Not just another Chic

[guest010313]

I haven't purchased a Snapple since the late 90s due to the organizations that the company supported financially. While I have never been a chik fil a customer, I would certainly cease my patronage now. If even two cents of my five dollars goes to supporting a cause I find abhorrent I will not support them.

And I loathe hypocrisy and anyone that claims to be Christian and thinks they have some god given right to hate people is the worst sort of hypocrite.

[Dawgs]

And I loathe hypocrisy and anyone that claims to be Christian and thinks they have some god given right to hate people is the worst sort of hypocrite.[/QUOTE]

If they say they are Christian and then state that they HATE an individual or group of individuals, they need to take a long look in the mirror at themselves as they are not following their own beliefs.

This is purely a freedom of speech issue, we all have a right to free speech. We all may suffer the consequence of what we say. But for cities in general to state that they will not allow for a business to be in their town based on what the CEO stated as his personal belief is pure BS. As for your personal freedoms, nobody says you have to eat there and we are free to make that choice, and I sure as hell don't want the government making that decision for me.

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why do people think that if they want to do something it must be a right? There is no "right" to marriage for anyone. Everyone can get married including gay people within the confines of the definition of marriage (one man, one woman, not related to each other and both of an age of consent). There is no gay marriage. Traditional marriage has never, NEVER lost an election in which the people got to choose.

Chik Fil A is about the right of free speech and not gay marriage. Mr. Cathy has no say on any kind of marriage or government action. He cannot make you pay more taxes or send your children off to war. He speaks for himself. The (for lack of a better term) gay Nazis want to stifle dissent and force their agenda on the country by legal fiat.
Adam Smith had a right to be a jerk and his boss had the right to fire his hateful ass.

Dare I point out that Ernst Rohm was gay and an early Nazi. This is not conclusive but so many of his subordinates also shared the same sexual proclivities until HItler had them killed. FYI, Rohm was leader of the "Brown Shirts".

Now gays are Nazis. WTF? Is every person who doesn't think the same as you a Nazi.

Everyone has the right to freedom of speech. Cathy has the right to say what he did and people who didn't like it have the right to organize protests.

I disagree with Mr. Cathy's statement and I don't like how he donates his money. (But its his money to do with as he likes) I do give kudos for Mr. Cathy for putting his religious beliefs before $$$. How much does he lose for closing on the Sabbath.

Gays getting married? They are citizens, pay taxes, what's the problem. Your church doesn't have to marry them, but why should the government stop two consenting adults???

[Kshunter]

You were missing an option in the poll. For me it would have been "I ate there before, it's delicious, and I'll continue eating there." I'm not "homophobic." I'm "homoapathetic." I truly don't give a shit about gay marriage either way. I'm open to persuasion, but vandalism and name calling aren't going to persuade me of a damn thing.

[ss4699]

Originally Posted by newtotown

Ouch - sorry guys 2 of them are the same...
I ate there before but will not go back 1 4.76%
I ate there before and will not go back 0 0%

The one you needed was the:
I ate there before but will not go back 1 4.76%
I ate there before and will go back __ ___%

My apology folks. Did not double check the poll options.

Originally Posted by Kshunter

You were missing an option in the poll.....

Yep Ks - that was pointed out earlier - here is the correction but no way to insert it.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why do people think that if they want to do something it must be a right? There is no "right" to marriage for anyone.

Wrong. Check your Constitutional Law. The Supreme Court established in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is in fact a protected right. Furthermore, the more than 1,000 rights, privileges, and protections provided by legal marriage make it a Constitutional right, and protected under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Everyone can get married including gay people within the confines of the definition of marriage (one man, one woman, not related to each other and both of an age of consent). There is no gay marriage. Traditional marriage has never, NEVER lost an election in which the people got to choose. Wrong again. Of the several states that now allow same sex marriage, New York, Connecticut, Iowa, and New Hampshire passed same sex marriage bills legislatively, as opposed to a court ruling.

Chik Fil A is about the right of free speech and not gay marriage. Mr. Cathy has no say on any kind of marriage or government action. He cannot make you pay more taxes or send your children off to war. He speaks for himself. The (for lack of a better term) gay Nazis want to stifle dissent and force their agenda on the country by legal fiat.Where is your outrage over the Christian nazis who have boycotted Starbucks, Target, Disney, American Outfitters, Wheaties, Home Depot, JC Penney's, and numerous other corporations who have voiced support for gay rights? You get your panties in a wad over boycotting one business, where is your proportional outrage over the bully tactics of so-called Christians? Just askin.
Adam Smith had a right to be a jerk and his boss had the right to fire his hateful ass.

Dare I point out that Ernst Rohm was gay and an early Nazi. This is not conclusive but so many of his subordinates also shared the same sexual proclivities until HItler had them killed. FYI, Rohm was leader of the "Brown Shirts". What the fucking fuck does this have to do with anything??

I will reiterate the point I originally made. The CEO is free to pontificate all he wants on political issues. Anytime a business or business owner decides to wade into the political arena they can count on offending some people, and making others happy. They can count on losing some business, and perhaps gaining other business. That is the beauty of a free market. You can shoot your mouth off to your heart's content. If you happen to be a CEO, customers can vote with their wallet on whether they like what you had to say or not.

For my part, Chik-Fil-A has donated money to so-called Christian groups with anit-gay agenda through their charitable foundation, WinShape. As far as I'm concerned, if even one penny of the money I spend at Chik-Fil-A finds its way to such hate groups, that is one penny too many. Fortunately, never having eaten there to begin with, I have no idea what I'm missing out on. What I do know, is that I am not contributing to furthering the agendas of these so-called Christian groups.

