Chick-Fil-A Gay Rights Hypocracy

So I live here in British Columbia, Canada.

Earlier today, I hear an ad on the radio for a leadership seminar sponsored by Chick-Fil-A (who don't have a restaurant here) and featuring Condoleeza Rice as the speaker.

Now, I wouldn't mind seeing Condi speak, as much as we may not agree with what she did when she was SecState, I figured she'd be one hell of a decent speaker at a leadership seminar.

Then I got to thinking about the hypocracy of the sponsorship.

Chick-Fil-A is an organization that, in the United States, prides (pun intended) itself on protesting the fact that gay marriage may cause them to have to start providing benefits and recognition to same sex couples.

Now, this isn't a big deal (apart from the bigotry of the position) as they can do what they like in the USA until gay marriage is passed either in their state or Federally.

However, in Canada, we already have a Federal Law allowing gay marriage, and recognition for benefits and anything else of same sex couples, in just the same way that heterosexual couples are treated, we really don't care.

I find it amazingly hypocritical of Chick-Fil-A to be so against gay marriage in the USA, and then come up to Canada to sponsor management talks, when management in Canada has to deal with issues surrounding same sex benefits etc that they are so against every single day.

Another corporation who has shown themselves to be a supporter of one thing in the USA where it's popular and a complete denier of the same thing in other countries where it's not is the Murdoch Organization. In the USA, FOX NEWS loves to spout their ongoing support for gun control, under the direction of Rupert Murdoch, because it drives ratings. In the UK and Australia, Murdoch organization tabloids have been lambasting the United States for not passing gun control, because gun control is popular in those countries and sells newspapers.

The reason I'm posting this here, is that I'd like Americans (and certainly you TEA Partiers) to see the hypocracy and two faced positioning of the corporations that they claim to support for their positions in the USA, and then do something complely different in other countries.

I feel like going to the seminar, and asking the speakers there as to why they would teach management skills in a country where the positions that they claim to be against in the United States are a way of life for all Canadians.

For the record, as a disclaimer, I'm a straight, happily married (to a woman !) male who simply thinks equal rights should apply to EVERYONE.

So if your into 'homosexual' rights you must also agree on other people that should be able to marry....?

Mother/son
Father/daughter
Mother/daughter (gay marriage)
Father/Son (")
Multiple wives
Multiple husbands
Multiple wives for homosexual marriage
Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage
Cousins
Man and dog
Woman and horse etc etc etc

After all, homosexuals say the right to 'marry' is all about 'love' and 'rights'

So where is it for the above? I maintain,it's not about true rights but just what applies to them and buggar the rest. (excuse the pun)

Lines have to be drawn at some point

reply to post by blindlyzack


Lines drawn after you have what you want and to hell with anybody else?

Originally posted by MadMax7
So if your into 'homosexual' rights you must also agree on other people that should be able to marry....?
Mother/son
Father/daughter
Mother/daughter (gay marriage)
Father/Son (")
Multiple wives
Multiple husbands
Multiple wives for homosexual marriage
Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage
Cousins
Man and dog
Woman and horse etc etc etc

Why? And why are you so concerned about what others do with their naughty bits?

It's a mite unseeming, if you ask me.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck



No I do n't think it's unnecessary at all. But what I'm saying is homosexuals banter 'equal rights' all the time and yet marriage laws passed for the benefit of homosexuals only, is bigoted and intolerant of others.

My point is you cannot have 'equal' rights from the point of view of a homosexual rant and yet leave the others as unattainable when most of them are heterosexual in nature anyway which at least is normal.

Originally posted by MadMax7
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

No I do n't think it's unnecessary at all. But what I'm saying is homosexuals banter 'equal rights' all the time and yet marriage laws passed for the benefit of homosexuals only, is bigoted and intolerant of others.

My point is you cannot have 'equal' rights from the point of view of a homosexual rant and yet leave the others as unattainable when most of them are heterosexual in nature anyway which at least is normal.

Normal according to who? Actually no need to answer, I know what comes next from people like you.

Have you been enjoying yourself over the last 4 days?

The Chick-Fil-A Story is a bit more complex and layered than your Op might first suggest here. It wasn't so much about the ownership of Chick-Fil-A trying to impose their ideals or standards on anyone outside of their own business but standing for the right not to have those values trampled from the outside and across what they'd worked so hard to build up and establish in their little food chain.

This is a thread I'd not just written something on but gone out to shoot pictures and talk to folks at the protest locally about to share local reactions and support for the chicken chain as it stood in the Ozarks. As the thread shows, it hit a nerve in the U.S., as actual presence by people showing up tended to be supportive ...not necessarily of the business owner's position, but his right to have it in the first place.

Chick-Fil-A Protest in Springfield, Mo

Originally posted by MadMax7
So if your into 'homosexual' rights you must also agree on other people that should be able to marry....?

Mother/son
Father/daughter
Mother/daughter (gay marriage)
Father/Son (")
Multiple wives
Multiple husbands
Multiple wives for homosexual marriage
Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage
Cousins
Man and dog
Woman and horse etc etc etc

After all, homosexuals say the right to 'marry' is all about 'love' and 'rights'

So where is it for the above? I maintain,it's not about true rights but just what applies to them and buggar the rest. (excuse the pun)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: so many spelling mistakes..!!!

Gay marriage: No issue of interbreeding and the social risks there

Mother son- health issues by inbreeding for offspring.

Father daughter- health issues by inbreeding for offspring.

Father/Son. What's the benefit?

Multiple wives. people already do this, lawful or not.

Multiple husbands. people already do this, lawful or not.

Multiple wives for homosexual marriage. Why is this an issue, besides polygamy laws?

Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage. Why is this an issue, besides polygamy laws?

Cousins. This is not illegal.

Man and dog. There are existing laws on the books to stop this.

Woman and horse etc etc etc. There are existing laws on the books to stop this.

Originally posted by MadMax7
So if your into 'homosexual' rights you must also agree on other people that should be able to marry....?

Mother/son
Father/daughter
Mother/daughter (gay marriage)
Father/Son (")
Multiple wives
Multiple husbands
Multiple wives for homosexual marriage
Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage
Cousins
Man and dog
Woman and horse etc etc etc

After all, homosexuals say the right to 'marry' is all about 'love' and 'rights'

So where is it for the above? I maintain,it's not about true rights but just what applies to them and buggar the rest. (excuse the pun)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2013 by MadMax7 because: so many spelling mistakes..!!!

Nope, not at all. Homosexual rights means that homosexuals have the same rights to marry as heterosexual couples, not the ridiculousness of what you're suggesting.

We've had gay marriage in Canada for over 10 years and it hasn't led to ANY of the above.

I'm not "into homosexual marriage" I'm "into equal rights for everyone" as stated in my post.

Originally posted by blindlyzack
Lines have to be drawn at some point

So if the Constitution says that we can't discriminate based on sexual preference, why do we discriminate against gays in some basic human rights, like getting the same benefits for their partners as straight couples?

Originally posted by MadMax7
So if your into 'homosexual' rights you must also agree on other people that should be able to marry....?

Mother/son
Father/daughter
Mother/daughter (gay marriage)
Father/Son (")
Multiple wives
Multiple husbands
Multiple wives for homosexual marriage
Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage
Cousins
Man and dog
Woman and horse etc etc etc

After all, homosexuals say the right to 'marry' is all about 'love' and 'rights'

So where is it for the above? I maintain,it's not about true rights but just what applies to them and buggar the rest. (excuse the pun)

Are you being serious? How can you possibly compare two humans who are in love and want to share a life together to the above??? Why do people have to go crazy against things that they don't understand? If you want to have a discussion at least bring reasonable items to the table, not bulls**t!

I suggest that my brothers and sisters who support marriage equality STOP responding to the people who think marrying a dog is the same thing as marrying a CONSENTING, HUMAN adult. It only justifies these sick fantasies. Giving attention to this nonsense only encourages them to engage in fantasies of incestual relations and having sex with dogs, cars and other non-consenting beings. They ALWAYS go there when a thread containing the words "gay marriage" is written, so I can only assume it's right there on the tips of their brains.

This thread isn't ABOUT gay marriage or gay sex or sex with dogs, but about the hypocrisy of Chick-Fil-A and their position against equal benefits for their gay employees.

Just a suggestion.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Gay marriage: No issue of interbreeding and the social risks there

Mother son- health issues by inbreeding for offspring.

Father daughter- health issues by inbreeding for offspring.

Father/Son. What's the benefit?

Multiple wives. people already do this, lawful or not.

Multiple husbands. people already do this, lawful or not.

Multiple wives for homosexual marriage. Why is this an issue, besides polygamy laws?

Multiple husbands for homosexual marriage. Why is this an issue, besides polygamy laws?


Man and dog. There are existing laws on the books to stop this.

Woman and horse etc etc etc. There are existing laws on the books to stop this.

Seriously though. Madmax has a point. Where is the line drawn? You could mirror many of these examples to gay relationships, besides just health issues, which do exist.

Mother/son - Father/daughter examples. Same could be said about gay relationships. One offers a disabled child, the other offers no child. Neither are good.

You say father/son "what's the point?". But what's the point of two men or two women then? Aside from not having a parental relationship, they are the same thing. Is a gay relationship between any two men just as meaningless?

The multiple wives and husbands point, you have a sort of "so what?" attitude towards. It wouldn't bother you for say, your sister or mother to marry a man that has 6 other wives? Would you marry someone that has 5-6 other significant others? Would marriage even be a special milestone/occasion at that point?

I do agree with the animals laws being and staying illegal. Lets just hope..

In fairness, Chick fil a has backed off from funding right wing extremist anti gay organizations. It's a small step, but a step in the right direction. They realized all money is green. A gay dollar and a straight dollar is the same color.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I suggest that my brothers and sisters who support marriage equality STOP responding to the people who think marrying a dog is the same thing as marrying a CONSENTING, HUMAN adult.

...This thread isn't ABOUT gay marriage or gay sex or sex with dogs, but about the hypocrisy of Chick-Fil-A and their position against equal benefits for their gay employees.

...Just a suggestion.

As has been illustrated before -- the good comes with the bad.
Welcome to Legal-town.
What is so great about legal marriage?
Now you can sue the other for adultery, incompatibility, irreconcilable differences ... their stuff.

I've looked at wills and probates from the early 1970's, where one partner left all (the rest, residue & remainder) to their Life Friend... I don't know that there would have been any problem with the "Friend's" bequest, should someone have contested...but...from all I saw - the Life Friend got the stuff.
Maybe the Testator would have wished that he could've stated "Spouse", or "My Love", or something-other than "Life Friend"...in this legal document -- but -- "the stuff" still got there.
I am not for or against... I know some part of the issue has to do with "health insurance" and "taxes"...but, even being heterosexually-married for...uhhh...a looonnnngggg time, I wasn't helped much on those issues (insurance & taxes) for much of that time.

reply to post by WanDash

Originally posted by WanDash
What is so great about legal marriage?

It depends. That's not really the point, though. What's so great about buying a car? The fact is, it's a LEGAL contract offered to adults by the state. It's an option, to whose who wish to participate in it. Denying that option to a group of citizens is NOT equal treatment under the law. Period. Same with the legal marriage contract. If the state offers it to consenting adults, it should be offered to ALL consenting adults who can fulfill the terms.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
...It depends.

That's not really the point, though. What's so great about buying a car? The fact is, it's a LEGAL contract offered to adults by the state. It's an option, to whose who wish to participate in it. Denying that option to a group of citizens is NOT equal treatment under the law. Period. Same with the legal marriage contract. If the state offers it to consenting adults, it should be offered to ALL consenting adults who can fulfill the terms.

No problem with your take on it... Just considering the fact that sometimes we fight & strive for things that...we later find to have been wasted effort... You know - fantasy land, and all.
Watching scores of people fighting & scratching & clawing and whining and throwing fits and tantrums over - "My Wedding! My Way! You shouldn't care how much it costs! This is my one & only wedding!"
Anyway - you got it right. I'm just rambling...

reply to post by MadMax7


Lol....are you really that ignorant, first off we are not talking about incest, or phedifilia or beastiality you see there has to be some kind of consent between two people you know, of same species, and those of the age of consent, and hopefully from a different gene pool, which makes me wonder about you. No where near your pathetic undersanding of homosexuals.

reply to post by MadMax7


Lol....are you really that ignorant, first off we are not talking about incest, or phedifilia or beastiality you see there has to be some kind of consent between two people you know, of same species, and those of the age of consent, and hopefully from a different gene pool, which makes me wonder about you. No where near your pathetic undersanding of homosexuals.