Chicken with a side of falsehood

[meddle]

This is more or less what a lot of people have said already, but...

If you stop and think about all the terrible things that you are possibly blissfully (and ignorantly) funding and/or indirectly supporting, where does one exactly draw the line here with product boycotting? The fact that Chick-fil-a is out of the gay hate closet only means that we are consciously funding it. Honestly, was anyone really surprised by this? I am grossly over-generalizing here, but handing over your cash to pretty much any organization headquartered in the South is, more likely than not, giving money to people who hate gays--which, as far as I'm concerned, seems no better or worse than handing money to people who use that money to promote gay hate.

As far as the "falsehood" is concerned, c'mon people, it's as if this is the first time you've heard about a company trying to cover something up. Business is business.

 

[Deck Knight]

This is more or less what a lot of people have said already, but...

If you stop and think about all the terrible things that you are possibly blissfully (and ignorantly) funding and/or indirectly supporting, where does one exactly draw the line here with product boycotting? The fact that Chick-fil-a is out of the gay hate closet only means that we are consciously funding it. Honestly, was anyone really surprised by this? I am grossly over-generalizing here, but handing over your cash to pretty much any organization headquartered in the South is, more likely than not, giving money to people who hate gays--which, as far as I'm concerned, seems no better or worse than handing money to people who use that money to promote gay hate.

As far as the "falsehood" is concerned, c'mon people, it's as if this is the first time you've heard about a company trying to cover something up. Business is business.

Hey looks like another gallery post coming up.

Nobody is trying to "cover anything up." People are bashing the Cathys because they are being forthright and honest about their stances. Furthermore, there's no "gay hate" here at all. These are the damning, hateful quotes floating around the internet:

“We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

Well the obvious problem here? Thanking God. The problem with God is that his opinion is no better than a random person's on the street, because unlike opinions linked to God which generally have thousands of years of human experience behind them and are easily referenced, Joe Blow read a post-modern philosophy textbook yesterday. He doesn't quite understand it, but he's certain he's morally superior to everyone who disagrees with his new-found policy prescriptions. If you disagree with what he now believes you're clearly a hater.

Here's the absurdity: when you hate the Christian worldview so much you're willing to demonize a chicken restaurant over it, that's cool. But you better not support the definition of marriage that's been understood for thousands of years. That's gay hate! Even though the word gay isn't even in the quote, and the entire notion of "gay marriage" is a historically recent one.

Ah, but here's something else from the villainous Dan Cathy:

I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

Good heavens. Praying God's mercy on a generation! Decrying the general attitude of the present culture as prideful and arrogant! The gay hate just oozes out of this! Have you ever stopped, even once, to consider:

Not all homosexuals think gay marriage is either desirable policy or morally good. By conflating support or opposition to gay marriage as a proxy for support or opposition to gay people (gay hate), you are making a jump into logical absurdity.

I'm tired of putting up with shit like this. Assassinating the character of someone without knowing your own basis for it is evil. You, like I, don't know Dan Cathy personally. You have no basis on which to claim he is engaging in gay hate, save he's personally given donations to organizations homosexual activists hate. Like many Christians, he's coming from the vantage point that homosexuality is an intrinsically disordered orientation that requires support to resist and overcome in daily struggles. You might not agree with that assessment, you probably think sexual orientation is an immutable, identity-defining characteristic. Considering there's no genetic case for that, and plenty of research and personal anecdotes to the contrary (Ever heard "I was just experimenting"), let's just call it a difference of opinion and let it be.

You're perfectly within your rights to boycott something for any reason. But don't call that reason "gay hate" as if by denying them business you're making a morally heroic stand.

It's at the point you can't run a chicken joint without being shouted down for thoughtcrime. I'm fine with anyone patronizing or not patronizing whatever establishment they please, but don't pretend it's a moral crusade unless you're willing to explain your moral indignation logically. Otherwise you're the textbook definition of a bigot, because you've elevated your opposition into the realm of absolute morality.

Next time I'm up in Boston, I'm heading to Chick-Fil-A.

 

[popemobile]

it's not the fact that he holds those opinions but the fact that the money you give to his business is being used to help deny rights for gays. yeah his opinions are shitty but I couldn't give a fuck about that if he wasn't doing anything actively harmful and bigoted, but he is and in fact is donating huge sums of money to groups who actively try to keep gays from getting equal rights

what is so hard to understand about this

 

[popemobile]

also LOL at the thought that the christian doctrine isn't completely filled with gay hate

 

[meddle]

Nobody is trying to "cover anything up."

Oh, I was referencing this--the Jim Henson toy recall "cover up." I wasn't clear.

 

[Alchemator]

Hello I'm going to struggle in this sea of dung one last time before leaving.

It is I, the kind of post-modernist Deck was probably referencing, here to attempt to solve all religious questions.

