Chick-Fil-A As A Case Study For Same-Sex Marriage As A Threat To Religious Freedom

[Jaybear]

I said forcing someone to agree with you upon pain of financial destruction.

Not the point. You can't force some one to agree with you. You can "force" them to behave differently, but not to agree.

That subtle but important distinction is where the hyperbole come in.

I really don't doubt that you wouldn't lose sleep over bullying people that you disagree with. I didn't post what i did in some passive/aggressive attempt to make you or anyone else feel shame over it. I never believed for a second that would see such bullying as a bad thing.

You have characterized voting with your pocketbook as bullying to make it sound more sinister. Would you feel the same way if Cathy had made a comment which you considered overtly anti-mormon?

Just own up to it. Don't pretend it's about fighting bigotry or that it's coming from some moral high ground. It's pure intolerance for beliefs (not actions, but sincere beliefs) you don't like and it's no different than a Christian who tries to put a company out of business because the owner is an atheist, or a pagan.

I will gladly own up to it, but on my terms, not yours. In this instance, its not purely about belief. Cathy provides financial support for anti-gay causes.

[smac97]

Jaybear,

I amazed that your brain somehow can accommodate this statement:

Technically, you are not forcing them to agree with you. That's pure hyperbole.

and this one:

If, for example, Shell Oil company executed gays, I would not buy gas from a Shell Oil station.

in the same post without exploding.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

You can "force" them to behave differently, but not to agree.

That subtle but important distinction is where the hyperbole come in.

Liberty would require that no one be forced to do [or not do] much of anything. And that impositions on others be made with a scalpel, not an ax.

But then, I guess to those of a certain political and social bent, the liberties of others are just not an important consideration.

[wenglund]

Jaybear,

I amazed that your brain somehow can accommodate this statement:

and this one:

in the same post without exploding.

Thanks, -Smac

Also, don't forget his comment about the problem not being about inconsistency. We have been Jaybeared in spades today.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Jaybear,

I amazed that your brain somehow can accommodate this statement:

and this one:

in the same post without exploding.

Thanks,

-Smac

In fairness he was citing my example of country owned oil companies that indeed do execute people for homosexual behavior.

[smac97]

In fairness he was citing my example of country owned oil companies that indeed do execute people for homosexual behavior.

Ah. Okay. Disregard my amazement, then.

-Smac

[KevinG]

Would you feel the same way if Cathy had made a comment which you considered overtly anti-mormon?

Now this is an interesting point. The Cathy family (Truett the founder and Dan the son and company President) can have opinions all day long and it does not change the fact that their franchises are a great place for Mormons and gays to work and eat due to observance of the Sabbath, an atmosphere of respect for all employees and customers (see the corporate policy statement - which is backed by their track record) and their sponsorship of scholarships for employees and good family activities in their stores.

[bluebell]

Not the point. You can't force some one to agree with you. You can "force" them to behave differently, but not to agree.

That subtle but important distinction is where the hyperbole come in.

Which behaviors by CFA are the boycotters trying to change exactly?

You can't force people to agree with you personally, but you can force them to agree with you in writing or in the media, which is what the whole boycott of CFA is about. It's about people trying to force CFA to backpeddle on what they said and to change their words to agree with the people trying to force the issue.

The people who are boycotting will not be happy with anything less than 'agreement' even if it's only skin deep. If trying to force agreement isn't the goal, then boycotts over ideological issues are pointless.

You have characterized voting with your pocketbook as bullying to make it sound more sinister.

It is sinister, if it's based on a not liking someone else's sincere beliefs.

Would you feel the same way if Cathy had made a comment which you considered overtly anti-mormon?

I would.

I would destest anyone who attempted to destroy my (or someone i loved's) ability to take financial care of my family because they disagreed with my sincere beliefs so i feel that morally, i can't do that to anyone else without being the worst kind of hypocrit.

I will gladly own up to it, but on my terms, not yours.

We, as humans, are capable of all kinds of justifications for our actions. It doesn't change the reality of what they are, or who they make us though.

[KevinG]

Cathy provides financial support for anti-gay causes.

CFR - show me the list of anti-gay causes supported by the Cathy family (and try to get the names straight. Truett is the founder, Dan his son is the current President.)

...and even if they did, which you have failed to show, what is to prevent a privately held corporation from donating to causes they feel are good?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Yes.

I think I might just eat some more Chik'n today for lunch.

Here in GA we "haters" have been filling their resturants and reported lines for drive though's up to 1/4 mile long needing police assistance.

[KevinG]

FYI - I have met and worked with several Chick-fil-a top executives, managers and employees of all types, stripes and beliefs. Is it right to punish them financially for the private statements of their ownership?

[KevinG]

Here in GA we "haters" have been filling their resturants and reported lines for drive though's up to 1/4 mile long needing police assistance.

The only thing I failed to do was wear my evil Boy Scout uniform when I enjoyed mine this morning.

