Chick-fil-A Ban

Interesting article. But, it all sounded like a strategic business decision rather than Dan Cathy wanting to love and accept all human beings.

It would have seemed more sincere if every dollar given to anti-GLBT groups was matched with a one-time donation to pro-GLBT groups. Then CFA could move forward with the agenda of providing the best fast food chicken sandwich.

Still, progress was made. Kudos to all the protesters and people standing up for what is right.

I also chalked it up to a business decision. By getting the author's group to drop their boycott, Chick-fil-A removed the biggest hurdle they faced with expanding onto college campuses across the country. They probably removed a lot of the bad press about their company along with it. Additionally, there's evidence that Chick-fil-A hasn't stopped giving to hate groups, they just merely give less money to different hate groups. The article even says they stopped giving to "the move divisive" anti-gay groups, which reading between the lines, tells me they still give to some "less divisive" groups.

If Mr. Cathy is sincere, then good for him. This country would be a lot better off if people stopped being so reactionary and actually had a respectful conversation with those who hold opposing viewpoints.

Ffej said:
Interesting article. But, it all sounded like a strategic business decision rather than Dan Cathy wanting to love and accept all human beings.

Exactly. And CFA hasn't actually stopped their practices, nor have they changed their anti-discrimination policies.

Hey look, everyone! I'm oppressing people infinitesimally less now (due to all that bad PR)! Want some chicken?

Ffej said:
But, it all sounded like a strategic business decision rather than Dan Cathy wanting to love and accept all human beings.

Perhaps. I don't know Dan Cathy. But in this instance, I'm inclined to defer to the author, who seems as if he's spent a lot of time getting to know him personally.

djDaemon said:

Ffej said:
Interesting article. But, it all sounded like a strategic business decision rather than Dan Cathy wanting to love and accept all human beings.

Exactly. And CFA hasn't actually stopped their practices, nor have they changed their anti-discrimination policies.

Hey look, everyone! I'm oppressing people infinitesimally less now (due to all that bad PR)! Want some chicken?

So the founder of a large pro-GLBT organization writes an article, with no apparent motivation, and after getting to know Mr. Cathy very well. He states his appreciation for Cathy's understanding, willingness to listen, and sincere concern for some of the side effects of his company's actions. But that's not good enough for Ralph and Brandon, who presumably aren't among the group of people directly affected by the previous donations?

Huh????

Oh, come on. He's all business. Remember...just vote with your money, people.

MaverickLaunch said:
He states his appreciation for Cathy's understanding, willingness to listen, and sincere concern for some of the side effects of his company's actions.

So, the author's a nice guy. Super. That doesn't make Cathy's behavior morally appropriate.

But that's not good enough for Ralph and Brandon, who presumably aren't among the group of people directly affected by the previous donations?

So, if someone isn't directly affected by an act of oppression, they shouldn't care about it? That's a pretty self-centered attitude.

Ditto on both points. Being super nice and paying someone lip service doesn't really change the facts. His restaurant still gives some amount of money to hate groups, and a little bit of sweet talking doesn't magically make that ok.

I don't know how many times it can be said, but if you don't like it, don't eat there! It really is that simple. We have that freedom, and so does Dan Cathy. I fail to see what that has to do with a roller coaster forum, especially, 35 pages worth (which I have just added to, damn the hypocrisy!)

MaverickLaunch said:
...if you don't like it, don't eat there!

I don't feel that my moral responsibility toward oppression ends at simply staying out of the fray. People should know and acknowledge evil deeds when they're occurring. Anything less is barbaric.

...so does Dan Cathy.

He shouldn't have the freedom to oppress a segment of society just because some guy in a book told him to. That's the entire point.

I fail to see what that has to do with a roller coaster forum...

Did you miss the part about a CFA restaurant at CP?

You must be part of that Liberal group that says we shouldn't have the right to have guns just because it was written in some old constitution book.

Guns have absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. And comparing the Bible to the Constitution of a secular nation is downright absurd, to put it nicely.

Yes it does, its about Chick-fil-A's freedom to support whatever cause they want to support. The guns debate boils down to the same thing.

djDaemon said:

I don't feel that my moral responsibility toward oppression ends at simply staying out of the fray. People should know and acknowledge evil deeds when they're occurring. Anything less is barbaric.

Evil deeds? That sure sounds like a statement involving religion. You must have read about that in "some book".

He probably did, maybe the dictionary.

"Adjective
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
"

I wonder how many people would boycott the existence of chicken if the dictionary told them too? Maybe Chick-Fil-A?

I completely agree with Dj. How can gay rights be a form of opinion when in its truest form it is simply oppression. Even Further, I think Dj was right to say that this has nothing to do with Gun rights; in this case there is no choice that will result in causalities, trauma, or negative influences on the society or economy.

It's not a matter or opinion, it's a matter of stubbornness. This kind of viewpoint by such a major company makes it even more difficult for our society to continue advancing towards equality.

Corkscrew Follies said:
Yes it does, its about Chick-fil-A's freedom to support whatever cause they want to support. The guns debate boils down to the same thing.

Your freedom ends once it begins affecting others.

You can try and spin this into something related to the gun debate, but the two are simply not related. You're free to own a gun, because you owning a gun doesn't directly impact me. You're not free to shoot me with a gun, because shooting me with a gun does directly impact me.

CFA and Cathy should be free to have the opinion that homosexuals are dirty, horrible human beings not fit for society, because their opinion does not directly affect others. CFA and Cathy should not be free to actively oppress the rights of homosexuals, because oppressing others does directly affect others.

Brandon, your idealism just doesn't work on a practical level.

I think you would not enjoy living in a world where one's every action had to pass the litmus test you've described. It would be nothing like the "free" society we live in.

Every action has an impact. Some more subtle than others. Who are you, or anyone else, to decide what level of impact is acceptable. Perhaps you would be better off living in a country where the government, or a religion, makes all the decisions for you. This takes away the burden of individual choice, and the risk that your action may have some detrimental impact, no matter how small.

MaverickLaunch said:
Perhaps you would be better off living in a country where the government, or a religion, makes all the decisions for you.

You have it completely backwards. Religion and/or government deciding what I can or cannot do, or who I can or cannot marry is exactly the situation I'm pointing out as being unacceptable.

The entire point here is that Cathy's religious beliefs are not an acceptable excuse for him to deny others the right to get married. If he doesn't like homosexuals, so be it. No one is forcing him to marry another dude. But he has no right to deny others the right to do so.

You have it completely backwards. Religion and/or government deciding what I can or cannot do, or who I can or cannot marry is exactly the situation I'm pointing out as being unacceptable.

MaverickLaunch, there are some issues that are morally unacceptable. Some where it is our duty as human beings to fight to make right. Just imagine how little progress gay rights would have made if they had the same mindset, that they had no "right" to decide what is wrong. This is not an issue of opinions, it's an issue of oppression.

I think we've sufficiently beat this topic into the ground. Please feel free to continue your discussion through our lovely private message feature. :)