Is that not a blatant drive-by troll then?
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
Is that not a blatant drive-by troll then?
Acerac
Banned
There was at least one member who wasn't banned in this thread who did it worse.
Still reading the thread Chris25?
That doesn't follow. At all. Also, there are tons of rights that individuals have that no court would dream of applying to corporations, and the law really does treat corporations very differently from individuals.
I don't think there's much of a logical basis for that, although if you find them donating money particularly offensive then, fine, whatever. CFA's actual speech has an impact on the public discourse mostly because it's a large company, and you contribute to it being a large company by patronizing it. That effect is probably comparable in magnitude to the impact of the fraction of a cent they're giving to anti-gay causes out of the money you give them.
Edit: After all, all their funding of anti-gay groups accomplishes is to create more anti-gay speech, more or less. I don't see how outsourcing anti-gay speech is worse than producing it in-house. And contributing to their being a large company allows them to directly employ people who have to work in what has the potential to be a pretty hostile environment (regardless of policy, knowing that the people at the top have it out for you is going to be tough), and CFA's speech may have more of an impact than a generic anti-gay group's speech on the persuadable employees at CFA.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
My love for their delicious sandwich outweighs my give a shit that they are against redefining marriage. Kudos to them for sticking by their beliefs. Brutal honesty like that is rare nowadays.
Devolution
Member
Fuck yeah, Nazis! Brutal honesty! Godwin would be happy I think.
If you want to keep eating Chick-Fil-A, that's fine, but don't try and come up with excuses for it, especially if they're as ridiculous as this.
Devolution
Member
Also for the record marriage has been redefined and different across all cultures. The whole "sanctity" of a process in which women were treated as chattel is fucking hilarious.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
Nazi's LOL. That's a logical comparison. Just gonna bow out of this thread.
Devolution
Member
About as logical as giving a restaurant kudos for their bigoted ass beliefs.
Wafflecakes
Member
Not among the worse Nazi comparisons.
Snipe and run.
In reality it IS a logical comparison. Some people are saying that what they see as good food is more important than people's equal rights. Well fine, how far are you willing to take that? Is it just gays who get shit on by businesses you support, or are you willing to support groups that are anti-jewish, anti-black, anti-Catholic, etc. What forms of bigotry will you overlook and what forms won't you overlook?
metalslimer
Member
Oh please. Troll and thread and then leave when people call you on it.
How about this then. Say Company X thinks you are a deserving of less rights because your name has an insect and a fish combined in it. They spend millions convincing people of this. Is this simply brutal honesty, or would you feel a bit fucked off?
CornBurrito
Member
The vast majority of the people in this thread who posted shit like "I WANNA GO THERE RIGHT NOW" got banned, because in the context of this thread such comments exist only to anger others.
And the Nazi comparison isn't that poor of a comparison in the context of your post. You value the brutal honesty of one's beliefs moreso than human rights.
This is what's fucking crazy and bugs the hell out of me, too. They act like the current definition of marriage has been around forever, and that only works if you ignore some really really key things that have changed very recently.
CornBurrito
Member
The fact that you used the term "redefining marriage" is telling.
I was just gonna dismiss this as sarcasm, but after reading your second post, I can see you're just trolling.
I'm surprised this thread isn't more of a graveyard than it already is. Not backseat modding. Just shocked at the restraint.
I've never eaten at CFA, but I really wanted to. I heard good things about their food, even if it was fast food. Now, though, it definitely isn't happening. Oh well, despite the accolades I seriously doubt I'm missing much. It is fast food for crying out loud.
I've never eaten at CFA, but I really wanted to. I heard good things about their food, even if it was fast food. Now, though, it definitely isn't happening. Oh well, despite the accolades I seriously doubt I'm missing much. It is fast food for crying out loud.
This is a nice response because the same can be said for Child labor, war supporting, companies who's tactics make Chick-Fil-A look like the nicest company in the world, yet all i can see in this thread is a pick and choose attitude to attack people who say they would continue eating there.If i had this mind set half the clothes i own would be in the trash and i'm 90% of the electronics i own would be gone as well.
CornBurrito
Member
It is far far easier to avoid buying a chicken sandwich, than clothing and electronics.
I said more or less the same thing and people countered with "It's too hard to fight giant corporations like Apple, so let's fight things that are a bit easier. Fighting something is better than fighting nothing."
I think that argument is hogwash though.
You can't claim moral superiority (by getting upset everyone isn't boycotting something you are) and ignore other blantant issues.
EDIT: And there we go.
No. There are two opinions on the matter. Only one is right - the one that doesn't base the right to marry on one's sexual orientation.
If I am of the opinion that 2+2=5, am I right? Of course not. Opinions can be wrong. And in this case, if you are of the opinion that gays should not be allowed to marry, you are wrong.
Wafflecakes
Member
Ah the "Well if you can't do everything you should do nothing" argument combined with the "well if there are things worse in the world you should ignore it". This thread never disappointing.
Oh come on. So then people either have no principles at all, or else they're maximizing what they do to help?
How on earth is fighting something not better than fighting nothing? How on earth is it not morally superior to be complicit in less evil in the world?
Edit: I feel about this kind of comment the way I feel about the "if it weren't for religion everybody would be going around stealing and killing all the time" folks. I'm just really, really glad that they personally are restrained by whatever weird systems they think are in place to restrain them. Edit2: Well, really I assume that they're not actually that evil and are just confused about what it is they actually think. Nobody can really believe this crap, even if they think they do.
Ah well i choose not to support some clothing companies, you can choose not to support Chick-Fil-A because you got your feelings hurt.I just made a conscious decision to pick and choose just like the ya'll hate the gayz if you eat there people posting here.
If they made a law to block all fast food chicken places that'd be one thing. This, however, is not that.
My point is that some people in this thread are incensed that everyone isn't obviously boycotting Chick-Fil-A based on what the CEO said they do with their money.
That's a far different position than saying "I disagree with Chick-Fil-A's stance, but it's up to the individual to determine how they want to go about handling the issue."
Not everyone, just some people are acting like moral police. And I'm saying if you're going to start throwing your ethics onto others and belittling them for not having the same moral compass as you on this one topic, then you better be above reproach on all topics otherwise you're a giant hypocrite.
You're missing the point. The issue is that boycotting CFA is easy. You don't have to go without a laptop, you don't have to go without a phone, etc. Almost everyone can get something that is almost exactly as good for almost exactly as much effort as a CFA chicken sandwich without going to CFA. If the anti-gay thing matters even a little bit, you can almost costlessly avoid CFA.
I'm actually happy to grant that someone could love it so much that they can still justify going there, but actually lots of people in this thread have seemed happy to grant that. The general assumption, and it's a reasonable one, is that very few people genuinely love CFA that much. But sure, if you've just gotten off an airplane, you're really hungry, and it's CFA or Cinnabun, nobody's going to hate you for going to CFA. But when you're at home and deciding where to go to pick up some lunch, it should matter more.
faceless007
Member
If you had been around during Civil Rights you would have asked why Rosa Parks only stayed sitting on that one bus on that one day and not every other bus ride she took before that day. And everytime a group staged a sit-in at a whites-only restaurant, you would have asked why they were only going to that restaurant and not every other whites-only restaurant in the state.
I made some edits above, fyi.Not buying an iPhone is easy too. Like incredibly easy. You just buy something else.
But an iPhone is actually pretty different from an Android. One can sensibly have a very strong preference for one over the other. Plus if you're on a particular carrier you can have very strong financial incentives to stick with one or the other. Finally, most phones have similar issues. I'm not aware of a "fair trade" smartphone. But it's pretty easy to find pro-gay chicken.
And how do you know those people aren't fighting for something? You already made up your mind on what you think of the people that continue to eat at Chick-Fil-A btw I've never eaten there and i'm with the people in this thread that won't now that i know there stance but tons of people in this thread are making assumptions like hardcore vegans.
It seems to me there is a difference between people condemning those who actively are MORE supportive of CFA because they support anti-gay causes and people who choose to buy clothing from sources that may or may not use child labor. Especially since sweat shop labor actually increases the standard of living in the countries in question. Note that's not a defense of CHILD labor, merely sweat shops. People do like to use the issue to inflame passions without looking at the impact though.
How dare you fight for something and not also everything else! Look at you being all morally superior!
Look, I'm just responding to what people are saying. What they're saying seems to imply that it doesn't make sense to fight for something if you're not fighting for everything, so I assume they're either not fighting for anything or they're fighting for everything.
Devolution
Member
Stump already went to, at length I might add, how using electronics or other kinds of straw manning the debate with industrial business problems is not equivalent to the issue at hand.
So if you're not "for" something, you have to be against it? I think Bush said something similar....and I didn't agree with that, either.
Yeah, there are a lot people who are completely against gay marriage because of their opinion on homosexuality (the majority opinion) but the opinion about marriage being between a man and a woman isn't always about being opposed to gay people (the minority opinion). Just like having a strict "man & woman" definition has nothing to do with people who have faiths that practice polygamy, polyandry or any other interpretation of marriage. You respect their beliefs and what they do, but just because you have a difference of opinion concerning marriage (meaning that your definition doesn't include polygamous relationships), you're a bigot and you hate them? No. You just have a different definition of marriage. There is no universal fact on what marriage is. Was Obama a bigot when he declared his definition of marriage in 2004?
So that may or may not answer your question because I wasn't arguing "against" something, but rather for "something else".
So... what was that "something else" you were arguing for? What do you mean by all this "definition" talk? A definition is what a word means. We define words, either prescriptively or through use (take your pick). So why should we prescribe or use marriage as "one man and one woman"? What's the important distinction being made there? Why should we define it that way in the law?
You're just saying "that's my position because it's my position". You haven't explained why that's your position.
Also, yes, on legal questions you're either for something or against it. If you don't want gay marriage to be legal, then you are against legal gay marriage. There's no middle ground of not wanting it to be legal but also not wanting it to be not legal. What would that legal regime look like? One could be perfectly indifferent, I suppose, but that's just being slightly less bigoted than the people who are against it. There are good reasons to be for legal gay marriage, and no good reasons to be against it. You can't be indifferent unless you think there are roughly comparable reasons on either side.
... You do know that recent polling has shown majority support for gay marriage, right?
Yeah... no.
Suppose you were in middle school and the school had a vote about what you wanted to eat on wednesdays, Suppose the choice was between chicken nuggets or pizza. That's just an opinion. NOW suppose the losing item would be dropped from the menu entirely. THAT'S the difference because what you're arguing is for an "opinion" that actually affects and harms those who disagree with you.
What other reason is there? The only other reason ever brought up is that gay people can't procreate which is just as stupid a reason as simply being opposed to gay people.
Devolution
Member
Any reason you can apply to homosexuals sounds straight up dumb if you apply the same reasoning to heterosexuals.
Can't have kids? Well there are straight couples that can't, best deny them the right too.
Daydream Sequence
Banned
CornBurrito
Member
When did I ever once claim moral superiority?
Count Dookkake
Member
lol
It begins.
It begins.
Devolution
Member
Here's to hoping for many more corporations or entities to do the same.
- Status