Poll: Chick-fil-a owner admits to anti-gay views
- Thread starter pppppppppppppppppp
- Start date
That's capitalism. If you dislike a company for any reason, you have the right to refuse to use their products/services and avoid giving them money.Mick Golden Blood said:
It's a perfectly legitimate tactic. That's how the system works.
Actually being a neo-nazi isn't a crime. They're free to gather and voice their views -- they're just considered a hate group. And we may not draw the comparison so readily between the anti-gay lobby and neo-nazi groups, but I don't see much of a difference. Even if one is more extreme than the other, they both come from the same place of hatred and ignorance.Casual Shinji said:
Off-topic for just a moment: Walt Disney didn't hate jews. This myth stems from his involvement with the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, which was an anti-communist and anti-semite organization. This was in the time of McCarthyism, so he likely joined because it protected him from ever being accused of being a communist; an instant movie industry blacklist at the time. In fact, over the course of his life, he donated to several Jewish organizations such as the Hebrew Orphan Asylum and The American League for a Free Palestine. In 1955, he was voted man of the year by the B'nai B'rith chapter in Beverly Hills. While there were some Jewish stereotypes in his early animations, he ended up stereotyping every ethnic group, oftentimes when it was politically "required" to protect his career.Casual Shinji said:
On-topic: As far as the anti-gay sentiments from Chick-fil-a's owner, it won't affect my purchase habits. In the end, this is true for any viewpoint from any company's head/spokesperson. There are plenty of anti-gay protesters that use Gmail to organize their protests, for example. Most people just can't be bothered to change their consumption patterns based on a viewpoint from the owner. I think it'll mostly blow over.
No shit, I didn't know that. But then most cartoons were racist back then. Looney Tunes and Tin Tin weren't too shy about it neither.goldenjester said:
They always look like cosplayers to me on their way to a convention.Suki_ said:
That may seem like a shitty reason to you, but to others it isn't. There are tons of people who are either gay or have a friend/relative who is and wants to support them in the fight for equality. To those people, boycotting an establishment with opposing views (and one who gives money to organizations for the sole purpose of furthering those views) is the best and easiest way to protest. To them, $1 that Chick-Fil-A doesn't get is one that nti-gay rights advocates are denied.Mick Golden Blood said:
When you get into whether or not a single reason is legitimate enough, that's far too subjective and can't really be proven. Ergo, any reason to boycott/protest is a valid reason to, especially one that affects people as much as this one does.
I heard about this awhile back, and I think my views on it still stand: I am completely unwilling to support this establishment, even if the closest one is only 345 miles from my area (ok, only 344.98). In all seriousness, though, were this something that wasn't easy for me to boycott (really, I'm not driving out of state for a fast food sandwich when there are plenty in state), I'd probably lean on the side of "well, how bad is the damage?" After the whole Shadow Complex deal (I heard about it after I played the game on a friend's console), I still wanted to get the game for myself. It wasn't that I hate gay people, gay rights, or any of that, I just really liked the game, and thought that the developers deserved the funds they got, even if some portion went to Orson Scott Card.
This is my problem when doing the good ol' vote-with-your-wallet: does association to a thing that, in your opinion, sucks (like gaybashing assholes) mean you need to drop all funding to a thing you really like (metroidvania with a goo gun)? This works with EA, Activision, Blizzard, etc. too. Does buying a videogame from EA mean you hate consumers? Probably not, but by buying it, EA gains more funds to deliver more bad experiences to more people. On the flip side, by not buying that game, you are telling EA (and any other publisher who pays attention to numbers) that you are disinterested in that kind of game; causing them, in turn, to not publish similar titles.
To wheel this back in a more on-topic direction: it seems like it would be a good plan to think about what happens when you boycott, and if that result is worth it. If, by boycotting Chick-fil-a, companies wishing to start a chicken restaurant in your area would be discouraged from doing so, would that be worth potentially preventing anti-gay organizations from receiving funding (as someone pointed out earlier, the organizations that Chick-fil-a donates to are Christian, not explicitly anti-gay)? For me, even if this restaurant were in my area, it would be worth it. There are more benefits not having fast food restaurants around, for me, than having them. Is this hypocritically picking-and-choosing? Yeah, sure, but as someone else pointed out earlier, you're not going to consume anything ever if you don't pick and choose a little hypocritically. Maybe that $.50 from every video game purchase going to Sir Douchington McGaybasher is worth it, but purchasing Hypotheticals from Hypotheticus 'R Us, who has 10% of annual profits going to the Hypothetical Anti-Gay Coalition, isn't.
Sorry for the long post, I just think this topic has a philosophical rabbit hole that goes pretty deep.
This is my problem when doing the good ol' vote-with-your-wallet: does association to a thing that, in your opinion, sucks (like gaybashing assholes) mean you need to drop all funding to a thing you really like (metroidvania with a goo gun)? This works with EA, Activision, Blizzard, etc. too. Does buying a videogame from EA mean you hate consumers? Probably not, but by buying it, EA gains more funds to deliver more bad experiences to more people. On the flip side, by not buying that game, you are telling EA (and any other publisher who pays attention to numbers) that you are disinterested in that kind of game; causing them, in turn, to not publish similar titles.
