bottom line.

Thanks for drawing the distinction for me. It seems unfortunate that we can't say that changing the definition of marriage is the way gays plan on getting what they see as their civil right. ("They see," because others disagree.) But as been pointed out so often that it must be a cliche, the State alread prohibits certain groups from marrying whomever they want. Marriage can hardly be a civil right with all of the exclusions built into it. No, civil rights belong to everybody (or almost everybody). At best gays are arguing that they shouldn't be among the groups that the State denies marriage to, but civil right? I don't think so. Cousins, the young (who can get abortions on their own), people already married. Is the claim that they all are denied a "Civil Right?" And it can't be argued that these people are denied such a "right" because exercising it might in some way eventually hurt society. A right is a right regardless, or else it is only a privelege granted by the State.

Marriage, the way we are talking about it, is a State recognised event, therefore State rules apply.

But as to the question of "definition" I think that's all important because a thing is good as far as it achieves it's purpose. (I know there are exceptions, such as efficiency, and evil ends, but I'm space limited.) I have a different definition of marriage than you do, and I prefer mine.

I visited the website of a group backing the traditional marriage amendment in Minnesota. They have, what from my view, is a good discussion on the subject. www.minnesotaformarriage.com...

Protecting the interests of children is the primary reason that government regulates and licenses marriage in the first instance. After all, government does not license or regulate any other form of intimate relationship – not friendship, or dating, or cohabitation. People are free, under the law, to live as they choose, cohabitate with whomever they choose and engage in sexually intimate relationships with whomever they choose – all without any governmental recognition or regulation.

While death and divorce too often prevent it, the overwhelming body of social science evidence establishes that children do best when raised by their married mother and father. Simply stated, children need both a mother and a father.

Fundamentally, same-sex marriage advocates propose to shift the marriage paradigm away from what definition of marriage is best for society – especially for children – and squarely onto the desires of the individual adults who seek to marry. Under a genderless definition of marriage, the interests of children – and therefore society’s intrinsic interest in marriage – is eliminated entirely. Only the wishes of the two adults in question matter.

I took isolated pargraphs from the article, but it seems to be a fair introduction to the reason why definition is important here. I believe the focus on the desires of the "married " couple alone is a weakness in the gay marriage proposals.

I would like to repeat my praise, at the risk of giving you a swollen head. The fact that you can discuss one of the most controversial issues on this site intelligently, and with courtesy, while not surrending any of your beliefs just to get along makes you a treasure that ATS cannot afford to lose. I have a dream of meeting you some day for a pitcher of beer and hours of converstaion. My hat is off to you.

With respect,
Charles1952