• All belief about what the Bible says is true is axiomatic. The justification behind the Bible's reasoning is itself, from this passage (and probably others):

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

​

• Axiom: A statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
• What this means in practice is that all interpretations of the Bible are personal. One cannot condemn someone else for "picking and choosing" or believing in everything, or indeed believing in nothing the Bible says, since we are not required to hold the same axiomatic beliefs.

Now for a couple of my own axioms:

• Educating others about religion is absolutely right. Why should I care if the CEO of some company states his beliefs? If I'm comfortable enough in my own world view then I should be able to weigh his ideas up against my own and win.
• Forcing your religion onto others is wrong. I'm not going to enter the debate about whether these organisations (of which I've never heard) are forcing people to 'convert' to heterosexuality, but banning homosexuals from businesses and banning Christians from businesses [neither of which have happened, calm down] are both wrong.

Basically, let's not all get up in each other's shit about religion, since it's a personal thing. Also, you can't use the Bible to support acting against people of different sexual preferences.

So long.
And thanks for all the chicken.

 

[xenu]

cookie's law of a forum?

 

[ChaoticaMortis]

My post is not really adding much to the discussion (you know, like over 50% of the other posts in this thread), but I completely agree with Deck Knight. Holy shit, this dude sounds like he's the only one in this thread who's actually formed an intelligible thought with a reasonable point. Props.

EDIT: Well, Alchemator has made a few good points as well.

 

[capefeather]

Are you fucking kidding me? In this page alone I see at least one intelligent post, and Deck Knight's post is not that post. Don't mistake verbosity and moral conviction for intelligence. We've already been living in an era for centuries now where we can question the dogma of thousands of years ago. The philosophies of people like Plato, Aristotle, Zeno and the Pythagoreans are little more than curiosities now because we have, among other things, the scientific method, leading to much better ways to understand the world. New ways of thinking are not somehow inferior to old ones.

Okay, so this chicken restaurant is taking a stance against gay marriage due to religious beliefs. It is actually a stance that it took long ago, but people are now offended because the owner has been particularly upfront and direct about it as of late. But in a social issue like this, we can't just look at one event and casually condemn the guy. We have to look at the whole picture, the belief itself that leads to human rights violations or whatever it is we're not liking about this. In the end, though, it really depends on what marriage means as far as what happens when two people are "married".

 

[The Knights of Wario Land]

Since this thread has drifted off so much of the original point I was trying to make, I'd like to say that I recently saw that the Chick Fil A near me was handing out free milkshakes.

Take that as you will.

 

[DM]

Oh, I was referencing this--the Jim Henson toy recall "cover up." I wasn't clear.

meddle

MEDDLE




FUCKING MEDDLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE








On the subject, I'm with capefeather. Chik-Fil-A has been notoriously religious since it's freaking inception, and NOW everyone has their panties in a twist about this? Come on, it's the ONLY FAST FOOD PLACE CLOSED ON SUNDAYS. This shouldn't be news to anyone. As I'm not a big fan of organized religion, I probably never would've eaten at a Chik-Fil-A before I knew about this.

 

[capefeather]

Oh yeah the fake girl thing. That was pretty hilarious and I can't believe anyone would defend a company that would blatantly lie like that.

Their milkshakes bring all the boys to the yard.

 

[bojangles]

Once again I am astounded at how quickly a thread can take a nosedive.

 

[tape]

the problem is not their beliefs, the problem is they are actively funding gay hate groups.what's so hard to understand? I don't have a problem going to a Christian restaurant,I have a problem with them openly using the money I give them for something unethical.

 

[Espo]

People aren't boycotting CFA because it's a Christian fast food joint, It's because they donated millions of dollars to gay hate groups with money they make off their products.

 

[mingot]

I am boycotting them because the food is terrible. The service is generally good, though, as they only hire white people.

 

[Bad Ass]

this was definitely the funniest thread that i've read in a long time

 

[iDunno]

I don't eat the food but I honestly don't care what the restaurant thinks about gay marriage. They are taking advantage of their right to free speech given to them by the first amendment and citizen's united which is fine with me.And if other companies and consumers want to exercise those rights and oppose them that is also fine with me. I would rather have a company be open about their beliefs because it gives me the ability to make the decision to boycott them. THey didn't have to tell people what they belIeved and is sucks that people have tobe so immature about it when they did.

 

[Snkz]

Whenever the whole christians being okay or against gays thing comes up I get very confused. Are the above quotes not from the bible? I don't see how any of those can be argued against ... is there like a branch of christianity that doesn't follow the book from where they are quoted from?

Sorry, this is even more off topic

 

[Firestorm]

It's okay that the Cathys donate to organizations that actively work to restrict the rights of other citizens in the United States because he believes in the words written in a book.

Oh ok.

 

[TheValkyries]

Relevant to original topic of this thread.


Apparently the gays have ninja assassins.

 

[BattleStar]

I guess I will find a crack in this thread to post my opinion.