To wheel this back in a more on-topic direction: it seems like it would be a good plan to think about what happens when you boycott, and if that result is worth it. If, by boycotting Chick-fil-a, companies wishing to start a chicken restaurant in your area would be discouraged from doing so, would that be worth potentially preventing anti-gay organizations from receiving funding (as someone pointed out earlier, the organizations that Chick-fil-a donates to are Christian, not explicitly anti-gay)? For me, even if this restaurant were in my area, it would be worth it. There are more benefits not having fast food restaurants around, for me, than having them. Is this hypocritically picking-and-choosing? Yeah, sure, but as someone else pointed out earlier, you're not going to consume anything ever if you don't pick and choose a little hypocritically. Maybe that $.50 from every video game purchase going to Sir Douchington McGaybasher is worth it, but purchasing Hypotheticals from Hypotheticus 'R Us, who has 10% of annual profits going to the Hypothetical Anti-Gay Coalition, isn't.
Sorry for the long post, I just think this topic has a philosophical rabbit hole that goes pretty deep.
I suppose I should elaborate. I meant that people who base their political decisions entirely (100%) on their religious doctrine without even considering what's moral to them personally should not be able to vote. And, in my and many other people's opinion, the anti-gay stance is a stance that is immoral. And, like I said, all that I see who oppose gay marriage are people either following a religious doctrine, homophobic, or often both. I just can't grasp the concept of a person who honestly believes opposing gay rights is the moral thing to do. I guess I simply think differently.Andropov4 said:
I remember, for the longest time (back when I was still under the Christian faith), I used to think that gay marriage was wrong. It wasn't until I actually thought for myself and looked at what was really going on that I changed that view. It is the biblical view on gay marriage being immoral that really sickens me, but that's another story.
And while he didn't explicitly state, "Boy, do I hate those queer fag assfuckers." I still find that the fact he openly supports anti-gay religious groups and lobbyists with the money that likely mostly comes from his customers and investors is a horrible thing. But then, at least I can be happy with the fact that I never enjoyed Chik-fil-a (I've eaten there once in my life, years ago) so I don't have to feel guilty about it.
At the end of the day his opinions are his own and at least he has the guts to be open about them. I dont agree with his opinions (Im in favour letting people marry who they will) but they are just as valid as mine. He has earned his money honestly and if he chooses to use it to support causes he believes in thats his choice and his right.
Equally if someone feels that they dont want to eat there anymore as a result of this then thats up to them, but trying to organise some kind of boycott because of the owners personal beliefs is tantamount to persicution. If people boycotted a restaurant chain because the owner was pro-gay marriage there would be outrage.
Equally if someone feels that they dont want to eat there anymore as a result of this then thats up to them, but trying to organise some kind of boycott because of the owners personal beliefs is tantamount to persicution. If people boycotted a restaurant chain because the owner was pro-gay marriage there would be outrage.
Honestly I doubt a boycott will change this mans stance at all but it will send fear to other company owners which would simply drive their views and weather they give to anti-gay marriage causes underground causing little change in the broader scope.
I disagree with his stance but I admire his honesty and his transparency which allows people who disagree with his stance the opportunity not to patronize his establishments which I find honorable. He knew the cost of what he admitted and I'm sure he was prepared and is most likely receiving plenty of increased business from the people that support his cause.
Saying its wrong to boycott him is wrong. Its everyone's personal decision.
IMO hating him for his views is still hate and can perpetuate hate on both sides of the issue so I urge caution before people decide on how they want to address him personally.
I disagree with his stance but I admire his honesty and his transparency which allows people who disagree with his stance the opportunity not to patronize his establishments which I find honorable. He knew the cost of what he admitted and I'm sure he was prepared and is most likely receiving plenty of increased business from the people that support his cause.
Saying its wrong to boycott him is wrong. Its everyone's personal decision.
IMO hating him for his views is still hate and can perpetuate hate on both sides of the issue so I urge caution before people decide on how they want to address him personally.
You really need to learn logical argument my friend. Having and opinion is not bigotry, discriminating against people based on something which really says nothing about how good that person is, is. Voting horses and gay marriage are not equivalent.omicron1 said:
What gay people have a right too is the same legal structure for their partnerships I don't think anyone believes that the law can change what God perceives as right but if God hates them then they wont have been married in his eyes so it doesn't matter if they do. It's the legal classification which is a problem there are different tax inheritance laws etc which come from being married which gay people are not allowed.
that was my point. i understand how discrimination laws work, what i'm saying is that i disagree with them. if he as an employer cannot legally discriminate against gays, why should you as a customer be able to discriminate against homophobes. if you look at it as an outside observer, people cannot discriminate against people pro-gays because of their beliefs, but the can discriminate against people anti-gay based on their beliefs. its a double standard.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
to answer you so called wrong opinions:The Unworthy Gentleman said:
1. thats not an opinion, thats a statement. statements can be objectively wrong.
2. thats an opinion, and it is not wrong. everyone who is right wing believes the right wing to be better, in their opinion. just because you disagree does not change that.
3. since by process of elimination you clearly believe the only correct opinion to be "its fucking ridiculous", you clearly disagree with the opinions of everyone who has any religion at all. despite this, the majority of the world continues to have those opinions, because no amount of ridicule can stop them being true.
4. what? youre saying you are the objective idol the world needs to guide it to progress and glory? i thought you said religion is fucking ridiculous. i see you have a double standard about religion too. that it doesn't apply to youre religion.
5.by saying "i have been wrong before" is an incorrect opinion, you are saying that all my statements about your previous statements are just incorrect opinions. to disprove this, simply read my statements about your earlier incorrect statements about opinions you believe to be incorrect.
6.now you are stating that the objective truth that opinions cannot be wrong is itself an incorrect opinion. the obvious reply would be the circular one, where i argue that your statement must be wrong because my opinion cannot be wrong, but instead ill just point you to #5.
7. that was a statement. i agree with you here, it was wrong.
8. see #7.