Chick-Fil-A, Standing Up Against a Liberal Agenda

Originally posted by TDawgRex

This was made a political farce by those who were offended by Mr. Cathy's remarks.

Farce?

He was being boycotted long before this happened - - not for his belief - - but for supporting extreme anti-gay groups. Gays are not responsible for the media picking up on this.

But you do realize that there are gay conservatives too, right? And that there are people within the LGBT community who support Mr. Cathy's right to say what he feels, even though they may disagree with his feelings.

Supporting Mr. Cathy's right of free speech has nothing to do with this. Every major gay site I've been on supports that.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TDawgRex

That's hilarious.

The intolerance of those who preach tolerance.

You have no idea why I do not want this person to address me.

It is not because of this thread.

Ok, that's cool, but I am a fervent believr in the old addage of, "Let's agree to disagree.", as long as it remains cordial.

I believe that it makes for interesting and stimulating conversation.

Originally posted by TDawgRex


Ok, that's cool, but I am a fervent believr in the old addage of, "Let's agree to disagree.", as long as it remains cordial.

I believe that it makes for interesting and stimulating conversation.

I've been talking to you.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by TDawgRex

This was made a political farce by those who were offended by Mr. Cathy's remarks.

Farce?

He was being boycotted long before this happened - - not for his belief - - but for supporting extreme anti-gay groups. Gays are not responsible for the media picking up on this.

But you do realize that there are gay conservatives too, right? And that there are people within the LGBT community who support Mr. Cathy's right to say what he feels, even though they may disagree with his feelings.

Supporting Mr. Cathy's right of free speech has nothing to do with this. Every major gay site I've been on supports that.

As far as I'm concerned, free speech has everything to do with it. Just look at the New Black Panthers or the KKK, etc, etc. They spout their ignorance and have followers as well.

I say, let them open their yaps and prove how ignorant they are. Unfortunately, you'll still have people who believe them.

You know the sayin'?

"It's best left to let people think you're stupid, rather than to open your mouth and prove them right."

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by torqpoc
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Correct JPZ, but it's far better than a despotic state, fascist state, communist state etc..

So if you're going to bash, bash them all. At least it's not open warfare and let's kill the educated, students, of a specific colour, of a specific religion etc...

Slightly narrow minded bashing there.

T

Electing the lesser of two evils is still electing evil. Freedom is the only noble state to aspire towards and in freedom all people have the right to hold their beliefs, and in freedom no one need apply to the state for a license to marry. Not to many fans of freedom in this thread.

You are right again JPZ, but what country has freedom in the way you describe it? You talk about evil, isn't hatred a form of evil? So ideally what a true freedom state would be is one where people are allowed their beliefs and opinions as long as there is no "evil" associated to them, wouldn't you say?

T

Those that have a problem with Dan Cathy and his beliefs are as bigoted and intolerant as those who use that term as a defense in support of their own views.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Those that have a problem with Dan Cathy and his beliefs are as bigoted and intolerant as those who use that term as a defense in support of their own views.

CFA corporation donated $2 million dollars towards groups actively defined as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, www.splcenter.org... (Family Research Council, Winshape, Family Research Institute, among others.) The CEO is guaranteed his right to say what he wants about who he wants through the US Constitution, but buying CFA products means you are going to help contribute funds to organizations that fund hate and intolerance.

isnt this the crux of the matter? his comments shed further light on the practice of that business. but this issue has been happening for awhile. its just become a really large mainstream issue as of late.


sure there may be other companies that fund hate groups, however chic fil a is sort of the major avatar/symbol for a specific culture war issue (same sex marriage/homosexual rights).

im not sure why people are confusing this with a freedom of speech issue.

is one group funding the rights of another group to STFU?

is one group forcing another group to STFU?

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Those that have a problem with Dan Cathy and his beliefs are as bigoted and intolerant as those who use that term as a defense in support of their own views.

See this is rather a ridiculous statement. Here's a very quick demonstration of why:

Hitler believed all Jews, gypsies, communists and generally non arian should be killed.

It was his belief right? So according to your point above to criticise his belief would make that person a bigot and intolerant, right? Wrong! There are limits to statements like yours.

Someone's belief does not necessarily make it right. It is not because someone believes it is right that it is. We have to include morality, common sense, logic and decency in to the equation. When any belief system includes hatred of others, it is wrong.. it's quite simple really.

Hate preaching is banned in most countries, so is posting hate filled comments on twitter, youtube and facebook

The real problem here is that the hatred in this specific example/post is tied in to one of the largest corporate religions on the planet. We can't touch the Christian faith, it's fine to hate homosexuals because it says so in the Bible, right? Seriously?

Now if someone wishes to believe and their beliefs don't impact the lives of others, don't impeach the lives of others, don't hate others.. then go for it, believe in whatever you like.

What should happen with Chick-Fil-A? The CEO should be forced to step down and an enquiry into the running of the company and the company ethics should be instigated under hate laws.

T

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


C'mon Jean Paul. I have seen you post enough to know you are smarter than to come up with a counter-arguement like that.

The difference between my agenda and Chick fil a agenda is that I don't have any influence over anybody. As opposed to a rich company owner who has enough clout to sway public opinion, and uses it to the detriment of society.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

A company should not donate and fund anti-same sex marriage groups that seek to suppress and subjugate citizens of the United States of America. Equality, in this nation, should lie in the hands of every citizen regardless of Race, Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender, Creed, and or Faith. Having an opinion is fine, and respectable; however, utilizing company profits to fund the discrimination efforts against Homosexuals is reprehensible.

Given that you appear to be in support of a licensing scheme, these words read as empty rhetoric. The problem is not people's views on who has the right to obtain a license to marry, the problem is that the state is issuing marriage licenses at all. Create such a licensing scheme and this leaves the door open for lobbyists on both sides of the issue, neither one concerned with freedom and only concerned with using government to suppress others while gaining a tactical advantage for themselves.

The question should have never of been why can't gay people obtain a license to marry. The question should have always been, why the hell do I need permission from the state to marry the one I love? Regardless of a persons sexual orientation, the right to marry is a unalienable right that requires no permission what-so-ever.

And right there is a perfect definition of the problem at hand. The government has no business issuing licenses to marry. It's amazing that only we libertarians can see the big picture

Now, the other problem is getting the bureaucracy to give up a source of revenue.

Originally posted by torqpoc

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Those that have a problem with Dan Cathy and his beliefs are as bigoted and intolerant as those who use that term as a defense in support of their own views.

See this is rather a ridiculous statement. Here's a very quick demonstration of why:

Hitler believed all Jews, gypsies, communists and generally non arian should be killed.

It was his belief right? So according to your point above to criticise his belief would make that person a bigot and intolerant, right? Wrong! There are limits to statements like yours.

Someone's belief does not necessarily make it right. It is not because someone believes it is right that it is. We have to include morality, common sense, logic and decency in to the equation. When any belief system includes hatred of others, it is wrong.. it's quite simple really.

Hate preaching is banned in most countries, so is posting hate filled comments on twitter, youtube and facebook

The real problem here is that the hatred in this specific example/post is tied in to one of the largest corporate religions on the planet. We can't touch the Christian faith, it's fine to hate homosexuals because it says so in the Bible, right? Seriously?

Now if someone wishes to believe and their beliefs don't impact the lives of others, don't impeach the lives of others, don't hate others.. then go for it, believe in whatever you like.

What should happen with Chick-Fil-A? The CEO should be forced to step down and an enquiry into the running of the company and the company ethics should be instigated under hate laws.

T

edit on 3-8-2012 by torqpoc because: (no reason given)

Brilliantly said!

There is a big difference between being allowed to say something you believe and attempting to purchase the means to make that belief the rule for everyone. Having a belief does not entitle you to trample all over the rights of others.

Speaking out against injustice is not bigoted. Calling someone out for believing in discrimination is not bigoted. This is what is bigoted (wikipedia):

"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1

I don't hate Mr. Cathy. I am not trying to make his religion illegal or advocating we take away his right to live the way he chooses. I am not shouting that marrying a woman is wrong and seeking to enforce that he must marry a man or he can’t be married at all. I am not saying he should be silenced. I am saying he is WRONG, because he is. Trying to perpetuate injustice is wrong the last I checked. Did someone change the rules in this country and I didn’t get the memo?

I feel sorry for people like Mr. Cathy, I really do, because I can't imagine what it must be like to be that closed-minded and intolerant of difference that I would give money to stop someone from having a right I don't want them to have. It just blows my mind quite frankly, and seeing it cloaked in a mask of false morality really puts a hair across my a**. I have never had an opinion that would compel me to want to infringe upon anyone's rights, no matter how disgusted I might be with who they are as a person, and if I ever had one that crossed into that territory it would be quickly reined in by a simple sniff test.

When did freedom of speech start becoming a means to celebrate bigotry?

And I have to also comment that the idea of removing the licensing aspects of marriage is rather brilliant. It would solve the problem entirely. Then we could all just sit back and laugh while these marriage inequality people sulk.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Yep that's a brilliant way to illustrate support for equal rights. Anyone who say's something not in line with a particular ideology and instead espouses their own ideology should accept the consequences.

Um... Yeah. As long as those consequences are legal. We have the right to free speech. We DON'T have the right to say whatever we want, without people responding in whatever LEGAL way they wish. If a company CEO came out in favor of gay marriage, for example, there will probably be a backlash, whether it be Christians boycotting the place or protesting outside.

The support for equal rights is for EVERYONE to be free to express themselves equally, whether that means voicing one's opinions, protesting someone else's opinion, or boycotting a place we disagree with.

We ALL must be careful of our nature to support one right for "our group", but when the shoe is on the other foot, denying the same right for a different group. Dan Cathy has the right to express himself. And the responders have a right to express themselves. Those are the consequences and we all have to deal with the consequences of our actions.

reply to post by torqpoc


I don't subscribe to any religion.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


That is very well said. The right to freedom of speech is extended to all Americans. There is no qualification that determines who is protected by the 1st amendment. If you don't like my opinions you are free to tell me so, for it is the same law that protects you and I.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by torqpoc

 

I don't subscribe to any religion.

So you just support Chick-Fil-A's corporate views because you're for the right to be a bigot? For the right to want to eat chicken from a company which supports being a bigot? For the right of the people to voice an opinion, even if it's one which follows an ideology of bigotry? Narrow minded? An idiot? Lost? Wishing to get a reaction posting something which is obviously pro-hate and anti-gay?

What is it exactly?

T

Is there a fast food joint that believes marriage should be removed from the government overall, believe in seperation of church and state, and let the church do their business while the government only observes civil unions between two people for legal purposes only?

Cause...I'm hungry but not sure what my local greasy spoon thinks about issues...used to be food place was a simple philosophy..go to get food and shove in my facehole...now its, if I get hungry...I must study the CEOs thoughts, and then based on social awareness and thoughts of equality, government, etc, you choose appropriately...

how retarded have we become anyhow? (answer: very)

Chickypoo owner can think what he wants. his sammaches are delicious. I don't have to pray in order to get one, and thats about all I can think about it. Besides, the guy can't be "really" religious..after all, they put bacon on their sandwiches..and that is a nono right alongside gay people.

Originally posted by torqpoc

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by torqpoc

 

I don't subscribe to any religion.

So you just support Chick-Fil-A's corporate views because you're for the right to be a bigot?

You do have a right to be a bigot though. I don't like many things personally. If I start a company and its found out I am disgusted at country music, should my business be officially governmentally banned because of my personal views?
Even if I take my profits and spend it on a "country music sucks" lobbying group that is trying to get the music banned, does that mean somehow my other business, the thing I do to get paid, should suffer based on my personal opinion?

How things are done in the west is..if someone has a crappy attitude (as this chick dude has), you simply don't eat there..you go to kfc or popeyes (better chicken there anyhow). You encourage your friends to go elsewhere also. You don't however have mayors and governors step in and ban restaurants based on the opinions of the owners. That is an actual 1st amendment issue and is governmental mind control

reply to post by lambs to lions


On this subject, this is all I have to say about it :

Here is my take on the matter:

I only have one thing to say on this matter. I do not judge anyone, that is between them, Yahshua (Christ) and Yahweh (God) on Judgment Day.

Let's be clear about scripture. While a segment of Christianity has adopted the saying "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin", the Book of Leviticus Chapter 1 8 Verse 22 is very clear (English Standard Version), it reads:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination".

The message I would give to those who choose that lifestyle is this:

"Keep it in your home because what you do there is a private matter and nobody else's business, however, if you flaunt it in public, you will purposely bring ridicule and prejudice unto yourselves".

Originally posted by SaturnFX
You do have a right to be a bigot though

Really? Don't you find it is highly specific what you are allowed to be a bigot about? For instance, racism is a form of bigotry but not allowed. Religious bigotry, ie hating people based on their religious beliefs, also not allowed... the list goes on.

Even posting something hate filled on Twitter will get you arrested.

Do I care what the CEO of my company's beliefs are? No. Does he openly state them? No. Is the CEO of Chick-Fil-A a bigot, yes. Should he have kept his mouth shut, yes... It's not rocket science really...

T

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by torqpoc

 

So I'm nuts because I believe in God? And I'm the judgmental one...I see. So, because I don't think like you, I'm the problem. Who's the real fascist here?

For the record, I could care less about gay marriage. What I care about is the right to have and voice an opinion regardless which side of the fence you are on.

Im with you man. Dont you get it its cool to be a bigot here as long as its the right kind of bigot.
Religous bigotry = cool.