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

Iscariot6794

New member
Jul 1, 2011
20
0
0
SlaveNumber23 said:
Really? Boycott his product because he has an opinion that is different to yours? Whats wrong with him being anti-gay anyway? Its not like hes attacking people for being gay, he just has an opinion, he isn't hurting anyone with it. Sure, his opinion may be dumb, but to boycott his fast food chain just for having an opinion you don't like is just fascist.
Because donating millions of dollars a year towards anti-gay causes actually does have an effect and actually does cause harm.

You do understand the purpose of him donating money, right?

To anyone claiming intolerance: Universal tolerance is not something that should be sought after. Not all ideals were created equal.

Choose instead to be intolerant of pain, of oppression, of injustice and cruelty, and hatred and ignorance.
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
And in America he is protected by free speech and he can donate to whatever lobbyist group he feels like.
I would also like to point out that the Muslum and black community (especially members of the Baptist church)(In Chicago especially, look it up) also donate heavily to lobbyist groups against gay marriage but you dont see the businesses that they start on any boycott lists... That's fine, most people dont want to appear to be racially prejudiced so they wont even mention that the largest communities against Gay Marriage are actually several minority groups.
 

Heinrich843

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
Dat chicken and waffle fries.

You know, I found a Chick-fil-a kid's book with "The Book of Virtues" plastered onto it not that long ago. (Or something like that)

Surprisingly, none of this boycotting will affect their business enough to change anything. People will still continue to get that chicken and waffle fries. It's.. almost like we've seen this before. Oh wait, we saw this in the gaming community boycotts. It's good to have a cause, but I think your cries will fall upon deaf ears. (Because people would rather eat chicken sandwiches and waffle fries than support your cause.)
 

Strain42

New member
Mar 2, 2009
2,720
0
0
-looks up at the screen with a mouth full of chicken sandwich and a handful of waffle fries-

Hmm? What? I wasn't -swallows- oh god, that's tasty.

Okay sorry, what?

Wait...it's sunday...I can't have Chick-Fil-A today...DAMN IT.

Why do I always crave the stuff on Sunday?
 

Dascylus

New member
May 22, 2010
255
0
0
I don't know the specifics but here's the thought process if you support gay-rights...
Owner donates his private cash = His Choice so doesn't affect much.
Company donates the cash = I'd stop going there.

Case in point, McDonalds are pretty bad but I cannot live without my occasional Cowtipper. Sweden has an alternative though called Max... It's an extra 5sek on a cheeseburger but that's the price for a better brand. Hell they outcompete McDonalds and burger king in alot of areas of Sweden.
The only thing I miss is the egg mcmuffin but really if you can't fry an egg and toast a muffin for yourself then you have other issues.
Coca Cola, pretty evil. Julmust and påskmust, I stock that shit up in my cupboards. Coca-cola take a 50% dip in profits during christmas time.
A local bar refused me re-entry after I helped a bandmate with his stuff out to the car, I had apparently drunk too much when in reailty I had had 1 beer but there was a growing queue of customers (many of them female) willing to pay their own entrance fee. I can't argue with the guards but I haven't been back since and when one person in a group flat out refuses to go somewhere it often leads to the group elsewhere.

Thing is, if you disagree with a company and its practices/opinions then you should absolutely stop going there.
This includes the "million" moms, they have a right to shop elsewhere if they disagree with something.

As for campaigning for others to follow suit, sure I suppose I'm not against informing others using free speech but if you are going to speak publicly about something you should be prepared to defend your views. And if you could never accept that you may be wrong then you need to keep your mouth shut.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,837
0
0
Waaghpowa said:
Not in Canada means they wont get my money anyway.
Pretty much this. Prior to this thread I hadn't even heard of them. It wouldn't stop me from trying their food though. I don't take politics into account when I'm looking for lunch.
 

90sgamer

New member
Jan 12, 2012
206
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
I thought I did a decent job actually. I had "very negative", "negative", "respectfully disagreeing", "apathetic", "positive", "unaware", and two stupid things to fill up poll options.

