Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Chick - Fil-A BoycottFollow

#52 Aug 02 2012 at 2:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
What's shocking is that you make that connection with skin color and gender, but call it a "slippery slope" when the same exact argument is used on other things like polygamy, minors and bestiality.

Dude, you should have SEEN the ********* when I tried to marry five kittens.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#53 Aug 02 2012 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Codyy wrote:
So these organizations that are "Pro Traditional Marriage" don't really care if gays get married, they just want to make sure the Men and Women are still getting married, right? Because they aren't anti-***, they are just pro-traditional. It's not like they don't want the gays to get married, they don't really care, but they're more comfortable when men and women are getting married, so as long as that's still happening, I mean, case closed, am I right?


I don't know what these organizations think, that's why I asked. In any case, "pro traditional marriage" supporters who aren't "anti-***", would care about ensuring that marriage is between a man and a woman and not care about what homosexuals do in society. Organizations who are "anti-***" would care more about homosexuals in society.
#54 Aug 02 2012 at 4:07 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Codyy wrote:
Belkira wrote:
niobia wrote:
more folks are eating at them today than protesting. The people I know who intentionally went today, went to support free speech - they thought the entire situation was dumb. (Ask a Christian whose business closes EVERY Sunday, what he thinks about *** marriage? And then try to impugn on his free speech , in an effort to promote equality seems idiotic.)


How is refusing to give any money to a company who's owner will use that money to support the effort to stifle civil rights impugning on this guy's free speech...?
It's not. If you're a business owner and you decide to voice your opinion, whether through donations or even when asked, you're opening yourself up to the criticism of your customers.


Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Aug 02 2012 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
According to their store locator the closest are a few in Minneapolis, MN...so I'm sure Nixnot is boycotting them for me. Finally living in North Dakota has an advantage...we have KFC's everywhere though and I gladly give them my money instead.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#56 Aug 02 2012 at 6:05 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Codyy wrote:
Belkira wrote:
niobia wrote:
more folks are eating at them today than protesting. The people I know who intentionally went today, went to support free speech - they thought the entire situation was dumb. (Ask a Christian whose business closes EVERY Sunday, what he thinks about *** marriage? And then try to impugn on his free speech , in an effort to promote equality seems idiotic.)


How is refusing to give any money to a company who's owner will use that money to support the effort to stifle civil rights impugning on this guy's free speech...?
It's not. If you're a business owner and you decide to voice your opinion, whether through donations or even when asked, you're opening yourself up to the criticism of your customers.


Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?


That might be the only sensible thing I've ever seen you post.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#57 Aug 02 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
******
26,516 posts
Dyadem, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
According to their store locator the closest are a few in Minneapolis, MN...so I'm sure Nixnot is boycotting them for me. Finally living in North Dakota has an advantage...we have KFC's everywhere though and I gladly give them my money instead.
I've been boycotting them most of my life, but the nearest one is outside of biking distance, so it's really not all that noble.
____________________________
WILL SHOWER AND POST PICS FOR GURU
#58 Aug 02 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?



I'll buy that.

I didn't realize this was all that the "protest for free speech by eating chikin" thing was about. I thought it was about all of the people who are boycotting the place.
#59 Aug 02 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
I remember being surprised when CFA moved out of the malls. That's where they started around here, in malls. And you could pretty much only get chicken tenders and a drink. They might have had sandwiches and fries, not sure. I just remember it was a very limited menu. I only ate there once or twice, thought it was ok, but was never overly impressed. There are better chicken joints. Popeye's and Church's come to mind. KFC is meh.
#60 Aug 02 2012 at 9:47 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Yeah, we have Zaxby's as a better local option. Food tastes better, and since the franchise is based out of our town (funny thing, about a dozen restaurant franchises are based around here) we get a small bit of locavore cred, too.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#61 Aug 03 2012 at 12:25 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What's shocking is that you make that connection with skin color and gender, but call it a "slippery slope" when the same exact argument is used on other things like polygamy, minors and bestiality.

Dude, you should have SEEN the sh*tstorm when I tried to marry five kittens.


Were these MALE kittens? I mean, that's a deal breaker.
#62 Aug 03 2012 at 6:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Codyy wrote:
Belkira wrote:
niobia wrote:
more folks are eating at them today than protesting. The people I know who intentionally went today, went to support free speech - they thought the entire situation was dumb. (Ask a Christian whose business closes EVERY Sunday, what he thinks about *** marriage? And then try to impugn on his free speech , in an effort to promote equality seems idiotic.)


How is refusing to give any money to a company who's owner will use that money to support the effort to stifle civil rights impugning on this guy's free speech...?
It's not. If you're a business owner and you decide to voice your opinion, whether through donations or even when asked, you're opening yourself up to the criticism of your customers.


Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from.


Weird, apparently you missed the sh*tstorm of protests from conservatives when the Muppets said they'd no longer work with Chick-fil-A that came days before Boston/Philly/Chicago officials made their announcements.

Then again, you don't get your news from anywhere, so I guess that makes sense Smiley: nod


To be fair, I do agree with your first point: those officials, if they actually try to enact a ban or a barrier, are going over the line. That's most definitely NOT where the outrage came from, however; it just fanned the flames.

Edit: Eh, not worth it. This is OOT, not the Asylum.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 8:23am by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#63 Aug 03 2012 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,049 posts
catwho wrote:
Yeah, we have Zaxby's as a better local option. Food tastes better, and since the franchise is based out of our town (funny thing, about a dozen restaurant franchises are based around here) we get a small bit of locavore cred, too.

TBH, I would take Chick-fil-A (or KFC) over Zaxby's any day. I've only gone one time, and found the food terrible.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#64 Aug 03 2012 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
So much hate.

The *** community and its supporters boycott the restaurant chain because the CEO is of a different opinion than them. The CEO is "boycotting" the gays because they're of a different opinion than him. And 'round we go!

I don't agree with his decision to donate money to the "war on homosexuals," but it's his money and his choice. If you don't like it, don't support it. I'm fairly certain I would not enjoy having a ***** up my ****, so I'm not going to try it.

To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

The CEO doesn't like gays. So what? The kebab guy down on the corner dislikes me because I look nothing like him. I still go there. Why? Because he makes excellent kebabs. Who gives a **** if he doesn't like me? He doesn't have to like me, and I don't have to like him. He takes my money and gives me tasty food. Everything else is outside my care sphere.

Like I said, I disagree with the CEO's decision to donate money to anti-*** causes, just as I would disagree with my kebab maker's decision to donate money to anti-Danish causes. Would I boycott his kebabs if I found out that he did? No. It's his decision and while I disagree with it, I don't want to coerce him into changing it.

I know, right?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#65 Aug 03 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Mazra wrote:
To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.

From a personal standpoint, as a "free person" I can spend my money on whatever I want and if I want to withhold it from someone because he's a turdwad, that's certainly my choice. Especially if I know that my money will trickle in some fashion to causes I disagree with. I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word. Most people would call refusing to frequent a business due to whatever reason a "boycott" even if it has no chance of affecting actual change and they just don't want to shop there.

Some people separate those things and some don't. Some people think an actor's personal life or an author's beliefs are sufficient cause to not enjoy their works, others say they divorce the two completely and it doesn't affect them. Whichever, really -- you pick your battles and decide what you can justify to yourself and I don't think there's any right way or more noble or moral way to do it.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 9:19am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Aug 03 2012 at 9:08 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Mazra wrote:
To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.

From a personal standpoint, as a "free person" I can spend my money on whatever I want and if I want to withhold it from someone because he's a turdwad, that's certainly my choice. Especially if I know that my money will trickle in some fashion to causes I disagree with. I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word. Most people would call refusing to frequent a business due to whatever reason a "boycott" even if it has no chance of affecting actual change and they just don't want to shop there.

Some people separate those things and some don't. Some people think an actor's personal life or an author's beliefs are sufficient cause to not enjoy their works, others say they divorce the two completely and it doesn't affect them. Whichever, really -- you pick your battles and decide what you can justify to yourself and I don't think there's any right way or more noble or moral way to do it.


This, really. It's a pretty easy distinction to make. The 1st ammendment protects our speech from government suppression. Personal conflicts (even those including loud, far-reaching voices such as celebrities) are not covered by the 1st ammendment umbrella. A boycott of the business by an organized group of people is fine. Enacting a political barrier to new business is not.


Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 10:08am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#67 Aug 03 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
While I'm still touring Asia, I just arrived in Thailand today. My first night out and my God, I've never seen so many homosexuals before. I saw my first male drink club.. Always thought that as a joke. It's ok though, I'm wearing my "No **** shorts" tomorrow. I should be safe.
#68 Aug 03 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Just staying the one night in Bangkok?

