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

[averydeeadaccount]

this person's opinion is wrong

by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong, it can only be different.

By definition you're wrong:

1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

None of that says it cannot be wrong.

boycotting someone because they are against gay marriage is no different to boycotting someone who is for gay marriage.

No, there is a difference. The difference is the same difference between supporting gay marriage and being against it.

my argument was that there is no difference between being pro-gay or anti-gay except what your opinion is. neither opinion is objectively wrong. it is just as unreasonable for anti-gay people to boycott a company run by a gay person, as it is for pro-gay people to boycott a company run by a homophobe. if discrimination is bad, it is bad if regardless of whether it is directed at gays or homophobes. if discrimination is okay, it is okay whether directed at gays or homophobes.

whether or not boycotting is wrong is a matter of opinion, but you cannot argue that it depends on whether you disagree with the person being boycotted, because your opinions are not central to morality.

That does not logically follow and makes dubious claims. Furthermore, no one says argues that it depends on whether they agree or disagree. That's a strawman merely used to support idiotic and bigoted beliefs. People don't just say "It's wrong because I disagree with it", that's simply your lack of integrity speaking.

firstly, congratulations on setting a new record: fastest argument ever to dissolve into attacking each other personally.
secondly, your basically hating a group because it hates a group and you think hating groups is wrong. read that sentence over a few times before you claim im a snake in a man suit.

if you have the right to boycott him because of his political views, then he has the right to boycott others because of their political views, and only hire people who are against gay marriage.

Lol? No, that's stupid. First off, no one was denying him a right. Secondly, who you employ and who you buy from are different. Sorry, but the law says you're full of it. We're allowed to boycott him, he's not allowed to discriminate in his hiring.

since he, as the owner of a large company, does not have the right to discriminate on employees based on their political views, what right do you have to discriminate against him because of his opinions.

i know the law says im full of it. what im saying is i disagree with the anti discrimination laws, that he should have a right not to be judged by his political views (since everyone else does) and that either you shouldn't be allowed to boycott him, or he should be allowed to refuse employment to gays.

It's not discrimination when we're judging him on things that actually matter. I bet you're just a homophobe like him.

when your judging someone based on something they cannot change, or shouldn't have to change to fit in with society, like race, religion, sexuality or political opinions, it is discrimination, regardless of how important you believe the issue to be. by that reasoning he could say:
"i refuse to hire gays. and that's not discrimination, because the sexuality of my employees matters."

finally your last statement has several flaws.
firstly it is wrong, i am not a homophobe, and remain completely neutral.
secondly, it was intended as an insult, showing you believe homophobes to be lesser people,
that is, your a bigot.
and lastly, you left it as a conclusion, showing you believe it does the job of summing up your points.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Snip.

In response to everything:
1. My opinion is that opinions are wrong. You are saying that's wrong, specifically "by definition an opinion cannot be wrong". Therefore you are wrong and I win again.

2. Try and express an opinion in anything other than a statement.

3. I am not a God, I am a man. I am also a man that will guide Earth to glory in the face of all else. I am God-like but not a deity.

 

[comando0110]

...

 

[comando0110]

too bad comments can't be deleted

 

[comando0110]

we really need to be able to delete these

 

[DaMullet]

Sorry, but there are more problems with marriage nowadays then who marries who.

Besides, a couple consisting of 2 guys are more likely to adopt. Unlike those selfish heterosexual couples who think that if it doesn't come out their crotch they can and should just let other people's children starve to death.

But that's just my $0.02

 

[mammothbroncho]

Never heard of Chick fil-a but since this guys company has been donating money to anti-gay organizations I wont be eating at that fast food joint anytime soon

 

[Iwata]

He's entitled to voice his opinion, no matter how it might affect his business.

And we're entitled to not to eat at his shitty restaurant.

 

[jklinders]

His personal views are irrelevant as long as he does not mistreat his employees or otherwise violate the laws of his country.

His personal views are just that, personal. Hell, he is well known to be a devout Christian even to this Canuck who will never have the opportunity to set foot in one of his establishments. It does not surprise me at all that he holds these views and as long as he is not killing, assaulting or otherwise mistreating gays I am left unmoved.

Please note that lobbying against rights for gays does not count as mistreatment as long as he does so within the democratic process.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Perfectly good people have jobs there. Think about that. Is destroying a company and all those jobs worth your stupid little boycott?

Well if it ever got to that point maybe you should be asking him if his anti-gay views are worth destroying a company and all those jobs.

Utter lunacy. You're putting a petty political wedge issue above the livelihood of many people. Basically, you're saying that no company should be allowed to exist unless the owner's political views are acceptable to YOU. And by putting the onus on him for destroying his own company, you're taking it a step further with blackmail. Please never run for any kind of office, though corruption and overzealous ideology already permeates politics, so you may fit right in.

It's lunacy to refuse to do business with people whose behaviors abhor you?

Care to explain that one?

And your "Won't somebody please think of the children?!?"-esque argument that we should consider the many employees of Chick-fil-a when we boycott... a basic appeal to emotion and not a rational argument. To rebut anyway:

1. If they really value working for a fast food restaurant, there are plenty of others to choose from. Last time I checked, McDonalds doesn't turn anyone down.
2. If they don't have a problem working for someone who's an avowed bigot, I'm boycotting them, too.

See how that works?

The only people who say they will, and actually do, are the people who've never eaten there in the first place.

I have eaten there. I have not eaten there since that interview with the CEO was first published. I can easily get chicken... oh, just about ANYWHERE else.

See, the difference between us is that I'm not lazy and I stand for equal rights... not balk as soon as it means that I might have to change my behavior. It's called having ethics. Ironic that you asked Mortai not to run for any office. I guess you don't like politicians with ethics...

From your line of reasoning, I can only conclude that either:
1. You're, as I said, lazy and don't want someone's bigotry to change how you stuff your face.
2. You actually agree with the CEO's position and you're using the "think of the employees" thing as a weak smokescreen.
3. You really don't know anything about how boycotts work or why people do them.

Be it one, two, or three (or some combination thereof), you really don't like using that electrically-charged tissue between your ears, do you?

 

[DarkWolf901]

Here's a quote by him in an interview: "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. 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."

Huh... I would use those same words to argue to ALLOW gay marriage...

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Someone from The Onion must've been reading this thread. Posted today:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/chickfila-debuts-new-homophobic-sandwich,28888/


Oh, and Escapist: while I laud your efforts to cut down on spambots posting on the forums with your captchas, having us type car ad-slogans as captchas is crossing the line.

 

[Ishigami]

WTH is what ever this is called?

Stop! I don't know and I don't care...

 

[Dragonclaw]

Here's a quote by him in an interview: "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. 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."

Huh... I would use those same words to argue to ALLOW gay marriage...

Exactly, I don't normally go all religious...especially here...but with my elementary school years spent at a Christian school, went to church every Sunday until well into my teens and with an aunt who is a Baptist minister (and a lesbian...) it amazes me that the people who throw religion so heavily into the argument forget 2 very important things...

In the parable of the Good Samaritan Jesus is quoted to have said 2 laws that are "above all more important than every other law" in the Bible

1) Love thy neighbor as thyself

2) That which you do unto your brother you also do unto me

It really doesn't matter what arguments anyone tries to make about what it says in the Bible. If it contradicts either of these then the other person clearly hasn't been paying attention

Now who wants to get to the pearly gates and say "Hey Jesus, sorry about that whole hating my neighbors because of how they have sex and calling you biggoted names and trying to keep you from having rights that wouldn't have affected ME...but we're cool right?"

 

[averydeeadaccount]

this person's opinion is wrong

by definition, an opinion cannot be wrong, it can only be different.

By definition you're wrong:

1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

None of that says it cannot be wrong.

boycotting someone because they are against gay marriage is no different to boycotting someone who is for gay marriage.

No, there is a difference. The difference is the same difference between supporting gay marriage and being against it.

my argument was that there is no difference between being pro-gay or anti-gay except what your opinion is.

Your evidence fails to support that notion.

i dont need evidence. im not trying to prove something as a fact, im trying to show a perspective.

neither opinion is objectively wrong.

Why would this even matter?

because if he has done nothing wrong, then you cannot validate boycotting him.

it is just as unreasonable for anti-gay people to boycott a company run by a gay person, as it is for pro-gay people to boycott a company run by a homophobe.

Prove it.

people cannot choose their opinions. if you belief something to be right or wrong, then no matter what you do, you will believe it to be right or wrong. attacking someone because of something they cannot change is unreasonable, be it because they are gay or because they are homophobic.

if discrimination is bad, it is bad if regardless of whether it is directed at gays or homophobes. if discrimination is okay, it is okay whether directed at gays or homophobes.

It isn't discrimination. Guy acts like an ass, people treat him like one.

if you try to kill rats that live in your house, can i lock you up for the rest of your life because 'you acted like a murderer, so i should treat you like a murderer.'

whether or not boycotting is wrong is a matter of opinion, but you cannot argue that it depends on whether you disagree with the person being boycotted, because your opinions are not central to morality.

That does not logically follow and makes dubious claims. Furthermore, no one says argues that it depends on whether they agree or disagree. That's a strawman merely used to support idiotic and bigoted beliefs. People don't just say "It's wrong because I disagree with it", that's simply your lack of integrity speaking.

firstly, congratulations on setting a new record: fastest argument ever to dissolve into attacking each other personally.

Congratulations on having such a shitty argument.

that wasn't an argument, i was simply pointing out you took the low road first.

secondly, your basically hating a group because it hates a group and you think hating groups is wrong. read that sentence over a few times before you claim im a snake in a man suit.

I'm going to claim you're a man in a clown suit who thinks he's dressed up as a lawyer. Because I never said hating groups was wrong n. Don't put words in my mouth, show a tad of integrity please. I think discrimination against gays is wrong. I think unjustified hatred is wrong. Hating someone for their unjustified hatred however would be quite justified.

so you believe that someone being a homophobe is a just reason to hate them, despite the fact they cannot and should not change it?
meaning you believe its okay to hate people because of something they cannot change?
meaning you believe its okay to hate gays, even though they cannot change their sexuality?
you are employing a double standard here. that is the reason for my position i have given in this long conversation, and yet you refuse to recognise it with a legitimate answer.

if you have the right to boycott him because of his political views, then he has the right to boycott others because of their political views, and only hire people who are against gay marriage.

Lol? No, that's stupid. First off, no one was denying him a right. Secondly, who you employ and who you buy from are different. Sorry, but the law says you're full of it. We're allowed to boycott him, he's not allowed to discriminate in his hiring.

i know the law says im full of it. what im saying is i disagree with the anti discrimination laws, that he should have a right not to be judged by his political views (since everyone else does) and that either you shouldn't be allowed to boycott him, or he should be allowed to refuse employment to gays.

Okay, so you're cool with discrimination as you're against anti-discrimination laws.

And you're against freedom of speech and our ability to think. Since, you know, those rights let us judge him.

And not be allowed to boycott him? What kind of totalitarian society do you want to live in that we HAVE to buy from him? That's stupid beyond belief.

i do not have an opinion on discimination, what i believe is that it has to be all or nothing. either every one is protected, regardless of reason or position, or noone is protected, regardless on reason or position. you cannot discriminate on what constituted discrimination.

It's not discrimination when we're judging him on things that actually matter. I bet you're just a homophobe like him.

when your judging someone based on something they cannot change, or shouldn't have to change to fit in with society, like race, religion, sexuality or political opinions, it is discrimination, regardless of how important you believe the issue to be.

Your definition came from where? Oh wait, it came from you making shit up. And no, he should have to change his political opinions if he wants acceptance from society. Kind of like a Nazi.

dicionary.com:treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination
when judging someone because of their membership in a group that they cannot change, it is discrimination. be that group gender, race, sexuality or political opinion.

by that reasoning he could say:
"i refuse to hire gays. and that's not discrimination, because the sexuality of my employees matters."

Well then do show how it matters for his job. Or your argument is simply invalid. It's quite obvious why HIS beliefs matter, because he spends his money to support them.

one could argue that if his outlets were open in primarily right wing districts(which is quite likely seeing he probably grew up in one), then the primarily right wing customers could be deterred by openly gay employees

finally your last statement has several flaws.
firstly it is wrong, i am not a homophobe, and remain completely neutral.

So you're probably a homophobe, there's no good reason to be neutral.

[/qoute]just because their is no good reason to be neutral, doesn't stop me from being neutral, because i do not choose my opinions in order to fit in with society, like you apparently expect him to. my opinions are based on whatever i believe to be right, and when it comes to pro and anti homosexuality, both sides appear to be wrong/

secondly, it was intended as an insult, showing you believe homophobes to be lesser people,
that is, your a bigot.

Homophobes are like racists. It's not saying a racist is a lesser person, it's pointing out they're morally bankrupt. Not bigoted at all.

whats the difference between saying someone is less human, or saying someone has no sense of morality, a difining feature of being human.

and lastly, you left it as a conclusion, showing you believe it does the job of summing up your points.

No? By that utterly retarded logic all your points are summed up as a false observation about my post.

yes. my points are well summed up by my completely correct observation that you believe your points are summed up by dismissing me as a homophobe. im saying that you have taken the low road, meaning i am right, by default if nothing else. now, your simply disagreeing with everything i say out of habit.