Chick-fil-A Ban

bholcomb said:
I hate kids

I knew I liked you.

well I am not going to read everything that has been posted on all the pages.

but here is the thing, i don't agree with their statement thoug they have the right to say what they want. But here is my thing! they are total hyprocats to their own peace and love towards all that their bible and other books explain. it really in no real words say that being gay is wrong. (i will not debate words right now) but I have the right to be mad at them, and the fact they the yre closed on sunday makes me mad, because they are in a park that is open all the time, and blaa.. blahh..

i wont eat there.. that is just me though. (and whoever I come with :P )

It seems as though the company has seen the light (or maybe just an effect on the bottom line). This is why my voice wasn't silent. This is why I choose to speak up with opposition to what I felt was wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/09/19/chick-fil-a-anti...96580.html

Good deal.

While I'd love to believe they had a legitimate change of heart, I suspect their concern was primarily on the bottom line. That's fine by me, and as you said, Rihard, why it's important that people speak up for things like this.

It's completely meaningless. I can almost guarantee that this "leaked" statement is the result of their lawyers saying, "Look, if one gay employee makes a discrimination claim, we're screwed because of Cathy's big mouth. There is no plausible deniability about the company's position."

I'll believe it when a year passes and we someone can verify that they're no longer making donations to anti-gay marriage lobbyists.

I really doubt this is because of the impact on the bottom line. I will take a wild guess they lose a lot more money being closed on Sundays than they lost angering the minority of customers who care about where their donations go. If all they care about is money, they would open on Sundays.

While some may like to think their "protests" and "voices" were the reason for the new policy, that is almost certainly not the case. I'm with Jeff on this one. It's just for legal protection.

But ultimately, legal protection concerns exist because of the bottom line.

Often times its difficult to track contributions. Maybe money won't be given directly. But what about indirectly? How will that be tracked, if at all?

Considering they're not a public company, they're certainly under no obligation to share that information. I still won't eat there, and their food is still crap.

Jeff said:
It's completely meaningless. I can almost guarantee that this "leaked" statement is the result of their lawyers saying, "Look, if one gay employee makes a discrimination claim, we're screwed because of Cathy's big mouth..."

Except that it's not discrimination, with sexual orientation not being a protected class (admittedly, "yet", but that's not the point). That being the case, it seems unlikely that fear of a baseless lawsuit would provide enough incentive for them to change their position.

Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate. Last time I checked they haven't banned anyone from their restaurants or refused anyone any service. It's amazing how you can't have an opinion or publicly donate to anyone you want anymore.

You've completely missed the point when it was discussed then. It's not about Cathy's opinion (even though it is for some) or about whether or not people where refused service. It's the fact that money from the company was used to support discrimination groups. If that's not a good enough reason to voice your own dissatisfaction....then why bother having the freedom of speech and protest?

Chick-fil-A, as far as individual restaurants may go, may not discriminate, but the guy who runs the show and those yahoo republicans that supported them sure are expressing a form of discrimination.

Nope. Not according to the word of law.

Your use of the word "discrimination" is just an opinion, and not fact-based under the rules of law in this great country.

Oh I see.

So forcing black people to ride in the back of a bus was only discrimination once it became illegal.

And a country the doesn't recognize discrimination against "sexual orientation" as actual discrimination isn't that "great" of a country imo.

Jeff said:
I'll believe it when a year passes and we someone can verify that they're no longer making donations to anti-gay marriage lobbyists.

I feel the same way. I'm in no hurry to rush out and have a chicken sandwich. Actions speak louder than words and I'll believe it when I see it. And yeah, their food isn't that great anyway.

Repeatedly comparing "discrimination" against gays, to discrimination against blacks, does not make this false argument more compelling simply by repeating it over and over.

And let's recognize something else while we are at it. The good folks on this forum (and coaster nuts in general) are pretty far left-leaning, and not representative of how the country feels about this issue on an aggregate level, right or wrong. It's kinda like reading the comments after an article on MSNBC. Those folks are so far left, that any moderate or right wing comments just show up as "collapsed by the community". So although 95% of the comments on this thread have been pro-LGBT, and anti-Cathy, that doesn't mean the whole country feels the same way.

Actually, new guy, the majority of people in the United States now support gay marriage, and the margin grows wider every year.

Furthermore, discriminating against someone because of a trait they are born with, whether that be eye color, hair color, or sexual orientation is the same no matter how you look at it. Unfortunately, many people are still ignorant to the fact that being gay is not a choice. With that, I cannot help you, although I am proud to have helped thousands of college students realize this.

Also, acceptance of gay marriage is also gaining ground in the GOP. It is not a "left" or "right" issue (in fact, it's not a Christian issue either); that makes you sound quite ridiculous. Human rights is not a Republican, Democrat, Green, Tea Party, or Occupy issue...it's for all of us.

You're right. The whole country doesn't feel this way, but most do.

Kevinj said:

You're right. The whole country doesn't feel this way, but most do.

Define "most".

Let me help you out. Let's say you buy a bag of apples. Some green, some red. You open the bag and sort your apples, and discover that you have 6 red, and 4 green.

In the above example, you could say a sentence like..."Most of my apples are red."

Get it?

Kevin never metaphor he didn't like. ;)

KevinJ, I'm not sure 60% qualifies as "most". That's the type of language a politician would use. What then, is "most"? 51%? At what point does one reach "most"?

Secondly, can you provide any actual statistical evidence to back up your 60% claim?

And finally, if you by chance come up with some 60% superr-majority (the left-leaning should know what this means, after all they had it before the 2010 correction that brought in the tea party) is it of a sample size and demographic appropriate to substantiate the American people, or is it an informal Pointbuzz (or other left-leaning) survey??