[smac97]

As expected, your view is upside-down. The unethical actions of a liberal alderman and mayor attempting to foist their perverse political views onto local business, has actually energized the customer base, and may even have created new customers. The market place and the public are getting wise to Chicago-style shakedowns and political corruption, and are becoming increasingly mobilized against it.

In support of your statement, Wade, I offer Exhibit A:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/08/chicagoans-hungry-to-flip-the-bird-to-rahm-nicely/

Some of you asked just what the scene’s like on Chick-fil-A appreciation day in Chicago, home to #ChicagoValues, and the city at the heart of the controversy over Chick-fil-A after our mayor congratulated an alderman in shutting the company out of opening a second location within the city limits.

The line at 12:10pm extended down the city block from the entrance, full of Chicagoans who, it would seem, don’t share Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s definition of “Chicago Values.”

One woman and her friend took up a collection at their office to buy bags of the chicken sandwiches to deliver to an area homeless shelter.

A man just outside held up a collection box to buy lunch for Alderman Moreno’s office. His spiel? “Repay hate with kindness.”

The woman next to me in line brought her elderly mother, an immigrant, to Chick-fil-A after she learned of the Mayor’s antics. She emailed everyone from her church, upset that Christians were being discriminated against. “I told everyone I know,” she said.

In the Chicago suburban location in Schaumburg, IL, a line extended out the doors as well:

See more here: http://twitchy.com/2012/08/01/boycott-fail-redux-citizens-santa-unite-for-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-photos-show-huge-success/

Jaybear, remind me again which behavior is it that is offensive and bigoted? The Chick-fil-A guy's or the Chicago politician's?

Thanks,

-Smac

[KevinG]

Which behaviors by CFA are the boycotters trying to change exactly?

Poultrycide.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

CFR - show me the list of anti-gay causes supported by the Cathy family (and try to get the names straight. Truett is the founder, Dan his son is the current President.)

...and even if they did, which you have failed to show, what is to prevent a privately held corporation from donating to causes they feel are good?

Good luck on the CFR...the Cathy Family are good people.

[KevinG]

I'm not going to get answers to my CFRs quite as thorough as the ones I gave to Jaybear am I?

I wonder if he even bothered to read my links to Chick-fil-a corporate policy statements.

[ERayR]

You have characterized voting with your pocketbook as bullying to make it sound more sinister.

I will gladly own up to it, but on my terms, not yours. In this instance, its not purely about belief. Cathy provides financial support for anti-gay causes.

And it appears the boycott is working. NOT!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/nance-and-diaz-happy-chick-fil-day-appreciation/

[wenglund]

Here in GA we "haters" have been filling their resturants and reported lines for drive though's up to 1/4 mile long needing police assistance.

Given his upside-down comments so far, I would guess that in Jaybear's mind this would mean his side is "winning."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

CFR - show me the list of anti-gay causes supported by the Cathy family (and try to get the names straight. Truett is the founder, Dan his son is the current President.)

...and even if they did, which you have failed to show, what is to prevent a privately held corporation from donating to causes they feel are good?

Well, people on JayBear's side of the fence are not trying to "prevent" such donations, just punish the donors after-the-fact.

Let's review an excerpted exchange earlier in this thread between KevinG and JayBear:

KevinG: The problem I have with this particular boycott is that Dan Cathy's personal remark acknowledging he supports traditional marriage was not a corporate policy. In fact Chick-fil-a has a corporate policy of not discriminating in hiring practices based on sexual preference and they have a good track record of treating all employees with dignity.

JayBear: Cathy uses profits to support antigay politicians and causes.

I'm curious why Jaybear brought this up. It sounds like Jaybear is justifying discriminatory treatment of Cathy by the government because Cathy uses profits from Chick-fil-A "to support antigay politicians and causes."

Let's assume that Cathy does use his income from Chick-fil-A to do "to support antigay politicians and causes." Is Jaybear suggesting that Cathy's use of his own money for such lawful purposes opens him up as fair game to government actors like the Chicago alderman?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 1, 2012 by smac97

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm not going to get answers to my CFRs quite as thorough as the ones I gave to Jaybear am I?

I wonder if he even bothered to read my links to Chick-fil-a corporate policy statements.

Those who hate in this issue are the ones who hate that others can have differing opinions.

[KevinG]

Those who hate in this issue are the ones who hate that others can have differing opinions.

Free speech for me and not for thee.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Given his upside-down comments so far, I would guess that in Jaybear's mind this would mean his side is "winning."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even though every State ever given the vote on this issue uphelp traditional marriage. Not to mention Black Pastor org's have warned our President to drop this issue. Black Christians are more united about traditional marriage that any other group.

[ERayR]

Another boycott like this and they will be able to pay a very healthy dividend.

[Zakuska]

Most companies today seem to prefer not to offend thier gay customer and employees.

Probably because they fear a lawsuit if they do.

[mfbukowski]

Yes.

I think I might just eat some more Chik'n today for lunch.

Or if you can't stand the stuff, buy some and give it to someone who is homeless.