[CuteOldGuy]

Stacy. It's a chicken sandwich. If you've had a chicken sandwich, you haven't missed much. Oh. And pickles.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

PS. I meant to add that I do agree that these city mayors who are vowing to keep Chik-Fil-A out of their cities are over the line when they do so. We the paying public can vote with our wallets when we take issue with a particular company's policies, but its crossing the line when gov't at any level interferes with a business over political melodrama.

[cuddlyteddybear]

The problem is that some people aren't emotionally mature enough to have a constructive discourse on a controversial issue without resorting to destructive and personal attacks. Attack the merits of the ideas that you oppose, not the speaker who is entitled to his or her own opinion.

My respect for an individual's right to free speech overrides my opposition to the CEO's position on gay marriage. Let him say what he wants. If the stockholders or customers don't like his opinion, they are free to exercise their right of free speech or to peacefully protest, as long as it's done lawfully.

Rather than trying to limit speech and protests, we should encourage them. They serve a valid purpose in defining the public discourse on various issues.

[ss4699]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I will reiterate the point I originally made. The CEO is free to pontificate all he wants on political issues. Anytime a business or business owner decides to wade into the political arena they can count on offending some people, and making others happy. They can count on losing some business, and perhaps gaining other business. That is the beauty of a free market. You can shoot your mouth off to your heart's content. If you happen to be a CEO, customers can vote with their wallet on whether they like what you had to say or not.

For my part, Chik-Fil-A has donated money to so-called Christian groups with anit-gay agenda through their charitable foundation, WinShape. As far as I'm concerned, if even one penny of the money I spend at Chik-Fil-A finds its way to such hate groups, that is one penny too many. Fortunately, never having eaten there to begin with, I have no idea what I'm missing out on. What I do know, is that I am not contributing to furthering the agendas of these so-called Christian groups.

Well balanced, well stated. Do they have debate at the winter or summer Olympics Stacy? Gold medal.
THIS REMINDS ME OF ANOTHER RECENT THREAD.

Originally Posted by cuddlyteddybear

The problem is that some people aren't emotionally mature enough to have a constructive discourse on a controversial issue without resorting to destructive and personal attacks. Attack the merits of the ideas that you oppose, not the speaker who is entitled to his or her own opinion.

My respect for an individual's right to free speech overrides my opposition to the CEO's position on gay marriage. Let him say what he wants. If the stockholders or customers don't like his opinion, they are free to exercise their right of free speech or to peacefully protest, as long as it's done lawfully.

Rather than trying to limit speech and protests, we should encourage them. They serve a valid purpose in defining the public discourse on various issues.

Another GOLD

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Stacy. It's a chicken sandwich. If you've had a chicken sandwich, you haven't missed much. Oh. And pickles.

Since you are CHICKEN COG, maybe you know - it it a CoCK or a HEN in the BUNs???? I would like to know before I bite into it next time!!! I like Stacy's bun a lot myself!

[deacon]

Originally Posted by Lovely_Lilianna

I haven't purchased a Snapple since the late 90s due to the organizations that the company supported financially. While I have never been a chik fil a customer, I would certainly cease my patronage now. If even two cents of my five dollars goes to supporting a cause I find abhorrent I will not support them.

And I loathe hypocrisy and anyone that claims to be Christian and thinks they have some god given right to hate people is the worst sort of hypocrite.

.............................. the c e o doesnt hate gays. he just believes in traditional marriage. this is about free speech. when government wants to shut down or stop private companies from doing business because of the founders beliefs is what should scare everybody.

[KenMonk]

Who cares what one person says. Every company in the world has someone on their board or whatever thats anti-gay, or gay, or racist, or whatever... take your pick. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and if no one would have cared Chik wouldn't have had record sales like a week ago when that support thing went down.

[KenMonk]

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;3018641]Why do people think that if they want to do something it must be a right? There is no "right" to marriage for anyone. Everyone can get married including gay people within the confines of the definition of marriage (one man, one woman, not related to each other and both of an age of consent). There is no gay marriage. Traditional marriage has never, NEVER lost an election in which the people got to choose.

Chik Fil A is about the right of free speech and not gay marriage. Mr. Cathy has no say on any kind of marriage or government action. He cannot make you pay more taxes or send your children off to war. He speaks for himself. The (for lack of a better term) gay Nazis want to stifle dissent and force their agenda on the country by legal fiat.
Adam Smith had a right to be a jerk and his boss had the right to fire his hateful ass.

Dare I point out that Ernst Rohm was gay and an early Nazi. This is not conclusive but so many of his subordinates also shared the same sexual proclivities until HItler had them killed. FYI, Rohm was leader of the "Brown Shirts".[/QUOTE]

he was murdered more because of his views on Hilter and the power he wielded within the Nazi party. Hilter killed a lot of people simply because he wanted to remove critics and potential rivals. In even kept Rohm, and others around longer that he planned because they had their uses.

Rohm wanted a second revolution, one against Hilter, which would be the main reason he was dealt with regardless of sexual preferences.

[Kshunter]

If the gay community is really interested in winning this issue, they are going to have to figure out that debates aren't won by name calling, vandalism, and screaming. They're won by making a persuasive case that our country would be better if gay marriage were allowed universally. Martin Luther King won civil rights; Malcolm X didn't.

Noplace is this more evident than the Chick-Fil-A trumped up controversy. The gays, and their supporters, screamed, yelled, called names, vandalized, and planned an 'event' with behavior calculated to offend and disgust as many people as possible.

Their opponents bought some chicken.

Which one made a bigger impact?

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

PS. I meant to add that I do agree that these city mayors who are vowing to keep Chik-Fil-A out of their cities are over the line when they do so. We the paying public can vote with our wallets when we take issue with a particular company's policies, but its crossing the line when gov't at any level interferes with a business over political melodrama.

+1