I couldn't exactly put "[super long paragraph about an appropriate compromise between Christian fundamentalists and gay rights advocates]" as a poll option.
Read your poll again. There are two negatives, three stupid, one positive, and two incomprehensible choices. Even if your poll choices did show as you envisioned them, it's too many choices which makes your poll unfocused. Focusing your poll is important. I believe that a poll is not a good way to gauge "reactions." Do you know how many possible reactions there are? You need to choose something a little more specific to poll.

If you were gauging how many people would boycott a business owner over his view of gay marriage then your poll should have been:
1. Would boycott over his views of gay marriage.
2. Would not boycott for his views over gay marriage.
3. I'm already boycotting Chick-fil-a but for different reasons.

#3 is included to pacify stupid people who do not understand the purpose of the poll and will select #1 just to show they are boycotting Chick-fil-a, even though their reasons have nothing to do with gay marriage. If #3 was not present then your poll results would be skewed.

If you were gauging how people felt in a general sense then your poll choices should be:
1. I agree with views.
2. I don't care about his views.
3. I disagree with his views.
 

Cheery Lunatic

New member
Aug 18, 2009
1,565
0
0
Chick-Fil-A is the most delicious fast food chain ever.

Like seriously.

You Europeans don't know what you're missing.

Also, I don't really care; it's his company. As long as he doesn't promote violence or hatred, how he goes about his business is his business.

edit: Actually no. Chick-fil-a is the SECOND most delicious fast food chain ever.
First would be Cane's.

AMMIRITE OR AMMIRITE
 

pppppppppppppppppp

New member
Jun 23, 2011
1,519
0
0
90sgamer said:
really long advice
Well, two of the poll options were messed up by the website, but whatevs.

*ahem* I'm so super sorry for making this terrible mistake on such a super important issue. Thank you for your amazing and helpful advice, and I hope I will never commit such a travesty again.
 

90sgamer

New member
Jan 12, 2012
206
0
0
Blablahb said:
Uhm... Nope. Marriage is the state recognition and thus formalisation of a relationship between two people, the church has nothing to do with it.
Wrong. The United States of America and its marriage laws were not established before the Bible was compiled by bronze-age men. The Bible lays out the religious context and laws of marriage.


The bible also says you have to exterminate all cities with 1 non-Christian in them, and sell you daughter as a sex slave.

And actually the bible doesn't say that all.
You're obviously an idiot. There is no way around that. You think making up biblical text then admitting to making it up is persuasive in any context?

The Bible says a lot of things, many of them atrocious. Fortunately, people pick and choose what to believe and most people choose to believe the good parts and ignore the rest. Whether you agree or disagree, these people are entitled to believe what they want, as long as they break no laws. I see no reason why you or anyone else should antagonize them and take from them their beliefs.


Why? Why are you or a church entitled to discriminate against and exclude people from marriage based on pure lunacy (don't agree with that wording, then first show empirical proof your good exists) when normal marriage without religious discrimination in it works perfectly?
A church is entitled to discriminate because its a private entity, just as you are entitled to kick out clients who don't share your views. Would you be willing to give up that freedom? If not then it's shameful and unamerican for you to demand others give up theirs.

The State is not entitled to discriminate and I never argued that it should. Reading comprehension buddy...

Or in short: Gay marriage is fine, you're the only causing the problem. Why would you choices override the rights of other people?

Surely Christians would be content with something other than marriage? Maybe a sort of legal partnership. So why shouldn't we ban marriage for Christians?
I argued that gays should be given what they want, which is equality. I also argued that religious people should be given what they want, protection of the term and concept of marriage in the religious context. I proposed this be done by stripping marriage of it's legal implications and awarding those legal implications to another term that is neutral.

You argue that we should award gays rights at the expense of the religious without any hint of compromise.

Yes, I am obviously the trouble maker here. Philistine.
 

LostAlone

New member
Sep 3, 2010
283
0
0
In a slightly backwards way any kind of official boycott by anyone would hurt the gay-marriage cause.

Firstly, because its such a tiny and petty reason to whip up any kind of frenzy over. I mean, if the guy said 'fags will burn in hell and my business will never ever employ any gays and one time I threw rocks at a gay pride march' then sure. That's something to get angry about. But him expressing a perfectly acceptable political view ? No. Boycotting for that would basically be the pro-gay-marriage campaign saying that they are so sensitive and so opposed to discussion with their opponents that they can't be taken seriously.