Personally I don't even care they did this. In fact I actually am giving them Kudos for making a stand. I have eaten at Chic-fil-A a couple of times and enjoyed the food. I even am next week going to make sure I go to Chic-Fil-A and not fall along with the other foolishness of boycotting an establishment. I see people boycotting it and IMO that is foolish, but they can still do it because it is there right. Though when I hear of Chicago and Boston declaring that the chain is unwelcomed in their city, that is wrong. The Government-local or national in no way should get involved in this by saying that a chain can't be in a city no matter what there religious beliefs are.

 

[Espo]

Again, people aren't boycotting CFA for its beliefs (they were already known) but for funding gay hate groups with the money they get from their products.

 

[BattleStar]

Again, people aren't boycotting CFA for its beliefs (they were already known) but for funding gay hate groups with the money they get from their products.

Granted that is a reason for the boycott but in no way it is the sole reason. Most people ignorantly will just see the headline "Chic-Fil-A supports Anti-Gay Marriage" and that will be enough for them not to eat there. I am sure if you seen some of the stuff other companies and there execs fund your eating/shopping options would be severely limited if you follow that logic.

 

[Matthew]

(i'm ignoring the bible nonsense and responding to genny's post)

gasoline is a special case because buying and burning it for your own convenience is inherently pretty selfish -- everyone else has to deal with the side effects of pollution. if gasoline were priced at a rate that would allow us to repair the damage, i'm quite certain it wouldn't be economically viable for individuals to drive themselves around the way they do.

thus, i see driving as a form of 'stealing' from the public. bicycles and buses are the way to go.

now, i don't care much about little things like the opinions of a company's ceo. i'm only concerned with their actions. donating to hate groups is an action, so i would consider avoiding chick-fil-a (if there was one near me to avoid). however, there are far, far more serious offenses going on that i don't think any sane person could tolerate (such as murdering unionists to keep wages low) and any person who "doesn't care" is not a person with whom i want to associate.

as my ideals are quite specific and still somewhat schismatic, i can't feasibly avoid every corporation that doesn't support them. ideally, we would all grow our own food in our backyards, but i live in a college dorm, and if the choice is between fueling a bit of extra gay hate in the usa and supporting unrepentant worker exploitation and murder, i'm eating the chicken.

wal-mart's gig is that they own an enormous monopoly, which is universally considered A Bad Thing for the economy. wal-mart's suppliers pretty much have to do anything it says, because they will go out of business if wal-mart decides it doesn't feel like trading with them. because of that, wal-mart can demand that it pays impossibly low prices -- and that's where the worker abuse comes into play. and by paying these low prices for its goods, wal-mart can reliably undercut its competition, having the effect of turning well-paying local jobs into horrible jobs for desperate people in impoverished areas.

i think it's somewhat possible for corporations to 'redeem' themselves somewhat, too. while microsoft has committed crimes to compare with the worst of them, bill gates himself has donated massive amounts of money and started his own charity, (which i believe is the largest charity in the usa, by funds). steve jobs, on the other hand, apparently never knew the meaning of the word 'altruism', which is why i don't feel as bad when i buy a computer that happens to come pre-packaged with microsoft windows.

I guess what I would wonder is it the act of the CEO to make a company more or less evil? If I sat down with Wal-Marts CEO and had a beer and he was a nice, wholesome man that didn't condemn anyone and donated to charities (maybe some of them had to do with rehabilitation of gays, maybe some fed children in Africa), does that justify what he does with Wal-Mart? I would likely say no, while the man, as a person, is just and fair and loving, the man, as an ideal, is completely unwholesome.

I don't know of the crimes of Microsoft, I'm not well read in many areas but I guess while Bill Gates has donated more money than the 8th richest man in the world to charities (learned that from Phillip DeFranco!!) then I'd have to say he's wholesome, while maybe the company he runs is different. I think you have to look at it in two different situations. Bill Gates, the man, is a great guy, donating over 20 billion dollars to charities, maybe Bill Gates as the CEO isn't exactly kosher.

I can see your views on gasoline, it is pretty selfish for me to drive not even two blocks away to go to work, but I really don't want to walk to a place where I have to stand for hours at a time. Which, yes, is selfish.

I also agree with your "I'll eat the chicken," saying. The only difference is if I have to choose between eating Chick Fill-A (what the hell is it called?), or going to Burger King, I'd probably pick Burger King as they're not as open about their views that I don't agree with than Chick Fill-A is.

Ignorance is probably key in these situations. I'll continue to eat at my favorite fast food places as long as they don't actively tell me where my money is going to go. As a consumer I don't want to think about these things, but when I am forced to hear them it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I ended up curious about where Burger King sends its money, and I didn't like it, then I'd probably stop going there too -- but I'm probably not going to look for any answers to the questions I'm asking unless I see something in the newspaper, Youtube, or in the evening news.