I am way late to this thread but, what exactly are the anti-gay groups that chickfila supports?

All I could find were foundations like Winshape etc. while looking online.

I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.

I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters are supposed to feel that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.


Had to fix it. That's the problem with typing on a debate forum at 2 in the morning during another bout of insomnia.

Thanks for clarifying, Adrian. Based on your other posts, I thought that must be what you meant, but it's good to be sure.

No problem, I didn't see that it made little sense until this morning. But doesn't anyone else find that astonishing....that in theory to gay christians are being denied the legality of marriage.....but two satan worshippers are allowed?

I find it ironic all of this publicity has increased Chick-Fila's sales allowing them to send even more money to anti-gay charities if they chose.

Exactly!!

(Yea, yea, yea I know some of those people do support real causes. I also know that most don't because if even half of them did the world would be much better off.)

Agreed big time. If only ALL SIDES would (not just one specific one), the world would be a better place.

I find it ironic all of this publicity has increased Chick-Fila's sales allowing them to send even more money to anti-gay charities if they chose.

Exactly!!

I don't find it ironic. I find it to be a sad commentary on our society that millions will spend 2+ hours in line to support a company that promotes hate but veteran's groups, homeless shelters, battered women shelters, food banks, etc are woefully lacking in support, volunteers, and supplies. If those people truly want to promote "Christian values" then they will spend at least that much time and effort to help someone who will benefit from that help.


(Yea, yea, yea I know some of those people do support real causes. I also know that most don't because if even half of them did the world would be much better off.)

Agreed, in part. It takes time, a looooonnnnggg time to redefine core societal norms. Incidents and discussions from such incidents (in a free country like ours anyway) get the hard and rocky soil ready for planting the new seeds. We are all like farmers with simple hoes and axes. It takes hard work to get rid of what was. All of us only have a limited amount of time and resources. I would say that most parents have a negative amount of both! So, I won't be too harsh on the lack of speed with which entrenched ideas change. The consolation is that norms change much faster than evolutionary ones!

For the most part, we all do the best we can with what we have...and keep talking!

-Debra

I knew I was going to find a Chic Fil A discussion here lol.

I'm quite sick of hearing about it... because I don't think a private business owner expressing their personal views is quite this news worthy. He doesn't support something that many others do not support. He has the right to voice that opinion as I have the right to say otherwise - as the Mayor of Boston also has the right to say otherwise and he also stated he can not stop Chic Fil A from expanding in Boston, but he's certainly entitled to his opinion as are we all.

There are worse causes and situations to boycott - how about companies using child labor for pennies on the dollar?
How about sweatshops with unsanitary conditions? How about our US companies shipping all our jobs overseas because of pure greed? You know... things that actually affect the job market and working conditions - not an "opinion".

I'm just surprised this is the battle the nation has chosen to "pick" - a battle over a mans personal beliefs. Your boycotting or purchasing a chicken sandwich is NOT going to change his mind. What wasted energy.

I'm actually kind of surprised that people (on whichever side of the debate) think that him voicing his opinions was the problem. I'm also surprised when people imply that "picking" battles is a zero sum game. And I don't really see how boycotting, which is by definition an inaction, could possibly be considered a waste of energy. Time and energy are involved in protesting, sure. Boycotting just involves *not* doing something.

And the popularity of his beliefs shouldn't really be relevant to his right to express them.

As it happens, I'm just as frustrated with government officials being stupid enough to try and use the government to suppress CFA because of his beliefs as I am for Cathy using his company to fund causes that I object to. And that guy who got fired for accosting someone in the CFA drive through? What a moron. It's not like she could do anything. She's just working a job. Customer service jobs suck enough without having to deal with contrived confrontation. It's a distasteful form of protest, imo.

For you, KimmieBrie, marriage equality may not be worth spending any energy on, but it impacts me and my family directly. I refuse to shut up just because you find speaking up for equal rights unimportant.

I had a friend make the "more important things going on" argument to me the other day. To me, liberties and freedom, no matter how small, are the most important thing. Call me and idealist, but if I had to choose living in nation that had true equality for all but a **** economy or a great economy with even one minority being opressed....give me the first option. If we can't all stay out of eachothers personal lives and at least respect a persons private life....I say the nation isn't worth saving.

I don't know how homosexuals or their supporters that this isn't bigotry when anti-gay marry people are protesting gay marriage based on religion but it's legal for two satan worshipers to get married.

Not gay satan worshippers !!

Speaking up for what you believe in is everyone's right including those with an opinion different to your own.

Boycotting is a form protest. It's a form of free speech. I would think you would therefore not have a problem with someone boycotting anything. Unless you feel like it does impact you because it's a waste of energy due to all the other more important things you think people should be concerned with.

I do not believe his personal views impact myself or my family - just like my neighbors view doesn't impact myself or my family unless they try to impose it upon me.

I guess we can quibble about how one defines "impact" here. He clearly doesn't just have views. He's willing to not only share them, but also put his company's money where his mouth is. If you think speech can't have a substantive impact by itself, then we just disagree.

People in positions of power, whether it be politician or businessman can have an impact. Let's look at the President. When he came out in favor of same-sex marriage, approval ratings for SSM saw a marked increase. While correlation doesn't equal causation, I'm willing to err on the side of the fallacy here.

Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean we all have the right to believe and practice those beliefs on a personal level. Unless those beliefs spill over into their business practices, I don't see the issue.

So I do not agree with his views on gay rights. marriage, etc however he has a right to his opinion and freedom of speech and religion and those are things I will speak up for. Equal rights means exactly that. I and you have the right to your opinion, religious practices, family values, and so does he.

And yet you imply that disagreement is not worthy of time and energy, or perhaps you believe that Free Speech means that no one should call anyone else out on what they've said?

So what are you actually trying to address overall? First, it seemed like you didn't think people *should* respond to his expression of Free Speech with their own (via boycott) because it wasn't important enough, and now you're suggesting that even though people shouldn't they still have the right to do so? That strikes me as being a little disingenuous.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, KimmieBrie. Of course, Cathy has a right to express his opinion. So do you. So do I, including expressing my opinion that Cathy is wrong and my choice not to spend one red cent in his establishments.

As much as I believe in gay rights, I also believe others are free to practice and profess their own family values and if they are different than my own, so be it. I do not believe his personal views impact myself or my family - just like my neighbors view doesn't impact myself or my family unless they try to impose it upon me.

The thing is he's not just stating his opinion. He is giving money to originations that are stopping others from practicing their own family values. If it was just him 'I don't agree with your family' but 'i mask against your family I will fight to deny you rights that are enjoyed by my family'

It's the right of any individual to express their beliefes and support those organizations that they feel represent their own beliefs.

It is your right to refuse to patronize those organizations. Don't eat at Chick-Fila.

It's the right of any individual to express their beliefes and support those organizations that they feel represent their own beliefs.

It is your right to refuse to patronize those organizations. Don't eat at Chick-Fila.

Well I'm Australian so no chance of me eating ther

Employment based on marital status is illegal in California. I'm guessing Chick-Fil-A stores here could get themselves in hot oil asking those sorts of questions.