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.

Chick-Fil-A under fire again

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 6:29 pm

Robin Garr wrote: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

I definitely see a major difference because Chick-Fil-A does not demonstrate any of their views nor put them into their restaurants or their business practices. I've never seen nor heard of any incident in their restaurants or offices that involved any discriminatory practices, something much different than the case you cited!

In the case you cited he wasn't just supporting the discriminatory practice with money, he was trying to make it part of his business practice. That's something completely different.
Written using Dragon NaturallySpeaking

"Life is short. Drink the good wine first"
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 » Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:10 pm

On the back of that I would like to see statistics on how many gay applicants become employees at CFA. (or non-Christians for that matter).

And again, my dollar is my vote, and others are welcome to give their money to any organization they choose. I choose not to support a business that openly speaks out against and/or condemns a group of people based on a characteristic like skin color or sexual orientation. Others are welcome to support such institutions. I simply cannot justify it.

And my prior inclusion of Nazi and slave owners was to illustrate that some people are giving CFA a pass because they serve a tasty sandwich and it would be a much different place if prior groups that were identified by their condemnation of others were given a similar pass on such trivial criteria. For me, CFA's view of homosexuality is of far greater import than how great their product is. That was my point, not to equate the groups in scope or magnitude.
Ronnie Dingman
Chef Consultant
The Farm
La Center, KY
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 7:45 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
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?


I think McClung was 100% morally wrong and 100% legally right.

I would allow him to be a racist fark* on his private property and would also join in a picket of his restaurant. And I dont see any contradiction between that. Im a property rights absolutist.

*Robin, I realize that probably violates the terms of use and I apologize, but I cant think of a replacement word that accurately fits.

Edit: I edited the word above, but I didnt want to.
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 8:16 pm

Rob Coffey wrote:I think McClung was 100% morally wrong and 100% legally right.

Rob, as a libertarian you may deeply believe this, but as a matter of both fact and law you are simply incorrect. The law is, by definition, what the Congress and the Supreme Court say it is. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring racial segregation in public accommodations, is a matter of settled law. It just is. Ollie was violating the law, NOT "100% legally right."

I would allow him to be a racist fark* on his private property and would also join in a picket of his restaurant. And I dont see any contradiction between that. Im a property rights absolutist.

*Robin, I realize that probably violates the terms of use and I apologize, but I cant think of a replacement word that accurately fits.

Edit: I edited the word above, but I didnt want to.

Thank you for having that entire conversation without me. :lol:
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 8:47 pm

Robin Garr wrote:
Rob Coffey wrote:I think McClung was 100% morally wrong and 100% legally right.

Rob, as a libertarian you may deeply believe this, but as a matter of both fact and law you are simply incorrect. The law is, by definition, what the Congress and the Supreme Court say it is. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring racial segregation in public accommodations, is a matter of settled law. It just is. Ollie was violating the law, NOT "100% legally right."


The Supreme Court got the law wrong. Not the first time nor the last time. There are laws higher than the ones congress pass. First the constitution, obviously, then natural law.

I think the CRA (in parts) violates the constitution. It clearly violates natural law. Heck, it clearly violates the 13th amendment, as it made McClung serve people he didnt wish to serve.

I used to live about 2 blocks from where Lester Maddox's restaurant used to be. Its kind of personal to me. It makes me angry that guys like that existed, much less became governor. And yet, it makes me angry that people dont support their civil liberties too. In my opinion, its the exact same issue as the ACLU supporting Illinois Nazis. And everyone hates Illinois Nazis.

I would allow him to be a racist fark* on his private property and would also join in a picket of his restaurant. And I dont see any contradiction between that. Im a property rights absolutist.

*Robin, I realize that probably violates the terms of use and I apologize, but I cant think of a replacement word that accurately fits.

Edit: I edited the word above, but I didnt want to.

Thank you for having that entire conversation without me. :lol:


I thought you might be amused by that. It would have been hypocritical of me to not play by your rules in your forum. I would hate for the government to tell you what you have to allow or not allow here. :twisted:
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. » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:00 pm

Rob Coffey wrote:
Robin Garr wrote:
Rob Coffey wrote:The Supreme Court got the law wrong. Not the first time nor the last time. There are laws higher than the ones congress pass. First the constitution, obviously, then natural law.


The supreme court is who decides what is legal according to the constitution. You can disagree, but, their decision, by definition, is what the constitution means. natural law is a non-sequitur to the conversation. There is no agreement to its content (or even its existence), so how would one invoke if contested.

There are, of course, many things higher than what congress passes . . .
no avatar
User

Andrew Mellman

{ RANK }

Foodie

Posts

1694

Joined

Fri Mar 02, 2007 10:33 am

Location

Louisville

Re: Chick-Fil-A under fire again

by Andrew Mellman » Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:01 pm

Mark R. wrote:
Robin Garr wrote: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

I definitely see a major difference because Chick-Fil-A does not demonstrate any of their views nor put them into their restaurants or their business practices. I've never seen nor heard of any incident in their restaurants or offices that involved any discriminatory practices, something much different than the case you cited!

