Jump to content



Photo

Chick-fil-A Meets a First Amendment Buzzsaw in Chicago

first amendment chicago

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
268 replies to this topic

#31 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 August 2012 - 03:57

It wasn't just his view. He stated it was his company's view. So that image is slightly incorrect. (I feel the difference between a man's view and his company's view is important to distinguish). Not only that, but the company's foundation (not his foundation) are donating to groups that wish to deny rights and freedoms to gay and bisexual people (while allowing heterosexual people those rights and freedoms).


Companies are people right now...


#32 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,290 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 01 August 2012 - 03:58

I have an urge to eat at chic-fil-a now.

#33 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 01 August 2012 - 03:59

It wasn't just his view. He stated it was his company's view. So that image is slightly incorrect. (I feel the difference between a man's view and his company's view is important to distinguish). Not only that, but the company's foundation (not his foundation) are donating to groups that wish to deny rights and freedoms to gay and bisexual people (while allowing heterosexual people those rights and freedoms).


Were you implying that there was something wrong with that, or just correcting the facebook pic?

#34 vetCalum

Calum

    Neowinian Senior

  • 13,211 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 07

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:00

Companies are people right now...

I'm curious as to what you mean by that, if you don't mind expanding, please :)

I think there's an issue when a company states its political position, no matter which side that position is on—there will be customers that disagree with it and won't wish to support a company (e.g. continue buying from them) that holds such views. I'm not suggesting it's wrong (as I enjoy seeing companies support same-sex marriage and other such issues), but I am suggesting they should expect backlash and expect to be held accountable by the public.

#35 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:02

Except that the CEO himself said so? LOL.. you reap what you sow. There is no place in America for bigoted, racist religious nuts. If you can't keep your religion and your own views to yourself and not undermine and discriminate against others you don't deserve any rights and everything you get.


What gives others the right to foist their supposed non-bigoted and rather zealous acceptance and 'everything goes' policy on others? I fail to see how having an opinion or moral stand on any issue like this is bigoted, racist or religious nuttery.

#36 vetCalum

Calum

    Neowinian Senior

  • 13,211 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 07

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:03

Were you implying that there was something wrong with that, or just correcting the facebook pic?

I was just correcting the Facebook picture, as I feel the difference should be distinguished (for the reason I mention in my response to Boz, above).

#37 nekkidtruth

nekkidtruth

    I'm sorry, do you still exist?

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 07
  • Location: Canada
  • OS: Windows 7 64-bit
  • Phone: Stock LG Nexus 5

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:03

I have an urge to eat at chic-fil-a now.


Don't forget your gun! Who knows when a mass shooting will occur!

Sorry, I couldn't resist :p

#38 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:04

What gives others the right to foist their supposed non-bigoted and rather zealous acceptance and 'everything goes' policy on others? I fail to see how having an opinion or moral stand on any issue like this is bigoted, racist or religious nuttery.


There's a big difference.. I have the right to boycott a company who's CEO is a bigoted, racist religious nut. By law, he is not ALLOWED as a CEO of a company to discriminate and insult everyone who doesn't fit in his own views. And, yes, he is entitled to his own opinion in his own house. When he uses his position and goes public it's a whole different ball game.

#39 KingCracker

KingCracker

    I am your huckleberry.

  • 4,290 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 12
  • Location: Knoxville,TN

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:05

We're for equality says the liberals until a Christian speaks then they want to burn him alive.

Don't forget your gun! Who knows when a mass shooting will occur!

Sorry, I couldn't resist :p

I wont, wouldn't doubt that a liberal would shoot up the place.

#40 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:07

I'm curious as to what you mean by that, if you don't mind expanding, please :)

I think there's an issue when a company states its political position, no matter which side that position is on—there will be customers that disagree with it and won't wish to support a company (e.g. continue buying from them) that holds such views. I'm not suggesting it's wrong (as I enjoy seeing companies support same-sex marriage and other such issues), but I am suggesting they should expect backlash and expect to be held accountable by the public.


I was jokingly mentioning that. But companies will be held responsible just as much as people right now. They can't have it both ways and when it only suits them for bribing and financing elections.

The reason I mentioned the company is because what CEO of Chick-fil-A thinks in his own house is his own business, but when he comes out in public and uses his influence as CEO of company he deserved to get everything he got.

#41 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:07

There's a big difference.. I have the right to boycott a company who's CEO is a bigoted, racist religious nut. By law, he is not ALLOWED as a CEO of a company to discriminate and insult everyone who doesn't fit in his own views. And, yes, he is entitled to his own opinion in his own house. When he uses his position and goes public it's a whole different ball game.


I see. I also see how you are rather wrong.

He does have a right to say what the company opinion is on a matter. He is ALLOWED to insult whomever he chooses, and how is it discriminating to say you don't believe in gay marriage? As far as I know, he still welcomes their patronage at his restaurants, just not on Sundays.

You are coming from a place that doesn't exist, so while I see your outrage, it is misplaced. Also, you seem well placed to call names and slur him as a person, yet, you expect tolerance and welcoming from him... odd. Anyway, you don't like it, don't go there, but hey, that's YOUR choice and opinion. See, you have one as well.

#42 mudslag

mudslag

    I live in your head

  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06
  • Location: Northwest Chicago burbs

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:09

It seems a lot of people can't or are unable to distinguish the different between having a view and acting out on that view, which in reality are two different things.

You can be against gay marriage, that's called having a view. You can be against gay marriage while at the same time agree that it's not your place to tell others what they can or can't do. Again that's a view. It's when you act out on that view, such as for example donating money to organizations for the purpose of fighting against others, that's when it becomes more then a view. That is an action and that action is the crux against Chic Fil A. They are no longer stating just a view, they are politically involving themselves in a movement against other human beings who want the same thing that the people of Chic Fil A, and others, feel is something that belongs to one group of people.

People here and elsewhere refuse to accept that stating a view and acting on that view are still two different things. I have no problem if people here or Chic Fil A is against same sex marriage but you have your heads buried deep in the sand if you think acting out on that view is the same. That is the point where people have the right to come in and start fighting against that action, not the view. Then the Right starts whining about how the left is supposed to be the tolerant one but are then somehow the intolerant ones for fighting against your own intolerance.

The simple FACT is, same sex marriage in no way affects you in any way possible. It will not have any harm on society and certainly won't hinder the reproductive standard of us humans. When something like this that has no actual harm is fought against, that's where the actual intolerance comes in. The anti side is the true intolerance side, the other side isn't magically being intolerant for fighting against that. They are just fighting the intolerance that already is there. You can hold a view and still not qualify as intolerant, it's the action that makes you intolerant.


As for Chic Fil A and the cities, I don't think it's right to bar them, not that I think these cities can even do that legally. It's silly to use that as a tool to get a message across. If people want to send a message, boycott them not this "you shall not enter" crap.

#43 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,455 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:14

I see. I also see how you are rather wrong.

He does have a right to say what the company opinion is on a matter. He is ALLOWED to insult whomever he chooses, and how is it discriminating to say you don't believe in gay marriage?


The notion that two gay people should not get married is not grounded in law but in religion. And outrage is absolutely justified. He is a CEO of a company and by coming out publicly he is speaking for a company. Human rights to get married is not a matter of "opinion". It's a right. Coming out against rights of others on account of some religion you personally believe in is a big problem and should be outlawed and companies who discriminate in such manner should be severely penalized.

What you "believe" and what your book tells you should be in your home and your home alone and has no place in public space, especially if it limits the rights of others.

#44 Skin

Skin

    Neowinian

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 07

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:17

Then the Right starts whining about how the left is supposed to be the tolerant one but are then somehow the intolerant ones for fighting against your own intolerance.


Most of what you wrote, while attempting to be eloquent, is a strawman.

There is actually no difference in saying you are against something, and giving money, standing in a picket line, or well, taking out flyers in the local paper to say it. It is the same... being against something. Let's just call a spade a spade.

You then turn it back to the 'Right' by tying it to the created split between a view and donating money. No one says people cannot boycott, that is a right to say what they view, but a city trying to block is downright 'evil', and against basic rights as well.

I won't even touch the argument that same sex marriage in no way affects society... as the final say is out on that, however, all cultures that have fully embraced it in their cultures in history past... well, are they all really here anymore? See, I can pull stuff out of the air as well.

#45 mudslag

mudslag

    I live in your head

  • 8,156 posts
  • Joined: 16-September 06
  • Location: Northwest Chicago burbs

Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:17

I think what people do not understand is that no where does the Bible suggest you tolerate sins, nor the blatant disregard for what is Holy and Pure. many people try to fall back into the 'Christian's must accept everything to be good Christians', when that is crazy.

Be of the world, but not part of it. Accepting what you know (as a Christian) to be wrong, is in itself abhorrent.



People should also understand the bible doesn't rule. Specially in a country that has some many people who don't share those biblical views. The bible also says treat others as you want to be treated. Denying someone else the same thing you can have isn't treating them as you want them to treat you. What is wrong for you, doesn't have anything to do with the next person. In reality, what has no harm on others or society should have no baring on you personally. It's not your job to dictate to others how to live their life.




Anyhoo, aside from that. The point that he was making, is that for a group that wants acceptance and openness, and pure tolerance of belief and rights, they sure call for the hurt when people take the opposite stance from theirs.

The main main point being, 'white' folks, and also Christians in general, have begun seeing persecution for just their beliefs at an alarming rate - especially when other groups claim to want diversity and to welcome all others.



Anyhoo I addressed that in the post above. And what does "white folks" have anything to do with this? There are just as many non whites Christians out there too. Again having a belief and acting on that belief are two different worlds. So stop crying persecution as you practice it yourself.