Can't be too careful with your company.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#69 Aug 03 2012 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,439 posts
Jophiel wrote:
From a personal standpoint or a government one? I think most of us agree that a government blocking the business because of this is wrong and it was an overstep for the mayors in Boston & Chicago to threaten it.
Jophiel wrote:
I think perhaps the definition of boycott you're using is a bit more narrow than the casual usage of the word.


This and this, I think. God, I've been working on this reply for 30 minutes now, trying to find a way to express my thoughts. Discussing terminology in a foreign language is hard. Smiley: frown

A boycott, where I'm from, has a goal. The goal is, usually, to change something. In this case, the boycott's goal would be to change the CEO's opinion on homosexuality. I think that's wrong, because he has a right to his opinion. That doesn't mean I agree with him, of course. I strongly disagree with anti-*** movements, but I acknowledge their right to be who they are, just as I acknowledge the *** people's right to be who they are.

In essence, I think he's stupid for being anti-***, but I think people are stupid for boycotting him because of it. It's not going to change his view on anything, and it's only hurting a lot of innocent employees who might not share the CEO's opinion(s).

I think that's what I mean. I'm a little fuzzy. Haven't had my coffee today.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 6:43pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#70 Aug 03 2012 at 11:04 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Mazra wrote:
In this case, the boycott's goal would be to change the CEO's opinion on homosexuality.


I think here's where you're wrong. There are a bunch of possible motivations to boycott, but changing the CEO's opinion likely isn't one of them.

Most are probably doing it out of a generalized desire to push back against an opinion they disagree with. They'd like to harm Chick-Fil-A financially, thereby limiting the CEO's influence (but also as a way of 'punishing' him). It's also a means of showing the strength and prevalence of their opposing opinion. But mostly I think it's just an easy way of outwardly expressing their anger that could have a modicum of success.

A belief that one could "change his opinion" through an action like boycotting here would be very, very, naive.
#71 Aug 03 2012 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, I don't think there's a proper English word for "Not going there because I dislike some aspect of their business practice even though I know it won't change anything" so "boycott" gets used. I doubt anyone seriously thinks the CEO will look at the financials and have a sincere epiphany about equal rights for homosexuals. Or that someone will be ousted and replaced with a pro-SSM advocate. They just don't want to spend money at a business where the upper levels of management hold these views and contribute (however slightly) to funding causes they disagree with.

I've never liked the "What about the employees?" argument in these discussions. For one thing, someone's getting my lunchtime dollar and if it's not Jack at CFA, it'll be Jill at Chick'n Shack. Neither are any more deserving of it than the other. If the company wants me there, they're the ones who need to give me the incentive. For another, I don't necessarily feel that the workers are sufficient reason to sell out my convictions and fund something I find abhorrent enough to stop eating CFA over.

I'm speaking generally here since I don't have a CFA near me anyway.

In other words, I get what you're saying and find your reasoning legitimate, I just feel differently about the concept of "boycotting" businesses.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 12:19pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#72 Aug 03 2012 at 12:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 posts
What I'm really getting from this thread is that Nio is pregnant.
#73 Aug 03 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
******
26,516 posts
Disregard that, I suck *****.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 1:59pm by NixNot
____________________________
WILL SHOWER AND POST PICS FOR GURU
#74 Aug 03 2012 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
NixNot wrote:
Disregard that, I suck *****.
Tell us something we don't know. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#75 Aug 03 2012 at 2:03 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I found this interesting, perhaps people don't really know.

It's not just about stopping *** marriage in the US. It's much deeper then that. If you support Chick-fil-A then you support state sanctioned murder based on sexual orientation.

Chick Fil A has donated money to the Family Research Council. Link

The Family Research Council spent 25K lobbying the US government not to denounce CIVH Res. 1064, a bill in the nation of Uganda which would instate the death penalty for homosexuality. Link.


I suppose the real question you need to ask yourself is: Are you okay with this company, however indirectly, supporting the state sanctioned murder of a group of people?


If you are, hey, enjoy your chicken.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#76 Aug 03 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Tell us something we don't know. Smiley: tongue


Nilatai wrote:
The Family Research Council spent 25K lobbying the US government not to denounce CIVH Res. 1064, a bill in the nation of Uganda which would instate the death penalty for homosexuality. Link.


I suppose the real question you need to ask yourself is: Are you okay with this company, however indirectly, supporting the state sanctioned murder of a group of people?


If you are, hey, enjoy your chicken.


It's people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!

Smiley: um

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 2:19pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)