In the case you cited he wasn't just supporting the discriminatory practice with money, he was trying to make it part of his business practice. That's something completely different.



As long as you are quoting the Internet, check out the threads on Huffington Post on this topic.

If you wish to be a store manager, a franchisee, or attain a high position with Chick your spouse and family (including children old enough to talk) will be interviewed, your pastor interviewed, and your home and family life checked out. As Mr. Cathy said, if one cannot keep a home life constant and lawfull (including no divorce) and moral (using HIS defnitions of "moral", which excludes homosexuals in committed relationships) one cannot possibly keep a business.

Now, personally I call this "putting their views into their business practices." Using your own statements, you should thus be boycotting the chain along with many of the rest of us!
Andrew Mellman
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 9:35 pm

Rob Coffey wrote:
Robin Garr wrote:
Rob Coffey wrote:I think McClung was 100% morally wrong and 100% legally right.

Rob, as a libertarian you may deeply believe this, but as a matter of both fact and law you are simply incorrect. The law is, by definition, what the Congress and the Supreme Court say it is. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, barring racial segregation in public accommodations, is a matter of settled law. It just is. Ollie was violating the law, NOT "100% legally right."


The Supreme Court got the law wrong. Not the first time nor the last time. There are laws higher than the ones congress pass. First the constitution, obviously, then natural law.

I think the CRA (in parts) violates the constitution. It clearly violates natural law. Heck, it clearly violates the 13th amendment, as it made McClung serve people he didnt wish to serve.

I used to live about 2 blocks from where Lester Maddox's restaurant used to be. Its kind of personal to me. It makes me angry that guys like that existed, much less became governor. And yet, it makes me angry that people dont support their civil liberties too. In my opinion, its the exact same issue as the ACLU supporting Illinois Nazis. And everyone hates Illinois Nazis.

I would allow him to be a racist fark* on his private property and would also join in a picket of his restaurant. And I dont see any contradiction between that. Im a property rights absolutist.

*Robin, I realize that probably violates the terms of use and I apologize, but I cant think of a replacement word that accurately fits.

Edit: I edited the word above, but I didnt want to.

Thank you for having that entire conversation without me. :lol:


I thought you might be amused by that. It would have been hypocritical of me to not play by your rules in your forum. I would hate for the government to tell you what you have to allow or not allow here. :twisted:


“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

Ummmkay.
Thinks the frosty mug is the low point in American history.
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 10:42 pm

Matthew D wrote:“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

Ummmkay.


If you are going to quote me, quote me. Dont make stuff up.

What I said is the supreme court makes mistakes. Do you not agree? You really want to defend Dred Scot and Plessy v Ferguson? And Kelo and Raich (to pick two obviously wrong decisions that are still in effect)?

They are constitutional. For now. That doesnt mean they were decided correctly. If the Supremes were always right, they would never overturn past decisions.
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 10:44 pm

Charles W. wrote: natural law is a non-sequitur to the conversation.


Natural law is never a non-sequitur.

I obey human law (mostly); primarily for obvious, pragmatic reasons. I respect natural law.
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 10:46 pm

Rob Coffey wrote:
They are constitutional. For now. That doesnt mean they were decided correctly. If the Supremes were always right, they would never overturn past decisions.


Yeah! And they would haver never gotten rid of Diana Ross!
"She did not so much cook as assassinate food." - Storm Jameson
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 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 1:02 am

Rob Coffey wrote:
Matthew D wrote:“Just because a couple of people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

Ummmkay.


If you are going to quote me, quote me. Dont make stuff up.

What I said is the supreme court makes mistakes. Do you not agree? You really want to defend Dred Scot and Plessy v Ferguson? And Kelo and Raich (to pick two obviously wrong decisions that are still in effect)?

They are constitutional. For now. That doesnt mean they were decided correctly. If the Supremes were always right, they would never overturn past decisions.


That's not made up. I assumed you knew which representative recently offered us that quote.

I was being purposefully opaque.
Thinks the frosty mug is the low point in American history.
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 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:53 am

Carla G wrote:
Rob Coffey wrote:
They are constitutional. For now. That doesnt mean they were decided correctly. If the Supremes were always right, they would never overturn past decisions.


Yeah! And they would haver never gotten rid of Diana Ross!

:lol:
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 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:57 am

Matthew D wrote: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.

A little exploring can be a dangerous thing! No more White Castle! No more Waffle House! <sob>

5 Food Companies Run by Radical Right-Wingers
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 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 8:30 am

Robin Garr wrote:
Matthew D wrote: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.

A little exploring can be a dangerous thing! No more White Castle! No more Waffle House! <sob>

5 Food Companies Run by Radical Right-Wingers


I can ease your mind on the Waffle one, if he is a close associate of Romney, as the story mentions, he isnt radically right wing. MA doesnt elect radically right wingers in statewide elections.

Someone who thinks Romney is radical is way too tied up in Team Red/Team Blue rah rah BS.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 26 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign