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

Blade_125

New member
Sep 1, 2011
224
0
0
I've never heard of the company. I guess they don't have any outlets in Canada and are not big enough to be on comercials for American stations I see.

Still as far as premise goes, I really don't care what he supports, I am only really interested in the product. Still I would have a reservation to supporting a company that donates money to something I find repellant.
 

everythingbeeps

New member
Sep 30, 2011
946
0
0
I live outside Boston, I guess this place hasn't reached that far because I've never seen one.

But yeah, I'd boycott it. Their food probably blows anyway.
 

DudeistBelieve

TellEmSteveDave.com
Sep 9, 2010
4,771
1
0
Ya know what, good for him to hold such a view and express it openly. I hope he continues to hold it defiantly to the end.

I absolutely hate it when people say something controversial and then back pedal on it later, especially in the face of losing money. Hope the guy has some integrity to ride the shit storm he just brought on his company.

FYI folks, you can't boycott something you've never eaten/never intended to ever eat. Unless you're a diehard Chick-fil-a fan or employed by them this shouldn't effect you at all.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
There are no Chick-fil-as anywhere near me, so any reaction I would have to the matter would be largely meaningless.

I think people have at least as much right to not give money to businesses who turn that money into "political speech" (eughhhh) that they would oppose as CEOs have the right to use their company's money as that speech, though.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Ah man. He seemed like a nice guy too. Ah, well its not entirely unexpected what with him being conservative enough to close the store on Sunday. Still, I have to wonder if those 'Christian organizations that lobby against gay marriage' are organization specifically about marriage or are just christian organizations that happen to have that as one of their views.
 

AmosMoses

New member
Mar 27, 2011
50
0
0
To sum up my views, I don't think that the government should have any say it who marries who or what. It should be entirely up to the church involved. I'd rather politicians discuss something important.

If the Chicken guy is just about his religious standpoint, fair enough I suppose. If he's saying there is something morally wrong with homosexuality and there should be a law against gay people doing something, then screw him and his Chicken.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
I voted "What the hell is Chick-fil-a?" because even though I've heard the term before, and I've surmised it's a restaurant that serves chicken... I've never actually seen one or met someone who has been to one and talked about it.

That said, I'm not really one to go on boycott rampages or do any reflexive voting because a business owner or a politician is a bigot or other type of horrible person.
Still, fuck that guy. Fuck him with a giant purple dildo.

Not that I support special rights for the co-dependent. Marriage really shouldn't confer any rights as far as the government is concerned. Still, if heteros get 'em, homos should too... but again, no one should.
 

ReinWeisserRitter

New member
Nov 15, 2011
749
0
0
That's sad; I like Chik-Fil-A, and that it's headed by someone as much of an arrogant douchebag as anyone he criticizes, given his wording of his stance, I may have to reconsider future visits, because I'd rather not pay to fuel his allegations and hate speech.

It's nothing personal; I just don't care for his stance, and I'm not going to fund it, even if I like eating at his chain.

It's a bummer, because the one time I went was a genuinely enjoyable experience; the food was good, the employees were very pleasant, and the place was well-maintained and enjoyable to sit down and have a meal at.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
Ultratwinkie said:
Fappy said:
Fun fact: he is a graduate from my university and came to speak to my graduating class last year. He's a man with strong opinions yes, but boycotting a company because their owner holds a political view opposite yours is pretty dumb. Just because a company isn't actively supporting Gay Marriage it doesn't mean they don't have gay employees or have employees who openly support it in their private lives.
actually from what I heard from employees, the company is practically fundamentalist.

I know a friend who worked there, and his manager got pissed two "dirty faggots" were eating their chicken. Needless to say, my friend quit. Now he says anyone with half a brain would stay away from Chick-fil-a. Even if you desperately needed the job.

Some of them have bible verses printed on the wall, and the employees pray every day before the restaurant opens.

Its not exactly a "friendly" place for gays, or non Christians.
The Chick-Fil-a on my old campus (apparently the first ever or something) was nothing like that. I knew a few people that worked there. It's a franchised business so they won't all operate the same way.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,907
1,774
118
Country
United Kingdom
Dastardly said:
1. Leviticus is not the only place that sets Biblical precedence for the immorality of homosexuality. Romans 1, for instance,(New Testament, notably) presents it as a symptom of man's fall from obedience to God.
No, what it actually says is that God "gave them over" to shameful lusts as the "due penalty" for their sin, which was actually forsaking the worship of God. Whatever that means, I'm certainly not sure.

I can have a guess though, that since the book is written for a Roman audience it might assume a Roman understanding of the significance of same sex activity. Romans did not see men having sex with men as a "loving" practice, or as anything equivalent to men having sex with women. It was purely about dominance and submission and had strong connotations with slavery.

However, I do know that the specific equation of same sex intercourse to Sodom and Gommorah as a sign of how far the Sodomites had fallen dates to about 400-500 years after this passage was written.

Dastardly said:
There are also references in both Timothy letters, and in Corinthians.
This is actually not true. Both of those are based on the use of the term arsenokoi, in fact those books represent the first appearance of this term in literature. It has been retrospectively assumed to mean "homosexuality". However, that's a little unfair, as the stem is used in subsequent Greek literature to refer to non-homosexual acts as well.

The fact is that there is huge debate over what that word means, but there are no examples of its use which suggest it is somehow an ancient term for homosexuality, certainly not in the sense we understand homosexuality.

Dastardly said:
(Also notice that blindness (and the other stuff) wasn't called an abomination, but homosexuality was. Clearly the OT has an obvious opinion on homosexuality.)
It certainly wasn't, because there was no term for "homosexuality" at the time.

This is something many modern people seem to have a problem understanding. Homosexuality, in the sense of believing there are people who are inherently attracted to members of the same sex as a substitute for the opposite sex, does not exist in history. The idea has a specific birthdate, Karl Ulrich's 1867 work on "urnings". The term itself entered common usage in 1870. Before that, pretty much nothing.

The idea of the "homosexual" was created at the same time as the "paedophile", the "masochist" and the "nymphomaniac" as a medical term to describe a medical or psychological aberration. It is not a religious term, it never was and it never will be, and the idea that people thousands of years ago somehow came to exactly the same logical and linguistic structures that we did and to the point that these structures are self-evident and obvious to us is just not historical.

I personally believe that it's highly likely that Jewish people in antiquity and at the time of Jesus did condemn same sex intimacy. There is no hard evidence, but it seems the most likely option. I don't see why any modern Christian should particularly care, but I totally disagree that it's as clear cut as even you are saying here.
 

darthzew

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,813
0
0
Chik-Fil-A is delicious.

When I heard people were boycotting Oreo, the first thing I did was go out and buy a box. It was delicious.

Well, now I'm off to buy a chicken sandwich.

Because screw boycotts.
 

Revnak_v1legacy

Fixed by "Monday"
Mar 28, 2010
1,979
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
Revnak said:
-snip- Also, I really don't think that a boycott would send much of a message to them. It just seems useless.
Completely depends on the amount of people involved. Customers are their lifeblood, they freakin' exist because of it. If everyone would think like you do, and most people do, yeah it sends no message. But if, for the sake of argument, the 20% of their customer base suddenly realizes that; heej, if we all stop spending our money there together, then they sure as hell will notice. You and everyone who shares your way of thinking are making a self-fulfilling prophesy.

It's the same thing with saving energy. So many people think "Oh the tiny amount I'd save wouldn't make a difference. Why bother?" But all those tiny bits eventually add up when millions of people realize that it's supposed to be a group effort. Boycots too are group efforts.
Yes, people telling him they think gay people are okay will get him to start thinking otherwise, even though it never has before. I am absolutely certain that this man who is very set in his ways will change his mind, not his business practices or actions mind you, his very personal and very firmly held beliefs, because people made a big show about how they disagree with him. Despite people doing that all the time at other places and he still hasn't changed his opinion.

Antagonizing the man will not get him to turn to our side. Maybe reasoning with him will, but making him think he's a martyr is flat out moronic. Boycott to change actions and business practices, not ideas. It just won't work.
 

bauke67

New member
Apr 8, 2011
300
0
0
I've never even heard of his restaurants, so a boycot wouldn't do much damage anyway, but he's entitled to his opinion and it's great that he stands up for what he thinks is right.
It might be good to add that I don't agree with him in the least however, because I'm pretty sure it's misinterpetation of one bit of text and complete denial of every other that drives him to think like that.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
omicron1 said:
And by "discrimination" you mean "lack of public agreement, not voting for "civil rights" you disagree with, and not wanting your kids indoctrinated by "being gay is a-ok" rhetoric in school?
There is no anti-gay discrimination here. You have manufactured what you perceive as a civil right (the "right" for gays to marry, and by extension for all public entities to be forced to consider said marriage valid) and are outraged that anyone would have the audacity to speak against that "right." It's roughly analogous to PETA deciding to campaign to give all horses voting rights - no matter how much PETA may think it's normal, not everyone agrees (in this case, fully half the nation, despite the unrelenting one-sided media barrage) and PETA has no right to enforce their "right" on the rest of us.
Yes, schools should teach kids to be nice to everyone, even if they don't agree with them. They can disagree all they want, but if that disagreement manifests as negative words or behavior to the other student, absolutely not. If it's not right for schools to allow the children to tell black kids it's not right that they're black, I don't see why it should be right for schools to allow the children to tell gay kids it's not right that they're gay. It doesn't matter if they disagree. Those students have as much of a right to be gay as much as the other students have a right to disagree with it, and both deserve to be able to go to school and know they aren't going to be vilified by the other.
 

NotALiberal

New member
Jul 10, 2012
108
0
0
While not a Christian, or a liberal.. or a conservative, a lot of people on this site sure are being hateful. You cannot compare the civil rights movement with gay rights. Simple.

One was pure bigotry, plain and simple, viewing certain people as inferior and subhuman because of their skin color really has no justification beyond ignorants gon' ignorant. The "gay rights" movement however, has pretty much come to a standstill on gay marriage. That has ALWAYS been the polarizing issue. I've NEVER (Inb4 someone quotes some radical WBC like "christian group") seen Christians advocate gays be treated like subhumans, segregated and lacking any civil rights. The one issues Christians will raise, however, is the marriage issue. They believe they have a certain moral obligation to oppose it, while also believing that marriage should stay defined as a "one man, one woman" thing. There is no hate in most of the opposition, and any true Christian is called to love everyone unconditionally, regardless of race, sex, orientation, and social status.

So while I support gay marriage, I would still eat at this man's restaurant chain..despite not living in 'Merica. Also, cut back on calling him a "jerk" because he disagrees with your viewpoints. If he came out and said something like.. "I believe all gays should be hanged", I'd be down for a definite boycott. Is he somewhat "ignorant"? Sure. I just don't believe he's genuinely hateful.

But I suppose this will just get lost in the sea of liberal claptrap demanding the mans head for *GASP*, not holding liberal viewpoints. Jesus, "conservatives" and "liberals" are as fucking narrow minded and bigoted as each other.