Welcome to the Louisville Restaurants Forum, a civil place for the intelligent discussion of the local restaurant scene and just about any other topic related to food and drink in and around Louisville.
User avatar
User

Charles W.

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

970

Joined

Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:53 pm

Location

Schnitzelburg

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Charles W. » Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:25 pm

RonnieD wrote:You know, its a shame American slave owners and the Nazi's didn't sell great chicken sandwiches, otherwise they might still be around today as well! :roll:
.


By the power invested in me by the internet, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.
no avatar
User

Nora Boyle

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

400

Joined

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:24 pm

Location

Clifton

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Nora Boyle » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:09 pm

I don't think my 5 yr old fully understands the concept yet,
But he does know that we don't go there anymore because they don't like
our friends and family very much. That is really what it comes down to.
User avatar
User

Jackie R.

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1691

Joined

Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:48 pm

Location

Highlands

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Jackie R. » Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:49 pm

Nora Boyle wrote:I don't think my 5 yr old fully understands the concept yet,
But he does know that we don't go there anymore because they don't like
our friends and family very much. That is really what it comes down to.


Right! It's odd to me, but the older I get, the more I realize that not EVERYONE has a bunch of gay people in their lives all up in their business. It has always been a no-brainer here, but if a group isn't hating on your own people, it might be easy to look the other way.
User avatar
User

RonnieD

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1931

Joined

Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:09 pm

Location

The rolling acres of Henry County

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by RonnieD » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:55 pm

Charles W. wrote:
RonnieD wrote:You know, its a shame American slave owners and the Nazi's didn't sell great chicken sandwiches, otherwise they might still be around today as well! :roll:
.


By the power invested in me by the internet, I hereby invoke Godwin's law.


I know, shame on me, but when you are the greatest evil in 100 years, you tend to set a benchmark for comparison of bad behavior. Were this 1500 years ago we'd be comparing Hate-fil-A to the Visigoths and you'd be invoking Alaric's Law... :P
Ronnie Dingman
Chef Consultant
The Farm
La Center, KY
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Robin Garr » Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:35 pm

RonnieD wrote:Were this 1500 years ago we'd be comparing Hate-fil-A to the Visigoths and you'd be invoking Alaric's Law... :P

:lol:
User avatar
User

Carla G

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

3128

Joined

Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:01 am

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Carla G » Sat Jul 21, 2012 9:23 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
RonnieD wrote:Were this 1500 years ago we'd be comparing Hate-fil-A to the Visigoths and you'd be invoking Alaric's Law... :P

:lol:


+1!
"She did not so much cook as assassinate food." - Storm Jameson
no avatar
User

Jeff T

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

278

Joined

Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:45 pm

Location

Louisville

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Jeff T » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:26 pm

So people on this forum are actually comparing the actions by a chain of restaurant to what happened during slavery and the Nazi occupation of Europe? Really?? 30 to 60 million Africans killed during the American slave trade and 11 million Jews and other ethnic Europeans killed by the Nazi's. If you don't like their opinions about homosexuals then dont do business with them but to compare their beliefs to 2 of the greatest tragedies in human history is beyond ridiculous.
User avatar
User

Gary Z

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

419

Joined

Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:05 am

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Gary Z » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:01 am

Jeff T wrote:So people on this forum are actually comparing the actions by a chain of restaurant to what happened during slavery and the Nazi occupation of Europe? Really?? 30 to 60 million Africans killed during the American slave trade and 11 million Jews and other ethnic Europeans killed by the Nazi's. If you don't like their opinions about homosexuals then dont do business with them but to compare their beliefs to 2 of the greatest tragedies in human history is beyond ridiculous.


Jeff, don't take it too seriously. No one is comparing the severity of Nazi crimes to some homophobic chicken joint. I think they were just trying to illustrate how far people compromise their values to justify their choices.

Maybe a better example would be:
You wouldn't eat a German restaurant that had a Nazi flag behind the bar would you? Of course not. So why frequent an establishment that is openly homophobic? Being proud of your beliefs means nothing if your beliefs suck.
User avatar
User

Carla G

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

3128

Joined

Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:01 am

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Carla G » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:44 am

Thank you Gary. I would also add that homosexuality is not a "belief" anymore than being Caucasian is a "belief". And as far as using the Nazi war crimes in an analogy , well, considering the tens of thousands of homosexuals that were murdered by Hitler simply for being homosexuals, I would say it was fairly apropo. While the actions are not as severe, the hate is still there.
"She did not so much cook as assassinate food." - Storm Jameson
no avatar
User

Rob Coffey

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

607

Joined

Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:17 pm

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Rob Coffey » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:48 am

Gary Z wrote:
Jeff T wrote:So people on this forum are actually comparing the actions by a chain of restaurant to what happened during slavery and the Nazi occupation of Europe? Really?? 30 to 60 million Africans killed during the American slave trade and 11 million Jews and other ethnic Europeans killed by the Nazi's. If you don't like their opinions about homosexuals then dont do business with them but to compare their beliefs to 2 of the greatest tragedies in human history is beyond ridiculous.


Jeff, don't take it too seriously. No one is comparing the severity of Nazi crimes to some homophobic chicken joint. I think they were just trying to illustrate how far people compromise their values to justify their choices.

Maybe a better example would be:
You wouldn't eat a German restaurant that had a Nazi flag behind the bar would you? Of course not. So why frequent an establishment that is openly homophobic? Being proud of your beliefs means nothing if your beliefs suck.


I dont think they are "openly" homophobic, at least not in that same way. I have never seen anything inside a chik-fil-a that suggests that dont serve to or hire gays, for example.

As I said above, I draw the line after profits are made. If you run your business in a fair and honest way, your profits are your business. I would bet that over 50% of restaurant owners in Louisville donate to causes I oppose. But unless it shows up in their business practices, I dont care.
no avatar
User

Matthew D

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1347

Joined

Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:22 am

Location

No Longer Old Louisville

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Matthew D » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:47 am

Rob Coffey wrote:
Gary Z wrote:
Jeff T wrote:So people on this forum are actually comparing the actions by a chain of restaurant to what happened during slavery and the Nazi occupation of Europe? Really?? 30 to 60 million Africans killed during the American slave trade and 11 million Jews and other ethnic Europeans killed by the Nazi's. If you don't like their opinions about homosexuals then dont do business with them but to compare their beliefs to 2 of the greatest tragedies in human history is beyond ridiculous.


Jeff, don't take it too seriously. No one is comparing the severity of Nazi crimes to some homophobic chicken joint. I think they were just trying to illustrate how far people compromise their values to justify their choices.

Maybe a better example would be:
You wouldn't eat a German restaurant that had a Nazi flag behind the bar would you? Of course not. So why frequent an establishment that is openly homophobic? Being proud of your beliefs means nothing if your beliefs suck.


I dont think they are "openly" homophobic, at least not in that same way. I have never seen anything inside a chik-fil-a that suggests that dont serve to or hire gays, for example.

As I said above, I draw the line after profits are made. If you run your business in a fair and honest way, your profits are your business. I would bet that over 50% of restaurant owners in Louisville donate to causes I oppose. But unless it shows up in their business practices, I dont care.


The idea of running a "business in a fair and honest way" depends completely on how we define what running a business is.

Chick-fil-A isn't stupid. They are not openly homophobic (in their actual in-restaurant practices) because they are no interested in entering into a legal battle regarding their business practices. By being "open and inclusive" in regards to restaurant operation, they are placing themselves firmly on the legal side of what can be slippery civil rights standards that vary from state to state. I'm thinking here specifically of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

So, Chick-fil-A finds itself on the legal side of the ledger and, given this standing, allows for the ridiculous argument you are forwarding - that the actions of a corporation can be divided pre and post profit.

Yet, these post-profit actions cannot be separated from the restaurant's status overall. While I don't think their support of anti-gay organizations is merely PR, it is, nonetheless, PR. These actions attract particular persons and align Chick-fil-A ideologically with specific political organizations, movements, and churches. The donation of this money forwards a certain worldview, a worldview that cannot exist merely post-profit. Instead, this worldview permeates throughout the business, even if the practices that occur within the business are not anti-gay.

I see your position as being linear in nature - pre-profit behavior separated from post-profit behavior. If we, instead, choose to see the relationship as being circular in nature, that the pre affects the post and vice versa, the comfortable (but unrealistic) separation of pre and post collapses - a collapse that better represents the company's actual practices and intentions.

So, to support Chick-fil-A based on a pre-and-post profit separation is to applaud them for what seem to be nefarious and cynical actions, namely the insincere production of an inclusive atmosphere that is, in fact, more a closely-crafted facade motivated by matters of legality and PR.

From this perspective, what corporations do with profits always matters (and matters more now that elections can be next-to bought). At the same time, I'm not going to assume what one company does or doesn't do with its profits. Yet it's, as I said earlier, living in a fantasy world for me to ignore publicly stated facts regarding how a company spends its profits. Furthermore, I'm not going to excuse one company's practices based on the argument that it should be assumed that many other companies I support use their profits in ways I would not agree. That is a fallacious argument.
Thinks the frosty mug is the low point in American history.
User avatar
User

Gary Z

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

419

Joined

Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:05 am

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Gary Z » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:26 pm

Carla G wrote:Thank you Gary. I would also add that homosexuality is not a "belief" anymore than being Caucasian is a "belief". .


Actually I was referring to the Chik Fil A's beliefs, not the homosexuals'. You know... the ones Mark was proud that they were standing up for.
no avatar
User

Rob Coffey

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

607

Joined

Wed Feb 06, 2008 12:17 pm

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Rob Coffey » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:43 pm

Matthew D wrote:
The idea of running a "business in a fair and honest way" depends completely on how we define what running a business is.

Chick-fil-A isn't stupid. They are not openly homophobic (in their actual in-restaurant practices) because they are no interested in entering into a legal battle regarding their business practices. By being "open and inclusive" in regards to restaurant operation, they are placing themselves firmly on the legal side of what can be slippery civil rights standards that vary from state to state. I'm thinking here specifically of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.

So, Chick-fil-A finds itself on the legal side of the ledger and, given this standing, allows for the ridiculous argument you are forwarding - that the actions of a corporation can be divided pre and post profit.

Yet, these post-profit actions cannot be separated from the restaurant's status overall. While I don't think their support of anti-gay organizations is merely PR, it is, nonetheless, PR. These actions attract particular persons and align Chick-fil-A ideologically with specific political organizations, movements, and churches. The donation of this money forwards a certain worldview, a worldview that cannot exist merely post-profit. Instead, this worldview permeates throughout the business, even if the practices that occur within the business are not anti-gay.

I see your position as being linear in nature - pre-profit behavior separated from post-profit behavior. If we, instead, choose to see the relationship as being circular in nature, that the pre affects the post and vice versa, the comfortable (but unrealistic) separation of pre and post collapses - a collapse that better represents the company's actual practices and intentions.

So, to support Chick-fil-A based on a pre-and-post profit separation is to applaud them for what seem to be nefarious and cynical actions, namely the insincere production of an inclusive atmosphere that is, in fact, more a closely-crafted facade motivated by matters of legality and PR.

From this perspective, what corporations do with profits always matters (and matters more now that elections can be next-to bought). At the same time, I'm not going to assume what one company does or doesn't do with its profits. Yet it's, as I said earlier, living in a fantasy world for me to ignore publicly stated facts regarding how a company spends its profits. Furthermore, I'm not going to excuse one company's practices based on the argument that it should be assumed that many other companies I support use their profits in ways I would not agree. That is a fallacious argument.


Im not talking about assumptions. Donations, for example, to political campaigns are public record. I dont look them up, but I bet a number of restaurant owners have donated to the campaigns or R and D candidates, both of which I find morally repugnant (with rare exceptions).

Also, as I said above, I oppose corporations donating to charity, I would prefer the money be passed back to owners first and then donated, but the tax laws have screwed that up. In that case, its a lot tougher to make a "PR" case for the donations.
User avatar
User

Mark R.

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

4369

Joined

Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:02 pm

Location

Anchorage, KY

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Mark R. » Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:30 pm

Gary Z wrote:Actually I was referring to the Chik Fil A's beliefs, not the homosexuals'. You know... the ones Mark was proud that they were standing up for.

I said I was proud that they stood behind their beliefs and broken with them. Not that I agree with them. As Rob said, we would probably not be going to 50% of the businesses in town if we knew the beliefs of the owners. In this case the owner is not afraid to demonstrate everyone what his beliefs are and he's willing to take the lumps associated with that. That is something we should be proud of them for!
Written using Dragon NaturallySpeaking

"Life is short. Drink the good wine first"
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

{ RANK }

Forum host

Posts

22984

Joined

Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:38 pm

Location

Crescent Hill

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Robin Garr » Sun Jul 22, 2012 6:11 pm

Mark R. wrote:I Waid I was proud that they stood behind their beliefs and broken with them. Not that I agree with them.

Mark, I asked this before, but it may have got lost in the busy thread.

Would you say the same thing about Ollie McClung, the owner of Ollie's BBQ in Birmingham, Ala., who took the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the Supreme Court in an effort to maintain his belief that his restaurant should be able to choose to serve whites only?

The Supreme Court said no, and I sincerely feel that it would be hard for any decent person from our vantage point in 2012 to declare Ollie's position "admirable."

Do you see the Cathy family, owners of Chick-Fil-A and supporters of anti-gay hate groups to the tune of $5 million, as being different in some way?

Katzenbach v McClung
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 94_ZO.html
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign