Chick-Fil-A under fire again

It's the politicization of everything. And then not really understanding, and even misrepresenting, what the other folks are saying. And then based on that, deliberately choosing to ostracize them and keep them separate. Like I said, we're gonna need a map so we only buy our Chiclets from the right people..

But Chik-fil-a is the entity that made it political by making their views public and associating them with their restaurants. You are accusing the people reacting to this as the ones doing the politicizing.

Just in this thread we've learned we're not supposed to patronize White Castle, Waffle House, Papa John's, Carl's Jr (Hardees), and Domino's, all based on political affiliation. At least someone has started a list to keep us from exposure to such hateful places! So, call it the new segregation if you want. Maybe if we get to work, we can have two separate, but equal economies? You gotta have a dream, right?

I don't seek the political views of any restauranteur. But if they are thrust in my face, then I might react. Regardless, I still think your segregation claim is quite a stretch.

I must've missed where they where acting like dicks. But if that's your standard for not doing business with someone, when may we expect you to announce the boycott of NABC?

I think that people who choose to use money and political influence to attack a lifestyle that has no effect on them are dicks. I don't think they are criminals, and I think they have the right to do whatever they want within the realm of the law. Maybe they think I'm a dick. Maybe they're right...

And I'm not one to announce any boycott. I don't spend my money at NABC despite enjoying many of their products, but its not something I feel the need to trumpet.

Like a moth to the flame ...

Read this from the Atlantic. It makes a crucial point:

(The activist-led uprising against Chick-Fil-A is not simply about the CEO’s views... )

"The debate, however, centers around how Chick-Fil-A and its business affiliates spend direct direct corporate cash on supporting anti-gay causes.

"Here’s the real issue. Chick-Fil-A CEO Dan Cathy’s family manages a charity called the WinShape Foundation, which dispenses millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations, including Focus on the Family. Where does that money come from? According to tax disclosures, the WinShape Foundation received $8,067,161 from Chick-Fil-A corporation and $11.5 million from CFA Properties, a corporate affiliate of Chick-Fil-A registered in Delaware in 2010."

Details and screen shots:

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169147/li ... ersonhood#

I'm honestly curious: If the donations are the issue, why is this coming up only now? Equality Matters posted about CFA's giving last November, and it wasn't news then. Why are activists making an issue of it now?

[Robin Garr]

I'm honestly curious: If the donations are the issue, why is this coming up only now? Equality Matters posted about CFA's giving last November, and it wasn't news then. Why are activists making an issue of it now?

I think the Cathys' position is well-known, but Cathy Jr.'s recent decision to explicitly take a position in opposition to same-gender relationships put their attitude out in public view at a time and in a manner that invited responses. Then when people said "You can't stop them from expressing their opinion," it became reasonable to pull out the reports that make clear it's not just their remarks but their practice of turning company profits over to anti-LGBT organizations.

This all comes also at a national tipping point where opinion is generally coming over to the position that it's unreasonable and unfair to deny a significant number of people basic rights that are granted to heteros simply on the basis of their innate gender preference.

Personally, I see quite a bit in common here with racial segregation, which ticked along quietly without much public debate for centuries but then quickly tipped over into the realm of bigotry when circumstances prompted most Americans to recognize that it was wrong, and then to question the ethics of those who continued to promote it. And just as it is now, so it was then: There was plenty of public shaming and boycotting against the few businesses that continued to support bigotry after it had been named.

Cathy Jr.'s recent decision to explicitly take a position in opposition to same-gender relationships

Except he didnt, explicitly. The interview never asked him about same-sex marriage. It was something that was inferred from the combination of him saying he supported traditional marriage AND donation history from CFA.

His example of traditional marriage in the interview was him saying that he and his Father were both married to their first wife. If anything, he EXPLICITLY took a shot at divorce.

In reality, his explicit position today is the exact same as November. I think the question of "why now?" is very legitimate.

Personally, I see quite a bit in common here with racial segregation, which ticked along quietly without much public debate for centuries but then quickly tipped over into the realm of bigotry when circumstances prompted most Americans to recognize that it was wrong, and then to question the ethics of those who continued to promote it. And just as it is now, so it was then: There was plenty of public shaming and boycotting against the few businesses that continued to support bigotry after it had been named.

Isn't it fair, though, to admit that many people don't think the analogy is valid? Including a lot of folks who have been and continue to be on the receiving end of race prejudice and discrimination?

Cathy Jr.'s recent decision to explicitly take a position in opposition to same-gender relationships

Except he didnt, explicitly. The interview never asked him about same-sex marriage. It was something that was inferred from the combination of him saying he supported traditional marriage AND donation history from CFA.

His example of traditional marriage in the interview was him saying that he and his Father were both married to their first wife. If anything, he EXPLICITLY took a shot at divorce.

In reality, his explicit position today is the exact same as November. I think the question of "why now?" is very legitimate.

I have to wonder how many people commenting here even bothered to go read or listen to the interview. While he did not say the words "I'm against gay marriage" his comments were not ambigous to anyone that Is not just trying to apologise for or defend him. I could cut and paste his comments but why don't you just go read the comments in full and then tell me he is not condeming gay marriage and worrying that God is going to smite us all because we are tolerating it.

If you can.......then there is really no point in considering your opinion about this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html

[Robin Garr]

Isn't it fair, though, to admit that many people don't think the analogy is valid? Including a lot of folks who have been and continue to be on the receiving end of race prejudice and discrimination?

Unfortunately, you can go right back to the civil-rights struggle and find exact parallels. It's easy to exegete slavery in a positive way from both testaments. As an intellectual exercise, I could do it. But I can also show why it's erroneous. And the same is true of "Sodom," although I don't really have the time and space to show it here.

And yes, I do understand that a Venn diagram between "Fundamentalist Christian" and "African-American" covers some shared territory. But as anti-gay bigotry becomes more clearly understood in the mainstream - and that's happening fast - that doesn't excuse those who insist on remaining mired in an understanding that's neither proper Gospel or proper Torah.

Cathy Jr.'s recent decision to explicitly take a position in opposition to same-gender relationships

Except he didnt, explicitly. The interview never asked him about same-sex marriage. It was something that was inferred from the combination of him saying he supported traditional marriage AND donation history from CFA.

His example of traditional marriage in the interview was him saying that he and his Father were both married to their first wife. If anything, he EXPLICITLY took a shot at divorce.

In reality, his explicit position today is the exact same as November. I think the question of "why now?" is very legitimate.

I have to wonder how many people commenting here even bothered to go read or listen to the interview. While he did not say the words "I'm against gay marriage" his comments were not ambigous to anyone that Is not just trying to apologise for or defend him.

Im neither apologizing nor defending, Im criticizing Robin's use of the word "explicit". The questioner never mentioned gay marriage nor did he.

Im sure the inference with regard to gay marriage is correct, Im just saying that inference was there last November and nothing from this interview made it any more or less explicit.

"LOUISVILLE, KY. (WDRB) -- The call for support from those who agree with Chic-fil-A's stance on gay marriage is being answered at several local restaurants.

Chic-fil-A patrons crowded into the restaurant across from Mall St. Matthews in such numbers that traffic backed up on on Shelbyville Road. The wait there was said to be about an hour...."

http://www.wdrb.com/story/19169333/big- ... y-marriage

[Robin Garr]

"LOUISVILLE, KY. (WDRB) -- The call for support from those who agree with Chic-fil-A's stance on gay marriage is being answered at several local restaurants.

Chic-fil-A patrons crowded into the restaurant across from Mall St. Matthews in such numbers that traffic backed up on on Shelbyville Road. The wait there was said to be about an hour...."

http://www.wdrb.com/story/19169333/big- ... y-marriage

Nobody ever said there weren't any bigots or crackers in this burg. But I thought they were planning to do this on Sunday.

"LOUISVILLE, KY. (WDRB) -- The call for support from those who agree with Chic-fil-A's stance on gay marriage is being answered at several local restaurants.

Chic-fil-A patrons crowded into the restaurant across from Mall St. Matthews in such numbers that traffic backed up on on Shelbyville Road. The wait there was said to be about an hour...."

http://www.wdrb.com/story/19169333/big- ... y-marriage

Nobody ever said there weren't any bigots or crackers in this burg. But I thought they were planning to do this on Sunday.

So then what I hear you saying is that if anyone disagrees with your position they are a "bigot" and/or a "cracker". How very Christian of you. As a casual observer it sounds to me like there is enough "hate" on both sides of this issue to go around the world a few times.

Personally I have elected not to have a dog in this hunt...I'm not gay and I'm not evangelical and as far as I'm concerned someone could go down and buy a friggin' "My Little Pony" doll and find someone that would marry the happy couple and I wouldn't give a rats ass...one way or the other. Me, I'm too busy staying concerned (and trying to stay active) with issues like the 1 in 4 children in this country who go to bed hungry EVERY night...The families (conventional and otherwise) who are in danger of losing their homes, homeless and unemployed vets, the gouging of the middle class...and other equally mundane issues that neither side of the political spectrum seems to have a freaking solution for.

I've said it for years and I'll repeat it here...If somehow this country could disenfranchise the 10% of the population that make up the nut-sacks on the "far-left" side of the political spectrum -and- the 10% of the jack-asses that make up the "far-right" side of the political spectrum, the other 80% of us could figure out a way to get along just fine.

I've said it for years and I'll repeat it here...If somehow this country could disenfranchise the 10% of the population that make up the nut-sacks on the "far-left" side of the political spectrum -and- the 10% of the jack-asses that make up the "far-right" side of the political spectrum, the other 80% of us could figure out a way to get along just fine.

What are you trying to do, inject some sense in this discussion???????????????????

So then what I hear you saying is that if anyone disagrees with your position they are a "bigot" and/or a "cracker". How very Christian of you.

A true Christian would be fighting so that everyone can have the same basic rights. Especially choosing who the love and can marry. A fake, hypocritical "Christian" works hard at denying those rights to certain groups. Quit trying to twist things around. Do you actually think that Jesus Christ would tell homosexuals they weren't worthy of the same marriage right that heterosexuals currently have? I'm an atheist and even I can plainly see that the fake "Christians" are perverting the teachings of Jesus Christ.

There's a good image floating around on the internet with Jesus speaking to disciples and he says, "Okay, here's an idea. You love them like I loved you. Feed them, clothe them and shelter them, and let me deal with judging them." The disciples say, "But what if they're gay or worship other gods?" to which Jesus replies, "Did I stutter?"

[Robin Garr]

So then what I hear you saying is that if anyone disagrees with your position they are a "bigot" and/or a "cracker".

Not just with my position, Steve. A lot of people still go around hating on blacks, too, but that doesn't make discrimination right. This isn't like Bengals or Browns. It's an ethical issue with some clarity, not a matter of morally equivalent "sides."

Beyond that, I'm good with Mike H's response.

What are you trying to do, inject some sense in this discussion???????????????????

Steve,

You must be defining the word "discussion" quite loosely...I would probably have used the word "diatribe".

As far as I'm concerned members of both sides of this issue would be better served if they sat down at the table together and enjoyed a big steaming bowl of shut-the-fuck-up...Instead of dressing up in some goofy cow costume and prancing around in front of a second rate fast food chain like a bunch of friggin' morons, maybe they could spend their time more effectively...Maybe get together and take some seniors citizens grocery shopping...or any of a million other things for which there would be a positive outcome.