Secondly, even if a major gay-marriage group had bad enough PR to make this a big deal, then it benefits the anti-gay-marriage campaign more because it gives them something to rally around and say 'Look how a minority group is trying to circumvent free speech'.

Like I say, if the Chicken Mogul had said something blatantly homophobic and hateful then its a big deal. But him saying 'I don't support gay marriage' isn't that. It's rational and acceptable. It's the same as him saying 'I don't support socialised medicine' or 'we need better gun control'. You might not agree, and you personally might not want to send him money because of it, which is your right. But even then you probably still go get your chicken their and just ***** to your friends while you eat about how evil the guy who owns the company is.

If anything, this shows the major problem with politics at the moment. Minor issues being blown out of all proportion such that when something actually important happens, no-one can tell the difference.
 

LostAlone

New member
Sep 3, 2010
283
0
0
Buretsu said:
90sgamer said:
Blablahb said:
Uhm... Nope. Marriage is the state recognition and thus formalisation of a relationship between two people, the church has nothing to do with it.
Wrong. The United States of America and its marriage laws were not established before the Bible was compiled by bronze-age men. The Bible lays out the religious context and laws of marriage.
Irrelevant. Separation of Church and State means that the Bible has no legal authority. It's just a book, and therefore should not have any bearing whatsoever on actual laws set by actual governments.

If you say that marriage is religious because of the Bible, then not only would that mean that homosexuals wouldn't be able to get married, but non-Christians couldn't either.
The bible doesn't have any legal authority, but people who follow the book are a pretty substantial group in a representative democracy, and while their views are handed down to them by their god, its still their views, and the people who represent them lobby for those views.

Essentially, there is no way to separate church and state in a democracy. The people elect officials based off their own values, and so those values are represented at the highest levels. It's just the way it goes.
 

StBishop

New member
Sep 22, 2009
3,251
0
0
The Unworthy Gentleman said:
omicron1 said:
It is not wrong to hold anti-homosexuality views, gentlemen. Nor is it wrong to express them.
It is, it's very wrong. You don't necessarily have to like homosexuality but you can't go around enforcing discrimination against gays.
I have to disagree: holding anti-homosexual views =/= enforcing discrimination. He supports a cause he feels is important. That isn't wrong.

Just because we both loathe his cause doesn't mean he isn't allowed to support it. We can hate his views and we can disagree with them and argue against him. But he's not a bad person for being wrong holding a different opinion.

I fully understand why you think it's wrong to have ultra conservative views about marriage, but it's not evil any more than our views. Don't stoop to name calling like them.

He's losing, let him fight. It doesn't matter.
 

StBishop

New member
Sep 22, 2009
3,251
0
0
GunsmithKitten said:
StBishop said:
He's losing, let him fight. It doesn't matter.
Wouldn't be so sure on that assessment. Every single state that has put gay marriage up to public refferendum, it LOSES.
The bloke we're talking about is in North America, where gay marriage is becoming more and more widely accepted by the legal system.

If you're talking about Australia, it's not been put to a referendum to my knowledge, it certainly hasn't been put to a referendum in QLD between 2008-2009 and WA between 2009-23/7/2012. Because I'd have voted on them.

Most polls recently have shown the public in favour of legalising gay marriage in Australia and the bill being put through parliament currently is the most supported bill to ever be placed before parliament in the countries short history.

If you're an Aussie and feel like finding more out inbox me and I'll give you a link to a website for marriage equality in Australia. They've got a great newsletter and make it really easy for you to get involved in various ways.
 
Mar 7, 2012
283
0
0
Looking at this thread, I am both surprised and unsurprised at the reaction.

I've known about this for quite some time and stopped going when I found out. While they do reserve the right to do this, you guys NEED to stand up and say that this is NOT okay. Notably by not spending money there anymore.
 

jthm

New member
Jun 28, 2008
825
0
0
SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Who gives a fuck. If his chicken tastes good (which it doesn't, because it's an American fast food chain, thus making the food they serve the most disgusting and unhealthy thing you can find) I'm still eating it.
Chick Fil A is the best fast food chicken you can get. It's sad that I haven't eaten there in three years since learning of his donations to anti gay marriage charities, but I won't have my money supporting hate or discrimination.