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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crumpet Trumpet said:
On the plus side, every bite they take of this sewage is one step closer to heart disease and death
ib1FpKgVQT1ozj.gif
Click to expand...



And there we go.
 
RBH said:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...y-charged-company-president-article-1.1116841
Click to expand...

Not sure why it isn't ok for a company to state they are pro-traditional family values, if a company states they're "pro-gay", would there be as much backlash?

For the record, I don't mind gay people doing whatever the fuck they want, I don't need to fucking know, as long as they pay their taxes and they don't mooch off government benefits, I see husbands and wives everyday pretending they're divorced so they can fucking milk every fucking cent from the government as single mothers even though they basically live together, if you're going to have five kids, fucking own this shit up and get married.

But if a company likes to support traditional family values, it's their perogative and none of my fucking business, good on them and fuck this whole "omg your idealogy doesn't conform to mine and is thus hicktown god-loving bigotry" bullshit.

Attackthebase said:
Done! That shall be my milkshake for tomorrow then.



I also haven't gone to Chick-Fil-A in a long while. The outcry reminded me that it's time to eat there. My primary reason for going is the greatness of its food (and its shakes).
Click to expand...

*high fucking exploda five*
 
Attackthebase said:
I also haven't gone to Chick-Fil-A in a long while. The outcry reminded me that it's time to eat there. My primary reason for going is the greatness of its food (and its shakes).
Click to expand...
So you hear that the owner of this chain hates gays and is unapologetic about it and you immediately think that you want some of their food. You then go to tell the people that are upset about this that you will be eating there because of them.

I'm glad that there is no confusion here.
 
Acerac said:
This is easily the least gay friendly thread I have ever seen on GAF. Honestly this is the first thread I've read on GAF pertaining to gays that makes me uncomfortable hearing what others have to think.
Click to expand...
Please you're ignoring a gay poster who said himself that they had no issue and enjoyed the food, did you mss that post?
 
Aside from just being a remix of the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' argument, there is an immense gulf of difference that distinguishes buying things from businesses that engage in "corrupt" labor practices vs. a company which openly advocates against equal rights and uses its profits to engage in that social cause.

1. Companies that engage in bad environmental or labor practices need to be held accountable by government regulations. These are inherently bad actions that need to be legislated against and controlled at an executive level.

2. Individuals in prominent positions that hold bigoted social beliefs and donate money to those causes are NOT subject to government regulation of their speech. That would be a violation of our constitution. Therefore, it is the responsibility of us as individuals to use our power (of the dollar) to speak out against these beliefs and advocacies.

If you don't believe in equal marriage, then fine, eat at CFA. But if you do, then know that you are undercutting your own values for a sandwich.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Please you're ignoring a gay poster who said himself that they had no issue and enjoyed the food, did you mss that post?
Click to expand...
Even you aren't dumb enough to believe that one individual speaks for an entire group.
 
ProfessorMoran said:
Not sure why it isn't ok for a company to state they are pro-traditional family values, if a company states they're "pro-gay", would there be as much backlash?

For the record, I don't mind gay people doing whatever the fuck they want, I don't need to fucking know, as long as they pay their taxes and they don't mooch off government benefits, I see husbands and wives everyday pretending they're divorced so they can fucking milk every fucking cent from the government as single mothers even though they basically live together, if you're going to have five kids, fucking own this shit up.

But if a company likes to support traditional family values, it's their perogative and none of my fucking business, good on them and fuck this whole "omg your idealogy doesn't conform to mine and is thus hicktown god-loving bigotry" bullshit.
Click to expand...

The bolded is not an accurate description of the issue at hand.

Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Please you're ignoring a gay poster who said himself that they had no issue and enjoyed the food, did you mss that post?
Click to expand...

That reminds me, is there a gay equivalent for house negro or Uncle Tom?
 
outunderthestars said:
Where do you stop being outraged then? Almost everything you own was built in sweatshops, Every company that provides gasoline for your car are heavy supporters of the Republican Party. Microsoft has given over $100,000 to Mitt Romney this year. Hell, even Urban Outfitters CEO donated large sums of money to Rick Santorum.


Look at any company long enough and you'll find something you don't like about them.
Click to expand...

We're all hypocrites. It'd be nice to live in an ideal world world where none of this shit happens, but to think it'll end one day is a bit naive.
 
Gotchaye said:
I doubt many people are claiming that there's an unlimited obligation to avoid supporting immoral policies (apologies if Devolution was actually claiming that). The issue here is that it's actually really, really easy for most people to avoid Chick-Fil-A; it's not so much more convenient and tasty that it's worth patronizing despite this. Microsoft products are practically unavoidable without substantial sacrifice.
Click to expand...

Yup. You can't fight all the battles that need fighting all the time, but this one seems pretty easy to tackle.


KingK said:
Exactly. It's not like there aren't other places to get chicken that don't publicly flaunt bigotry.
Click to expand...

Or local markets! Two good things for the price of one!
 
SnakeswithLasers said:
Aside from just being a remix of the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' argument, there is an immense gulf of difference that distinguishes buying things from businesses that engage in "corrupt" labor practices vs. a company which openly advocates against equal rights and uses its profits to engage in that social cause.

1. Companies that engage in bad environmental or labor practices need to be held accountable by government regulations. These are inherently bad actions that need to be legislated against and controlled at an executive level.

2. Individuals in prominent positions that hold bigoted social beliefs and donate money to those causes are NOT subject to government regulation of their speech. That would be a violation of our constitution. Therefore, it is the responsibility of us as individuals to use our power (of the dollar) to speak out against these beliefs and advocacies.

If you don't believe in equal marriage, then fine, eat at CFA. But if you do, then know that you are undercutting your own values for a sandwich.
Click to expand...
What about the poster who is gay who doesn't care and has no problem eating there? You seemed to be scared to address that.
 
outunderthestars said:
Again, you're only angry at this one because it's in the news. Go look at almost any company and you'll find some donation or policy that personally offends you.
Click to expand...

I don't live in a country where Chick Fil A exists. I do live in a country with gay marriage.

I hope you never use a piece of printer paper, a Dixie cup, Brawny or Angel Soft paper, go to Coachella, eat at Waffle House or White Castle, wear New Balance shoes, go to Gold's Gym, see a movie at a Regal Cinema, shop at Target, Urban Outfitters, and Walmart, or watch a Galaxy, Lakers, Magic or Kings game, or stay at a Marriott hotel as every single one of them have donated money to extreme right wing political groups that are fighting to oppress gays, women, and roll back environmental regulations.
Click to expand...

Most of those things don't exist in my country and I wouldn't use most of them if they did. Am I now free to point out that this is gross, or do I need to list all the places I shop so you can decide if I'm a good enough person?
 
Stumpokapow said:
I don't live in a country where Chick Fil A exists. I do live in a country with gay marriage.



Most of those things don't exist in my country and I wouldn't use most of them if they did. Am I now free to point out that this is gross, or do I need to list all the places I shop so you can decide if I'm a good enough person?
Click to expand...

Which country are you from, if you don't mind me asking?
 
ProfessorMoran said:
But if a company likes to support traditional family values, it's their perogative and none of my fucking business, good on them and fuck this whole "omg your idealogy doesn't conform to mine and is thus hicktown god-loving bigotry" bullshit.
Click to expand...
The problem is that when you give money to a company which predictably gives some of that money to support immoral causes, you are causally responsible for some of that support. If you did not give the company your money, the immoral cause would likely receive less support. Therefore, if you think it's a good thing for immoral causes to receive as little support as possible, you have a reason to refrain from giving money to the company. If there are good alternatives to giving money to the company that don't produce (as much) support for immoral causes, you have an obligation to pursue those alternatives. This isn't that hard.
 
ProfessorMoran said:
Not sure why it isn't ok for a company to state they are pro-traditional family values, if a company states they're "pro-gay", would there be as much backlash?
Click to expand...

"Traditional family values" is a code phrase for anti-gay. Not sure what your question has to do with anything.
 
The apparent glee at still going to eat there as a result of this thread is what I can't get over. Some people are just pieces of shit.


As for all the arguments about other companies having stuff that is just as bad but kept secret, I'm sure that's right. However, if that shit was exposed I highly doubt they would be unapologetic about it. Also, this is a fast food restaurant. It's something that is so easy to avoid.
 
Its just food. Eat it or dont eat it. Same as any other restaurant. There are a lot of people who work in these places and they are required by law to be non-discriminatory about the religious or sexual affiliation of who they hire. You are actually more punishing workers and owners on a local level who are just trying to earn a paycheck than you are punishing those at the top. the same goes for gasoline boycotts. Nobody at the top gets hurt by any of these boycotts. If you really want to take a moral stance, you have the freedom to do so, it just isnt going to actually harm the companies.
 
Please do not assume my interest in discussing this issue to in any way imply that I am anti-gay rights. I just find it interesting how many people in this thread seem to only care about these issues up until the point it actually requires them to abstain from using a product or service they actually enjoy.

Should the average workers of a company suffer because of the political donations of company executives?

Also: If you really want to get pissed at Chick-Fil-A look into the "morality clauses" in the scholarships they offer women at Berry College in Georgia. I once dated a girl who received one of them and it was absurd.
 
Doctor West said:
The apparent glee at still going to eat there as a result of this thread is what I can't get over. Some people are just pieces of shit.
Click to expand...

I think some of it is motivated by being fans of CFA who don't want to hear nasty things about them and so get annoyed at the messenger, some by rebellion against being told what you're supposed to do in order to be a good person, and some by people who are actually anti-gay.

If it makes you feel any better, I would guess that the third contingent is smaller than the other two.
 
White Man said:
If it was cool for the US to use ex-Nazi scientists to gain an edge in the postwar world, it's okayish to still like Chik-Fil-A. Their stores smell pretty goddamned good.
Click to expand...

Am I the only one who has a problem with this post? I mean, aside from the sentiment, the analogy?
 
toadster101 said:
Marriage is not a right.
Click to expand...

In many places it is--it certainly is where I live--and even if it is not legally enshrined as a right, does that mean people are less able to support access to it? In a hypothetical legal jurisdiction where housing was not a right, I would not support companies that wanted to deny housing to gay couples or women or black couples or jews or gingers or any other identifiable group on the basis of their identity. Access to the internet may or may not be a right, but I wouldn't want it arbitrarily deprived of any group. Marriage is a very significant personal, social, and cultural expression enshrined and given significance by the state, often with material benefits, and I feel people should be entitled to access that institution.

I'm overwhelmed by the abundance of ad hominem in this thread. God forbid their views differ from yours.
Click to expand...

That's not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is when someone is said to be wrong because of who they are, or some unrelated factor. An ad hominem is not just insulting a person. "Klansmen are jerks" is not an ad hominem.

Vote with your wallet.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the premise of this discussion.
 
toadster101 said:
Marriage is not a right.

I'm overwhelmed by the abundance of ad hominem in this thread. God forbid their views differ from yours. Vote with your wallet.
Click to expand...
Hardliners against gay marriage make it sound like a right for themselves sometimes. Only themselves too.
 
SnakeswithLasers said:
Aside from just being a remix of the fallacious 'appeal to common practice' argument, there is an immense gulf of difference that distinguishes buying things from businesses that engage in "corrupt" labor practices vs. a company which openly advocates against equal rights and uses its profits to engage in that social cause.
Click to expand...
I don't buy this. Sure, if you can correct a workers' rights problem with regulation, go for it, but we still have plenty of reason to favor businesses which voluntarily treat their workers better than others, and in the absence of regulation or a clear political path to regulation, that's what we should do to effect change.
 
outunderthestars said:
Please do not assume my interest in discussing this issue to in any way imply that I am anti-gay rights. I just find it interesting how many people in this thread seem to only care about these issues up until the point it actually requires them to abstain from using a product or service they actually enjoy.

Should the average workers of a company suffer because of the political donations of company executives?

Also: If you really want to get pissed at Chick-Fil-A look into the "morality clauses" in the scholarships they offer women at Berry College in Georgia. I once dated a girl who received one of them and it was absurd.
Click to expand...

This is what I was getting at. It really only hurts the local economy when people boycott something.
 
toadster101 said:
Marriage is not a right.

I'm overwhelmed by the abundance of ad hominem in this thread. God forbid their views differ from yours. Vote with your wallet.
Click to expand...

Which Supreme Court justice are you that you have overturned past precedence which declared that, "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law"?

I didn't realize we had such prominent members on this board.
 
ProfessorMoran said:
Not sure why it isn't ok for a company to state they are pro-traditional family values, if a company states they're "pro-gay", would there be as much backlash?
Click to expand...
You speak as if this is some equal debate of 2 different opinions. Being "pro-family" means being a hateful bigot, justifying it with baseless superstition. Being pro-gay means that you promote equality and the civil rights that every American should have.

So no, a company that's pro-gay shouldn't get as much backlash because they aren't FUCKING PROMOTING DISCRIMINATION.

I probably won't quit eating at Chick-Fil-A. :/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How often do you think about dying?
Cringe  2
57
721
ForAcademicPurposes replied
  • Locked
I think my dog might be gay
20
572
T8SC replied
What Are You Eating?
2
53
2K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
If you are reading this you’re gay! LMAO!!!
Live  2 3
142
613
violence replied
I have trouble seeing Starship Troopers as an anti-fascist film?
2
82
4K
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom