Poll: Chick-fil-a owner admits to anti-gay views

yeti585

New member
Apr 1, 2012
380
0
0
[HEADING=1]Warning: I do not agree with the beliefs expressed by the owner. I am all for marriage equality[/HEADING]
Can I jump in here? From what I read, the owner never actually said he was anti-gay. He said that he believes marriage should be for straight couples and that gay marriage is against his religion. Before anyone calls him a bigot (though I am a bit late on this regard) the definition of "bigot" and "bigotry" are below.
Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Bigotry: 1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.
Anyone calling this man a bigot for believing that part of his religion be kept "sacred" is the bigot. Whether you believe in this religion or not, if you are going to be intolerant of it you are the bigot.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
So what is it now? If you dont agree with the moral majority then your automatically vilified? When did society get to the point where you have to agree with gay marriage or else? People are allowed to disagree with gay marriage same as gay people and others agree with gay marriage. An boycotting a restaurant just because the owner believes in something different is plain stupid and childish. Me personally, i dont care about gay marriage, it doesn't effect me in any way whether they are allowed to or not. So a Christian owned restaurant is against it, big deal, there are many thousand who are pro gay marriage. If gay people want to fight and win there rights to be treated like straight people, then great, go for it. But that should not include vilifying those people that disagree with your fight.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Mortai Gravesend said:
RicoADF said:
*snip*
Funny how America is land of the free, land of the freedom of speach regardless of views..... until its unpopular. If you believe in the freedom your country preaches to the world so much, then (for better or worse) he has a right to whatever view he likes and to spend his money however he wants (legally). I don't agree with his views, but the response your suggesting is hypocritical.
How is his freedom of speech being denied by a boycott? Sure he has a right to his view, that doesn't mean that we can't decide that makes him an ass and that we shouldn't do business with him. It's not like anyone is making a law against him or forcing people away for his products.
No, but their condemning him for his views, in a nation thats suppose to allow everyone to have their own beliefs without being condemned, regardless of how stupid they may be.

SonOfVoorhees said:
So what is it now? If you dont agree with the moral majority then your automatically vilified? When did society get to the point where you have to agree with gay marriage or else? People are allowed to disagree with gay marriage same as gay people and others agree with gay marriage. An boycotting a restaurant just because the owner believes in something different is plain stupid and childish. Me personally, i dont care about gay marriage, it doesn't effect me in any way whether they are allowed to or not. So a Christian owned restaurant is against it, big deal, there are many thousand who are pro gay marriage. If gay people want to fight and win there rights to be treated like straight people, then great, go for it. But that should not include vilifying those people that disagree with your fight.
My point exactly, regardless of his views it's against what America keeps claiming its all about, freedom of belief, speach and opinions, yet someone is being vilified for having a view that others don't agree with, which is against what the US claims it's citizens have the freedoms of.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
So what.

I like chicken, I don't actively think much about gay stuff. I have gay friends, and they eat chicken, too. I cook with gays, I eat with gays, but I wouldn't want to discuss Chick-Fil-A or chicken in general with gays. I don't care what people who prepare my fast food take-away chicken think about gays.

Go to post-revolution Egypt, enjoy super holidays or get treated like shit because you're female or not sporting a beard if male. Get super badly treated if openly, visibly clearly gay, to the point of feeling very not welcome or safe.

Go to some countryside destination in Somalia as a white transexual, see how much better things are at home.

There's really absolutely no justification for going drama queen over Chick-Fil-A. They're supposed to make food for the lazy and the busy, why does everyone have to have the same opinion these days? I strongly oppose that notion, as it's plain wrong to fake up everything.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
My exact response to this is a resounding "meh". I've never heard of this restaurant before and the opinion of the owner is completely meaningless to me.

I don't agree with his stance on the issue, but that wouldn't stop me from going there if I happened to like the food. In my mind, the politics they like, and the food they serve are two completely separate things. I can like a service someone provides while disliking their political views; it's not even all that hard.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
RicoADF said:
No, but their condemning him for his views, in a nation thats suppose to allow everyone to have their own beliefs without being condemned, regardless of how stupid they may be.
To be fair, freedom of speech is solely about protecting individuals from government repercussions of espousing their views. It offers no social or economic protection, nor does it work as a get-out-of-jail-free card for other individuals responses to it.

All it means is that he's not going to be thrown in jail for being anti-gay-marriage.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,930
644
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
RicoADF said:
Funny how America is land of the free, land of the freedom of speach regardless of views..... until its unpopular. If you believe in the freedom your country preaches to the world so much, then (for better or worse) he has a right to whatever view he likes and to spend his money however he wants (legally). I don't agree with his views, but the response your suggesting is hypocritical.
Now that's just a perversion of the concept, Rico. Freedom of Speech does not equate to "you cannot convey your displeasure about someone else's views" nor does it equate to the ability to say whatever you want without consequence. Nor is withdrawing your support of a group because you disagree with their positions antithetical to the concept. Honestly, it concerns me that I've seen this misconception pop up so frequently in recent years. Freedom of speech is quite simply the political right to convey one's ideas, and even that does not protect all forms of speech (notably, it is usually illegal to invoke slander or libel, for instance). Heck, the First Amendment itself acknowledged that consequences could still follow from the exercise of that right. To quote:
The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
Even that has little bearing on the issue at hand, however, as we aren't talking about government censorship, nor are we are talking about legal reprecussions for what was said. What we're talking about is people's right to dissent from the spoken opinion and to express that dissent through similarly legal means in an effort to make that dissent heard. Put more simply: "It is a man's right to hold an opinion, but so too is it his neighbor's right to disagree with that opinion". If people want to boycott Chick-Fil-A, it is their right to do so, just like it is their right to hold a protest, and just like their right to simply voice their dissatisfaction if that is their choice.
 

lwm3398

New member
Apr 15, 2009
2,896
0
0
omicron1 said:
It is not wrong to hold segregationist views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them. What, exactly, is the problem here?
I adapted that for 50 years ago, just to give an idea of what you just said.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
I can't really say I'm boycotting chik-fil-a because I haven't gone there in ages to begin with. I don't plan on buying anything from there and I've made some half-hearted attempts to tell people to not eat there but, if I'm offered food from there I'll take it. I kind of had a feeling the owner would have some sort of anti-gay sentiment since the place is Christian enough to close on Sunday specifically so that families can be together (and pray I think...I could have sworn I saw that written up in one of the restaurants). Here's to hoping Roy Rogers isn't anti-gay because I don't think I can swear off of their food like I can Chik-Fil-A.
 

RaNDM G

New member
Apr 28, 2009
6,044
0
0
I can sum up everyone's opinion with a resounding "meh".

I can't eat at Chick-Fil-A anyway. I'm allergic to peanut oil.
 

gideonkain

New member
Nov 12, 2010
525
0
0
omicron1 said:
Conservative stands up for conservative views, news at 11.
Honestly, has it really come to this? Forcing public acceptance or agreement to one side of an unresolved argument by boycotting anyone who disagrees?

It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them. What, exactly, is the problem here?
Wait.
Are you suggesting that we think for ourselves and act on our convictions?

What are you gay or something?!
 

AgedGrunt

New member
Dec 7, 2011
363
0
0
If only people became this angry, aware and understanding of their governments, who are actually the ones stopping gay marriage, maybe they would get change rather than hope for it to come on its own.

In the U.S., marriage is licensed and regulated. Demand changes to laws or amend the Constitution; that's why they exist. Get in there and fight for it. I know, boycotting is easier, that is because it is the laziest form of change in existence (and in this context doesn't accomplish anything). Ahh, went ahead and didn't buy that chicken? I guess your work is done.
 

Aerodyamic

New member
Aug 14, 2009
1,205
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
Did God HIMSELF ever actually say that in the bible?
The quotes usually used by Christians are the ones refering to 'The sin of Onan" and "and Man shall not lay with Man, as he would with woman". The first example is a total joke, because the sin of Onan was failing to impregnate his sister by blowing his load on the ground, which God killed him over. The second example merely rules out spooning and missionary positions, as far as I'm concerned.

At any rate, being that I'm Canadian, I'm not immediately faced with any decisions concerning patronizing his business, but in the event that I'm somewhere that has that chain, I won't be eating there.

CAPTCHA: sausages... I think the internet has spoken.
 

Dragonclaw

New member
Dec 24, 2007
448
0
0
SonOfVoorhees said:
So what is it now? If you dont agree with the moral majority then your automatically vilified? When did society get to the point where you have to agree with gay marriage or else? People are allowed to disagree with gay marriage same as gay people and others agree with gay marriage. An boycotting a restaurant just because the owner believes in something different is plain stupid and childish. Me personally, i dont care about gay marriage, it doesn't effect me in any way whether they are allowed to or not. So a Christian owned restaurant is against it, big deal, there are many thousand who are pro gay marriage. If gay people want to fight and win there rights to be treated like straight people, then great, go for it. But that should not include vilifying those people that disagree with your fight.
If it was simply "I don't agree with gay marriage" as a statement...well, that's sad and I think less of him for it, but that's his business and I doubt I'd be up for any kind of boycott...but he HASN'T just done that, he has taken it to the next step of "I don't agree with gay marriage and will actively throw millions of dollars to causes that aim to prevent these people from having rights". In *MY* eyes that is a HUGE difference and one that I just can't support knowing that a fraction of the money I spend with his company would be used for a cause that doesn't affect ME or my marriage, but does affect the rights of several friends and several family members.
 

Syzygy23

New member
Sep 20, 2010
824
0
0
Jesus Christ, people like this Chick-fil-a guy needs to be punched so hard.

He completely ignores the teachings of his own religion in favor of his homophobia. The two most glaring holes in his logic are A) As a self professed Christian, he must have read the New Testament. Within the NT, Jesus himself DISOWNS the Old Testament, more or less outright saying that if you're going to rules-lawyer your life, use the NT. If you're wondering why that's relevant, it's because all of Christiandoms anti-gay stuff is in the Old Testament. That's the FIRST reason why he shouldn't have an issue with Gay Marriage. And let's not forget B) All sins are equal. Stealing a candy bar is as bad a sin as marrying another dude so you can have a pork sword duel. Sins which are absolved in the eyes of God so long as you more or less apologize to Jesus and nod in appreciation for the whole dying-on-a-cross thing. That was the whole point of the sacrifice, if this clown had read the NT. Jesus died to absolve everyones sins because humans sinning was inevitable and unavoidable, hence the get-out-of-jail-free card.

There, that's TWO WAYS this guy crumbles under the enormous weight of his OWN LOGIC. If he thinks people disobeying God is going to bring fire and brimstone upon an entire nations head, then he's reading the wrong testament, and therefore should start attending a synagogue.