Chick-fil-A Ban

DRB said:
By eating Chic Fil A I am satisfying my craving for chicken and pleasing my appetite. Nothing more.

It is a matter of fact that your money spent at Chick-fil-A is being used to support the passage of laws that limit the freedoms of a segment of the population. If you know this, and continue to give the corporation your money, your actions are willfully oppressive.

Plus people simply do not understand the most basic part of the first amendment...

Re-read the thread. The problem is not what the CEO said. The problem is with the company's actions, not words.

Society forces my need for gasoline. I can't support my family without going to work and public transportion will not get me there. And my shoes were made in the U.S. by an American company. I am a union laborer and go above and beyond to ensure the money I earn stays in this country. I support local, regional, and American companies to help jobs and industry remain here. And while my state doesn't recognize the marraige of same sex couples, my union fought to extend benefits to spouses in these relationships. I am proud to say that I do all in my power to help support and stand up for all Americans, with no bias as to how they choose to live their life.

vwhoward said:
Society forces my need for gasoline. I can't support my family without going to work and public transportion will not get me there. And my shoes were made in the U.S. by an American company. I am a union laborer and go above and beyond to ensure the money I earn stays in this country. I support local, regional, and American companies to help jobs and industry remain here. And while my state doesn't recognize the marraige of same sex couples, my union fought to extend benefits to spouses in these relationships. I am proud to say that I do all in my power to help support and stand up for all Americans, with no bias as to how they choose to live their life.

If you think the money you spend on products made in the USA doesn't go to some individual's (HMFIC) personal agenda you are very naive.

The CEO of the company I word for drives a foreign car. So when a consumer spends money on a product or service my employer offers, that consumer is in effect supporting foreign workers and corporations etc and supporting my CEO's choice to not support the American auto industry. To extend that further, depending on the specific company and country (who could could have very questionable human rights practices) by the logic expressed above the US consumer buying my employers stuff is supporting unethical human rights practices abroad.

People are being disingenuous on this issue and going overboard in the willingness to judge other's POV on the matter.

If you disagree with Chic Fil A's stance then fine, do not frequent the establishment. If a person feels the same about Starbucks (who holds the opposing POV) then don't go there either. Those are choices we are all free to make.

Your straw man argument was debunked several pages back.

^^Key words...all I can do in my power. And just because the CEO of your company drives a foreign car, doesn't translate to the owner of said company (which probably isnt the CEO or you would of said owner instead) using their profits to oppress a segment of America. I realize that I have no control how a company uses its profits, which I may or may not contribute to, but I can choose whether or not to spend my money with companies or individuals based on their business practices and ethics. And when that information is made available to me, I adjust accordingly. I'm not naive enough to think I know how they spend all their profits or which orginaztions they support, but its not hard to find out at least some of their alliances. In the case of CFA, it was a very easy decision to not eat there anymore. And to a certain extent, I don't really care if that affects their bottom line, although I hope it would if enough people decide to do the same, because I know that I am not helping to fund the lobbying for legislation that encroaches on another persons civil liberties. Hence, another excellent night's sleep. :)

vwhoward said:
^^Key words...all I can do in my power. And just because the CEO of your company drives a foreign car, doesn't translate to the owner of said company (which probably isnt the CEO or you would of said owner instead) using their profits to oppress a segment of America. I realize that I have no control how a company uses its profits, which I may or may not contribute to, but I can choose whether or not to spend my money with companies or individuals based on their business practices and ethics. And when that information is made available to me, I adjust accordingly. I'm not naive enough to think I know how they spend all their profits or which orginaztions they support, but its not hard to find out at least some of their alliances. In the case of CFA, it was a very easy decision to not eat there anymore. And to a certain extent, I don't really care if that affects their bottom line, although I hope it would if enough people decide to do the same, because I know that I am not helping to fund the lobbying for legislation that encroaches on another persons civil liberties. Hence, another excellent night's sleep. :)

Fair enough, you make your choice to not spend money there, that is what it is all about, your choice.

I'm just not down with the preaching about the support when in general we as a society do not know where the money goes or care enough across the board with 90% of our purchasing dollars.

If we were true to ourselves we wouldn't be giving money to those in control of oil due to the way they influence their societies in their part of the world. Nor be spending money with corps that are shipping jobs to China, where they still have serious human rights issues.

IOW, in general we are all pretty full of it when we want to be.

Through CP's own admission they've stated that the views of Chick-fil-A are not that of their own. If that's truly the case then I believe they should take action to have them removed from the park. Not doing so is an indirect endorsement of Chick-fil-a's views. Businesses should have an expectation that their vendors behave in a manner that is consistent with their own views.

At the very least, it shows that CP is paying attention, and made an effort to distance themselves from those views. I'll give them that.

vwhoward said:
And just because the CEO of your company drives a foreign car, doesn't translate to the owner of said company (which probably isnt the CEO or you would of said owner instead) using their profits to oppress a segment of America.

So it matters whether it's the owner of the business using his/her earnings from the business to "oppress a segment of America" or the CEO using his/her earnings from the exact same business to "oppress a segment of America."

If the owner of a business wants to "oppress" people that's evil, but if it's just the CEO, I can live with that. Makes sense.

djDaemon said:

Plus people simply do not understand the most basic part of the first amendment...

Re-read the thread. The problem is not what the CEO said. The problem is with the company's actions, not words.

Freedom of Speech covers actions (donating to political candidates, special interest groups, etc) as well as speech and is all covered under the first amendment.

All freedom of speech really guarantees is that you won't be arrested or prosecuted for things you say, or in some cases do.

The plush toys at the game locations are made in China in literal sweat shops where workers, including children are forced to work in horrible conditions- its a form of slavery actually. Should the park pull all of the cheap plush toys as well- the treatment of human beings is by far more important than what one CEO believes. If Cedar Fair pulls Chick Fil A, then where will it end?

http://en.minghui.org/html/articles/2012/3/4/131889.html#.UBxNsYl5mc0

Darn straw man conspirator.

awisenbarger said:
Through CP's own admission they've stated that the views of Chick-fil-A are not that of their own. If that's truly the case then I believe they should take action to have them removed from the park. Not doing so is an indirect endorsement of Chick-fil-a's views. Businesses should have an expectation that their vendors behave in a manner that is consistent with their own views.

Under what grounds does Cedar Point have to terminate a legal contract with a vendor? This has been my point all along. CFA has done nothing illegal and to my knowledge has not violated the contract they have with Cedar Point. Can they choose not to renew there contract? Sure can, but they can not and should not just go to them and say we don't agree with your views or how you spend your money so you are out of here!!

I have watched a few news stories on this subject where they interviewed gay people and they have said the same civil rights they are fighting for allow CFA to have their opinion and to spend there money to promote that opinion.

Not everything people or companies do is illegal, but that doesn't mean they're right either.

Cedar Creek Mine Ride said:
I support legal same sex marriage, but I despise when the courts make ruling forcing allowing it. The courts only have the power to interpret the law, not to make it.

I don't think you're understanding that correctly. The courts aren't forcing it, they are (depending on the case) striking down unconstitutional laws or requiring compliance with existing equality laws.

I though this was an interesting Christian view on the situation. Honestly, I take issue more with these points than I do the owners being dicks.

Calling them "dicks" seems like a reach, if only because they disagree with your views.

I'm a little baffled by the continued name calling that has occurred throughout this thread.

We are Americans. Some of us sell chicken. Some of us rent homes to lower income folks. We have different viewpoints. I get it. But name calling accomishes nothing but to further divisiveness (the hallmark of our current commander in chief, regardless what you think of his politics).

But I think most of us LOVE coasters. So why are we talking about anything else (on this forum)?

There are a host of issues/problems related to what we eat, how much we eat, where/how its raised/produced, etc. Same is true with respect to many of the products that we buy/use. Though those are subject for another thread and probably another forum.

Cathy is taking a position that he believes is consistent with his religion but that is against his economic interests. Mr. Bostic in that blog is taking a position that he believes is consistent with his religion and that furthers his economic interests. Eat my humanely raised (and killed) chickens because god will look more favorably upon you than if you eat CFA/fast food chicken. Maybe there is a blog out there by a vegetable farmer who promises an even more kind judgment by god. :)

MaverickLaunch said:
Calling them "dicks" seems like a reach, if only because they disagree with your views.

No, it's not because of his views, it's because of his actions. Using your financial influence to keep people not like you down is definitely being a dick.

That definitely falls in the guidelines of being a dick. lol

What I'm baffled about is how the super supportive side (for Cathy) is still under the impression that this is over what he said. While what he said was dickish, it's still in his rights.....thus nothing to argue about. Though I guess they'd rather drown out the arguments about what he's doing rather than what he said......just so they have an excuse to "righteously" support him.
And since there's a handful of protesters wrongly focusing on what he said, they definitely run with it to no end. Needless to say, I definitely lost a little bit more of faith in humanity after a few news stories.

In fact, here's a more well laid out read about what I just said. http://jpbrammer.tumblr.com/post/28574381949/my-final-rant-on-chick-fil-a

P.S.- There is a bit of swearing....just so ya know.

^ In your opinion.