CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will not stop eating at Chik-Fil-A. Their chicken sandwiches are better than the shit most places offer.

They charge premium prices though.

Interesting development that the company can see the writing on the wall. Backing out of the discussion is a wise move. But they should have never tossed their hat into the ring in the first place.
 
Anyone that supports this place because "the food is good" I just don't know... Seems kind of sickening to me. But freedom of choice and all that, have at it.
 
For those if you who are utterly intolerant of Chick Fil-a's opinion/beliefs, does that not also make you a bigot as well by definition?
 
For those if you who are utterly intolerant of Chick Fil-a's opinion/beliefs, does that not also make you a bigot as well by definition?

Nope.

XnDoz.gif
 
Would you eat at chik fil a
I'd probably not shop at any establishment whose owners are actively opposed to minorities having equal rights.

I'm not going to say anything about people who would, but any sort of blatant discrimination by owners makes me iffy about giving them my business. That Wet Seal thread a bit ago made me wary of them despite the fact that the discrimination is targeted at those who aren't me, for example.

For those if you who are utterly intolerant of Chick Fil-a's opinion/beliefs, does that not also make you a bigot as well by definition?

Remember when variations of this line seemed witty?
 
For those if you who are utterly intolerant of Chick Fil-a's opinion/beliefs, does that not also make you a bigot as well by definition?

Has anyone who said they're boycotting expressed disdain for Christianity? Or do you define Christianity as the opposition of gay rights?
 
Has anyone who said they're boycotting expressed disdain for Christianity? Or do you define Christianity as the opposition of gay rights?

Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.
 
Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.

for me, this has nothing to do with relgion

it has to do with a company thinking that i don't deserve the same rights as everyone else

they can use whatever fucking excuse they want, but at the end of the day, they think i'm second-class.

if me being intolerant of that belief makes me a bigot, then i don't know what to tell you.
 
Anyone that supports this place because "the food is good" I just don't know... Seems kind of sickening to me. But freedom of choice and all that, have at it.

So what am I supposed to do? Only shop at places that I know actively support political/social causes I am aligned with?

I cannot expect every person or company to hold my same views and not shopping at them is unlikely to change their position. Rather have fun in my life than be obsessed with every company's political positions. As long as they are not turning away homosexual people from the counter, I don't care.
 
Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.

I'll be honest, I'm not 100% sure what you're getting at. Would I be opposed to CFA if they used science as their reasoning for opposing gay rights? Of course, my issue is not their beliefs, but their actions.
 
Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.

Oh, you're actually serious. I assumed you were trying to make a joke due to how old and tired that line is.

So what am I supposed to do? Only shop at places that I know actively support political/social causes I am aligned with?

I cannot expect every person or company to hold my same views and not shopping at them is unlikely to change their position. Rather have fun in my life than be obsessed with every company's political positions. As long as they are not turning away homosexual people from the counter, I don't care.

Maybe just not shop at places that are actively and openly lobbying to screw people over?
 
this has been argued to death and it is not comparable. you can easily cut chick-fil-a out of your life rather than stop using all electronics.
So let's stand up for morals when it's convenient? Or maybe understand that you aren't responsible for other peoples decisions, and no, doing business with someone doesn't mean you support thier lifestyles/decisions.
 
So let's stand up for morals when it's convenient? Or maybe understand that you aren't responsible for other peoples decisions, and no, doing business with someone doesn't mean you support thier lifestyles/decisions.

So if we can't do everything, do nothing. Got it.

EDIT: I get the feeling we're just going to go back and forth with this line of argument forever.
 
I'm gay, work at Target, have multiple openly gay managers, and have seen many gay friendly messages sent down by higher ups. I was surprised to see that they even wrote about pride month in the break room news postings that are sent throughout the company.

10 years ago they were anti-gay. They've gotten their act together it seems.

Yeah, its hard for me to see Target being very anti-gay considering where they're headquartered.
 
Intolerance is intolerance.

Chik Fil A expresses their intolerance of homosexuality by donating millions to lobby against equal rights for gays.
Folks who don't like this behavior express their intolerance of this display of corporate behavior by not eating at the restaurant.

Are you still being serious by equating the two?
 
In all fairness, when do boycotts work? It's the reason I laugh when Libertarians suggest the market will correct itself because people won't want to give their money to corporations with shady business practices. People always feel like their singular efforts will go to waste in the grand scheme of things. Plus … half the country will probably actively purchase more of their food because of their stance.
it worked recently with godaddy and their support of sopa, didn't it? well, i guess it depends on how you define "worked".

hocuspocus said:
Eating some waffle fries right now. Yummy.
i really don't understand posts like this. it's one thing to not let their stance affect your purchase of their product, but to gloat about it? it's almost like you yourself are saying you're anti-gay (not saying you are, it's just what it sounds like to me).
 
Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.

There's disagreeing with another person's (or, in this case, business') beliefs, and then there is going out of one's way (i.e. Chick-fil-a donating money) to directly support infringing upon those beliefs. Chick-fil-a is doing the latter. Sorry, there is nothing immoral about refusing to give money to an organization that gives a portion of it away in support of a position you disagree with.
 
I only go there three times a year, so I don't see the harm.

I didn't say you had to stop going there, I merely answered the question you presented on how to not support people that are actively working to make the life of others worse.

i really don't understand posts like this. it's one thing to not let their stance affect your purchase of their product, but to gloat about it? it's almost like you yourself are saying you're anti-gay (not saying you are, it's just what it sounds like to me).
I don't think it's that he's anti-gay, just that he doesn't give a fuck about them.
 
My point is that we all make decisions every day that involve companies with opinions and actions we may not agree with. Do we buy that pair of Nikes? Do we continue to use our high-end electronics? Do we put another tank of gas in the car? We all know (some) of what these companies are up to, yet we go along with it, because we each have a personal tolerance on how much we want to impact our lifestyle for the cause of morals.

Deriding someone for buying a chicken sandwich from an admitted anti-gay company while you surf gaf via your ipad and chill in your Adidas and Levi's is more than a little hypocritical. If you don't ever want to eat there, then that is cool (and totally understandable). Just stop telling others that their choice is incorrect or lacking in morals.
 
I don't think it's that he's anti-gay, just that he doesn't give a fuck about them.

So it's not on a much higher level than a 'tl;dr' post.

Deriding someone for buying a chicken sandwich from an admitted anti-gay company while you surf gaf via your ipad and chill in your Adidas and Levi's is more than a little hypocritical.

How so? Those who have expressed it in this thread do so to say they don't care. They have volunteered the information in a public forum and are getting shit for it in a public forum. GAF did not invade their space to do this. Chik Fil A's actions are a direct invasion on citizens who did not expose themselves to the intrusion in any way.
 
It's a shame because they seem to be head and shoulders above other fast food chains and other companies in general in all other regards. Every community or charitable event I've been to, chick fil a was a sponsor helping pay for it. They seem to treat their employees better. Their stores seem to be cleaner and their staff nicer. I say all this, and I don't even like their food.
 
Deriding someone for buying a chicken sandwich from an admitted anti-gay company while you surf gaf via your ipad and chill in your Adidas and Levi's is more than a little hypocritical. If you don't ever want to eat there, then that is cool (and totally understandable). Just stop telling others that their choice is incorrect or lacking in morals.
...and for those of us who, given the choice, will always pick the least morally questionable option? Some people do care you know. We're not all completely apathetic to the scummy inner workings of these companies.

I'm not gonna say that their choice is incorrect, I will just say it's the choice of somebody who doesn't care about their money going towards discriminating against gays. If you don't care if your money goes to discriminating gay people then eating at this restaurant is a totally logical decision.

So it's not on a much higher level than a 'tl;dr' post.
No, he certainly bothered to put a message in to his post, it's just that said message is that he doesn't care about gays.
 
We only have KFCs around here. I ate Chick-Fil-A once while on a trip and didn't particularly like it too much, so I don't have any really interest in eating it again.

So yeah, not really anything I have to do if I want to protest. I will continue to be upset that we don't have any Coca Cola Freestyle machines though.
 
Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.

Yeah no.

Calling people bigots or boycotting their establishments because they're for restricting and limiting the rights of gay people does not in turn make the person boycotting "intolerant."

Also homosexual bigotry is not an expressly Christian ideal. It has its roots in many societies and has everything to do with sexism. To be a homosexual is "muliebria patitur" or in latin "having a woman's experience." Judaism was the first to codify this in their religious texts, while generally pre-Christian Rome and Greece looked the other way as long as the only ones getting buttfucked were of the lower rung, slaves, whores and wives. Even the passage about Sodom and Gomorrah doesn't explicitly condemn homosexual relationships despite the citation of such a story by Christian rulers like Justinian.

The most that's ever said about homosexuality is that it's not proper for man to lie with another man like he does a woman. This attitude was both true before and after the popularity of Judaism, that one of a powerful rank does not lend himself in any fashion to be degraded. The only difference is that the Abrahamic religions didn't particularly like any homosexual behavior nor did they look the other way, even if kept to master/slave, top citizen/lowly citizen. Nor did they seem so adequate to denounce sodomy amongst men and women on the same level. The issue has never been rooted in "natural" nor "procreative." The issue has and always will be that men should never "lower" themselves into an act of submission. The problem thus is rarely ever the person doing the penetration but that the act degrades the person on the receiving end. Thus gay men are colluding in acts in which they are feminizing themselves and that's just plain wrong.

There has and never was a legit argument against homosexuality other than bullshit.
 
Do you think the response would be any different if chick fil-a used the science defense, rather than religion, as their reasoning?


Intolerance is intolerance.

I am meta-intolerant. I am a second-order bigot, and quite happy to admit it.

What now?

P.S. What's "the science defense"?
 
It doesn't really deserve a response, but what the hell I'll make it nice and simple:

Tolerant opposition to gay marriage: Don't support it by not getting gay married, convince others not to get gay married.
Intolerant opposition to gay marriage: Prevent others from getting gay married who want to, ban gay marriage.

Tolerant opposition to Chick-Fil-A: Don't support it by not buying Chick-Fil-A, convince others not to buy Chick-Fil-A.
Intolerant opposition to Chick-Fil-A: Prevent others from eating there who want to or have their business forcibly shut down.
 
Have never eaten there and never will despite hearing it's great.

Either donate double to non hateful orgs anytime you eat there or you are just as bad as them imo.
 
It doesn't really deserve a response, but what the hell I'll make it nice and simple:

Tolerant opposition to gay marriage: Don't support it by not getting gay married, convince others not to get gay married.
Intolerant opposition to gay marriage: Prevent others from getting gay married who want to, ban gay marriage.

Tolerant opposition to Chick-Fil-A: Don't support it by not buying Chick-Fil-A, convince others not to buy Chick-Fil-A.
Intolerant opposition to Chick-Fil-A: Prevent others from eating there who want to or have their business forcibly shut down.

Bingo.
 
chick-fil-a is the most delicious fast food there is. At least with them I don't have to worry about them stomping on my lettuce and then serving it to me.
 
chick-fil-a is the most delicious fast food there is. At least with them I don't have to worry about them stomping on my lettuce and then serving it to me.

Huh? How do you know some employee didn't wipe their ass with the lettuce before serving it to you?
 
It doesn't really deserve a response, but what the hell I'll make it nice and simple:

Tolerant opposition to gay marriage: Don't support it by not getting gay married, convince others not to get gay married.
Intolerant opposition to gay marriage: Prevent others from getting gay married who want to, ban gay marriage.

Tolerant opposition to Chick-Fil-A: Don't support it by not buying Chick-Fil-A, convince others not to buy Chick-Fil-A.
Intolerant opposition to Chick-Fil-A: Prevent others from eating there who want to or have their business forcibly shut down.

I patiently await someone intentionally misreading this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom