CV75 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Haven't kept up since yesterday, with so much being posted here. But I've seeing in the news a lot of stories about other religious big-business owners, faith-friendly businesses, etc., and that Cathy/Chick-filet is not such an outlier. It seems the press is showing that a lot of anti-faith groups have had their heads in the sand and have underestimated how unpopular their stance may really be!
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Perhaps the Bomb threat was to discourage people from attending the demonstration?
Skylla Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Technically, you are not forcing them to agree with you. That's pure hyperbole. Otherwise, being "intolerrant" towards bigotry is not something I lose sleep over.CFR. Please show me this corporate policy.Moreover, Cathy uses profits to support antigay politicians and causes.If, for example, Shell Oil company executed gays, I would not buy gas from a Shell Oil station. I take it, since you are enjoying your chicken sandwitch, if that were the case, you would go out of your way to buy Shell gasoline.Jaybear is banned for this.Skylla
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 You need to stop your lies and false accusations. But I understand why you and others need to resort to such practices; I do not toe your personal agenda, and I do not patronize CFA for reasons not connected too CFAs political views.Please tell me what my "lies and accusations" are. Please tell me what my "personal agenda" is. Please tell me what "practices" I am resorting too.That's a lot of accusations in once sentence.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Those who oppse the boycott of CFA do you also oppose the boycott of home depotThe denial of abusiness license is very much likely to be content based violation of free speech.Yes. Boycotts are stupid unless the chain itself is selling harmful products. I shop at home depot but will not go into a bookstore in my town that sells bongs and pornography items in a back room.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Interesting. Thanks Treehugger.I'm not really against boycotts (for whatever reason). But, I think it shows a double standard when people who do it, then turn around and complain about another group doing it.Withholding a business license, because of someone's religious beliefs, is an entirely different matter and would be illegal, I would think?Thats funny. The Chick-fil-a appreciation day was not "complaining about someone elses boycott" it was showing support for the Cathy's private free speech rights. The press sure spent a lot of time last night talking about the protesters being "anti-gay marriage" but the people I spoke to in person, the interviews that used actual quotes and the discussions on line leaned heavily towards the right to free speech being the primary reason for the lines yesterday.I guess the press can't let a good template go to waste despite the evidence to the contrary.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 When in fact it is a boycott against CFA because of their political contributions to organizations that actively campaign against gay marriage. Same CFR.Please list the organizations Winshape contributes to that are "anti-gay marriage."I think you and Treehugger are confusing "pro-traditional marriage" with "anti-gay marriage".There is a distinction. For example I support my gay friends right to form a state recognized union and have a church solemnize that union, gain benefits, have the same civil rights as anyone else.I do not support legislation that would endanger any religious organizations ability to define marriage as they see fit, even if that excludes others. Before anyone yells "slippery slope" take a look at the case where Catholic organizations have just been ordered to provide birth control and abortion coverage under the new health care statutes that we were told would never do that.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Thats funny. The Chick-fil-a appreciation day was not "complaining about someone elses boycott" it was showing support for the Cathy's private free speech rights. The press sure spent a lot of time last night talking about the protesters being "anti-gay marriage" but the people I spoke to in person, the interviews that used actual quotes and the discussions on line leaned heavily towards the right to free speech being the primary reason for the lines yesterday.I guess the press can't let a good template go to waste despite the evidence to the contrary.Indeed- they are pathologically incapable of doing so.Fortunately, we have other venues to review the events of the day:The Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day yesterday was historic. It was historic because it marks a new method of mass protest. I even hesitate to use the word ‘protest’ because it wasn’t a protest. There wasn’t any anger. There wasn’t any hate. There wasn’t any bullying. There were no unwashed crowds of unhappy people holding a sit in and causing other people stress, inconvenience and expense. There were no protest signs, no marches, no noise makers and attention grabbers. There were no revolutionary slogans, no clenched fists, no class warfare, no sullen adolescents in a stroppy mood. The classic signs of a protest movement were absent. If they were not actually violent revolutions, the great protest movements in history have often had violent undertones. Subtle threats were made. Bullying tactics, financial and political pressure was exerted. Guns were wielded. Behind the scenes in smoke filled rooms men did deals and crossed swords to determine the future of millions. In the great revolutions hoards of unhappy people filled the streets, rioting and on the rampage they took what they wanted, killed who they wanted and in misplaced zeal for justice overturned an established order. …Yesterday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day was the sort of ‘revolt’ this country needs, but it was even better than the non violent revolutions and peaceful protests which have changed the world because it was so ordinary. It was just plain, ordinary Americans getting in their cars and doing a plain, ordinary American thing: going out for lunch to a fast food joint. It was just plain, ordinary Americans doing something plain and ordinary, but positive and joyful and good. In buying an ordinary tasty chicken sandwich at their corner fast food emporium ordinary Americans were expressing the wish to be left alone to be ordinary Americans.Of course- even is we overlook the bomb threat (which does not appear to have been denounced by any liberal organization or spokesman (save for our own poster Libs) - leftist "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" was on ample display.The money quote was of course, "I feel purposeful." It isn't about Chick-Fil-A, nor about their corporate policies, nor even about the First Amendment. The entire incident was about Adam Smith's ego and self-image.And if he had to verbally assault and harass a poor woman just trying to do her job- well, "you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."Of course, it doesn't help the anti-Chick-Fil-A cause that the franchise not only set world sales records yesterday, but that they were so busy with supporters that many stores ran out of food. Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I don't think it's so much what you support or don't support, that she was talking about, as it was the "in your face" attitudes about it. Notice she also appealed to gay marriage supporters, not to do things (like cross dressing, kiss-ins and other general intimidation and "acting out" tactics). She is making a plea that both sides remain civil and respectful, in their behavior towards one another. I wholeheartedly agree with everything she said.I didn't see anyone waving Chick-fil-a bags in the face of counter protesters in life or on the news. I did see lots of smiling and happy people waiting in line to make a statement about free speech and enjoy some food.We will see if the crowds on Friday are actually "crowds" like the ones wrapped around Chick-fil-a parking lots (and the parking lots of the businesses next door) and if their behavior is as civil and friendly as the behavior I witnessed in my three visits yesterday to two different franchises in my hometown.I know how the press will portray the contrast but I'll let you now what I see.
Libs Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Actually, the press has been reporting this story pretty accurately, as far as I can tell, showing long lines at many of the Chik-fil-a's.As for waving chicken bags and sandwiches, I have seen a lot of that on Facebook...or just taunting by telling everyone what one had for breakfast or lunch, in a kind of prideful way.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Actually, the press has been reporting this story pretty accurately, as far as I can tell, showing long lines at many of the Chik-fil-a's.As for waving chicken bags and sandwiches, I have seen a lot of that on Facebook...or just taunting by telling everyone what one had for breakfast or lunch, in a kind of prideful way.And yet- not one arrest.No property damage.No violence.No vandalism.No defecating on police cars.The contrast is startling in its starkness. 1
Libs Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Thats funny. The Chick-fil-a appreciation day was not "complaining about someone elses boycott" it was showing support for the Cathy's private free speech rights. The press sure spent a lot of time last night talking about the protesters being "anti-gay marriage" but the people I spoke to in person, the interviews that used actual quotes and the discussions on line leaned heavily towards the right to free speech being the primary reason for the lines yesterday.I guess the press can't let a good template go to waste despite the evidence to the contrary.It wasn't a "protest"...more of a "sit-in". How many of those people would have been there, if there had not been a reason?
Libs Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 And yet- not one arrest.No property damage.No violence.No vandalism.No defecating on police cars.The contrast is startling in its starkness.Why would there be? These people were in agreement with the business they were patronizing. Completely different scenario. I know first hand that just about anyone can get nasty, under certain circumstances. Going to buy a sandwich is not a good example.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Jaybear is banned for this.SkyllaIn fairness Skylla I was the one who brought up the fat that Saudi owned oil companies were controlled by a country that executed gays, yet there were no boycotts of them to my knowledge. I was using it to contrast what was in my opinion an overreaction to Dan Cathy's private comments and opinions.Jaybear was responding to me when he cited executions of gays.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Why would there be? These people were in agreement with the business they were patronizing. Completely different scenario. I know first hand that just about anyone can get nasty, under certain circumstances. Going to buy a sandwich is not a good example.So you're suggesting that if these people had disagreed with Chick-Fil-A, we would have seen the same sort of anti-social behavior we regularly see at Occupy rallies?Do you have any credible reason to support this allegation?The media has been desperate to try and portray the Tea Party (and conservatives in general) as a threat- but the record has thwarted them time after time after time.When conservatives protest and rally, they are almost invariably well-behaved, orderly, and respectful. There are no reports of widespread (almost de riguer) assault, harassment, drug use, assault, property damage, and littering that we see with other protestors.Nor were the assaults, vandalism, and lawlessness we've witnessed in downtown Oakland and Zuccotti Park were limited to people and businesses with whom the protestors disagreed.Much of the violence was inflicted against their own.People were physically assaulted in turf wars. Several people were assaulted in squabbles over food. Women were told not to report their rapists out of "solidarity to the movement".Much of the theft and vandalism was perpetrated against businesses that supported the protestors, opened their doors, and provided services to the rabble.No- the evidence suggests that the difference lies not in the subject matter of the protests, but in the character and mindset of the people doing the protesting.The video l linked shows exactly the sort of self-entitled mindset to which I refer.Those supporting Chick-Fil-A would find that mindset alien, at best, if not offensive and repugnant. Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1 1
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) Jaybear was responding to me when he cited executions of gays.No- Jaybear was implying that the you would go out of your way to support and endorse a company that was executing homosexuals.It was a hateful, loathsome accusation to make. Edited August 2, 2012 by selek1 1
Libs Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 (edited) No, I am not suggesting any of that, selek. Violence (including violent and hateful words) is always wrong, IMO. I still see no similarity between a one day sandwich eating event and months of street protest by (mostly) young liberals. I don't like the conclusions you are trying to draw from that, and I think you are very wrong to generalize that way. Edited August 2, 2012 by Libs
Calm Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 In fairness Skylla I was the one who brought up the fat that Saudi owned oil companies were controlled by a country that executed gays, yet there were no boycotts of them to my knowledge. I was using it to contrast what was in my opinion an overreaction to Dan Cathy's private comments and opinions.Jaybear was responding to me when he cited executions of gays.I think it was likely this part that he got banned for: I take it, since you are enjoying your chicken sandwitch, if that were the case [they executed gays], you would go out of your way to buy Shell gasoline.
ERayR Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Really?I've shopped at Penney's for years...long before Ellen. They have great kid's clothes and their prices are reasonable.To show you how much I pay attention to Ellen I didn't even know she was connected to Penny's.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Of course- even is we overlook the bomb threat (which does not appear to have been denounced by any liberal organization or spokesman (save for our own poster Libs) - leftist "tolerance" and "open-mindedness" was on ample display.The employee handled herself in a very classy way. Note the "free water" was offered with a smile and the corporate signature "it was my pleasure!" My experience with Chick-fil-a employees is that they are all very respectful and have a great service orientation. Protesters will be treated well on Friday I'm sure as long as they don't try to destroy property or restrict access to other customers.I suspect Chick-fil-a is stocking up on extra cups for Friday's plan to extort money from their company. Of course they can afford a few now since peaceful citizens supporting Dan Cathy's first amendment rights gave them a very good business day on Wednesday.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 Actually, the press has been reporting this story pretty accurately, as far as I can tell, showing long lines at many of the Chik-fil-a's.It is the motives they assigned to the long lines that was inaccurate. All last night I heard from the news how this was an anti-gay marriage protest. It was not. It was a pro free speech protest. From Governor Huckabees original call for a "Chick-fil-a appreciation day" to the sentiments of those participating it was pro-free speech and freedom of association.Find me a statement from an actual participant in the protest that said they were there to oppose gay-marriage or a statement from Chick-fil-a and their representatives and affiliated organizations that is anti-gay marriage. That was the original CFR that no one has yet answered despite your protests that you have and "others do it too".
ERayR Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I am sorry, but this is the most hypocritical statement I have seen all day. And I have seen quite a few on this thread. You have been ranting for 11 pages now that the boycott agains CFA was anti religious and an attack on Christian beliefs. When in fact it is a boycott against CFA because of their political contributions to organizations that actively campaign against gay marriage. Yet when those that support gay marriage point this out, you say it is not anti gays.Can you please see that someone who is in favor of gay marriage is not anti Christian in the same way that someone who is in favor of gay marriage is not anti gay???? Quit ranting that the boycott is an attack on Christianity if you are going to rant that being against gay marriage is not anti gay.Can you please see that homosexual marriage, in addition to being politicized, is a moral issue that churches and those with religious convictions should be able to speak out on without fear for their safety and attacks on their livelihood. 1
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 The contrast is startling in its starkness....as is the equivocating. We will see how well behaved and how large Friday's protests are in comparison. Not that the press will notice.
selek1 Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 I still see no similarity between a one day sandwich eating event and months of street protest by (mostly) young liberals.That's my point- whether a one-day event or a month-long saga, there is no similarity.I don't like the conclusions you are trying to draw from that, and I think you are very wrong to generalize that way. And yet the evidence supports my characterization.You're right, though- it's really not fair of me to rehash an unflattering (if accurate) comparison that I previously said I'd drop.My apologies.
KevinG Posted August 2, 2012 Posted August 2, 2012 It wasn't a "protest"...more of a "sit-in". How many of those people would have been there, if there had not been a reason?Right a peaceful drive and sit-in and the reason, once again was "free speech rights". Not anti-gay as the reporters and others keep asserting.
Recommended Posts