It's kind of interesting, what with stuff like this and the graffiti incident. COnservative Libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz had this to say on his program notes last week:
Gay rights aaaaaaaacitivists are planning a “kiss-in” at Chick-fil-a. Super! Let’s see if this crowd can behave as well as the supportive crowd yesterday
The one (or two as it is) bad apple rule seems to always apply.
I do agree It's not a restaurants job to judge, I mean it is a free country to speak you mind but certain thoughts shouldn't be spoken of, defiantly with a business. I know because I own a company. And I see is as unprofessional, and bad for business. It scars the company (What ppl thank about it) and could cause them and other Chick-fil-A companies.
"But this is only true if the viewpoints being expressed are of the approved variety."
You hit the nail right on the head.
The question now morphs into:
Who is it that DEFINES what is acceptable and what is not acceptable?
Who are these liberal cultural elites that would have everyone CONFORM to their beliefs and view points?
This is totally UN-gothic wouldn't you say? To be goth is to rebel against status quo, therefore these Liberal cultural elites can not expect any support from us in this issue right?
Is that supposed to be a qualifier or a DIS-qualifier?
yeah it's tough answering this issue, isn't it?
Once upon a time society decided what is wright and what is wrong. Now it seems only defense lawyers can make such claims.
It's tragic, but i also reject the false claim of "the end of history" by clueless authors such as Fukuyama.
History is always open, as far as I'm concerned.
Think about Faust, etc, et. al....
The one thing I've noticed about the younger set is that they do not have a sense of the tragic. And this could prove the ultimate disaster for Western Cultural Identity.
Somehow I don't think such a big deal would be made out of free speech if Dan Cathy had gone on a rant against black people, Hispanics, women or Muslims. Technically, he would have the right to do so, but very few would have had a problem with giving him the consequences instead of going on about these poor persecuted people whose free speech is being stifled. And maybe they wouldn't feel quite as much for the poor low-level employees of his company who are suffering guilt by association because of him, using the word "liberal" like it's a cuss word. They'd be blaming Cathy even more for that. The company would have cut the jerk loose before his racism, sexism or religious prejudice could poison the whole company. And 50 years from now, it may very well be that nobody in his position would dare run his mouth about what he thinks God thinks about who should marry whom, either.
Gosh Alex, don't you know that freedom of speech means you're supposed to just sit there and absorb everything someone else has to say without offering any sort of opposing response or critique?
A similair thing happened to an e pal of mine who works at taco bell, she had an abusive fellow via the drive through, who later came into the restaurant properly, only to be scared off at the prospect of the cops being called.
Panocha Posse 4 life. Panocha Bandito. Love the camboyana puta. CHUPALO PUTA!!!!
What they are doing is well within reasonable boundaries
Given that we've already established that you consider having your opinions described as "rather pointless" as a personal attack, can you really be considered a reliable judge of what is reasonable?
But funding such groups, is no worse than having an opinion.
It is other people's right to share the truth and their right to refuse to give money to the company and their right to encourage others to refuse to fund discrimination. That is the basis of capitalism, isn't it- the market can choose to make it unprofitable to behave unethically.
Funding groups that actively lobby to change something that has no influence on you is an active form of oppression. When it comes to gay marriage- it's quite petty as well. All you have to do if you don't like gay marriage, is not marry a gay.
So, taking the stance that what the man legally does with his money, simply because it's not something you agree with, is deeply hypocritical.
It's not his money. It is profits from the company. Which means it's the money of people who buy their product. Which means that some people were funding their own oppression.
It is not hypocritical to be offended by being "tricked" into funding a group opposed to you obtaining the same rights as heterosexual couples.
And a useless gesture, as I said, if anyone genuinely wishes to fight that, there are ways that will have a more dramatic effect.
It's a personal choice. It's not to take down the system, just simply refusing to fund something and informing others.
Don't like anti-gay marriage groups. Don't fund them. It's a personal choice.
The easiest to point out is your support for oppressive drug laws, no I'm sure you do not have a problem at all with groups that lobby to keep drugs illegal, because you support that idea.
The problem with drugs threads is that you get idiots who think that because you're not pro-legalisation you're so anti-drugs that you're a complete moron. Your basic assumption there is flawed- as can be demonstrated if you actually read my opinion on what I think the legal status should be and why.
Drug use has wide ranging affects and impacts everyone (thus making any informed opinion a valid one). Gay marriage doesn't.
According to you Bill Gates and Gabe Newell can only spend the money they received from me on things that I want them to spend it on.
Nope. It means that if a company funds things you personally object to, you are free to take your money elsewhere.
Good to know that I still can control my money after I spend it!
Nope you control it before you spend it. If you don't like what is being done with your money, you stop giving it to people. If you're against sweatshops- you don't buy clothing made in sweatshops. If a company funds slavery, you don't give them money. If they're cosmetics companies and do animal research and you're against that... you don't give them money.
Who is being "tricked"?
Corrected that for you: not "being tricked", it's being "tricked". Until the CEO's public statement, people were unaware that they were funding a discriminatory, anti-rights group. They are now aware and choosing not to fund it.
This is what capitalism is about. (at least, in the idealist model of capitalism- the market promotes ethical behaviour through spending power)
I would like to point out, that what you express yourself as believing, is essentially identical to what people who think gay marriage will harm society and should be illegal, also think.
No it isn't... you're demonstrating absolutely no idea about my stance on drug use. Despite expressly mentioning it in the thread you're using (btw, saying "we need to determine some things and there is a lot of ridiculous spin on both sides of the debate" is not the same as "BAN!!!!!BAN!!!BAN!!!" which is how you're portraying my opinion)
Both idea are furthered in the same ways, well except gay people aren't getting raided and shot over nothing.
Essentially, this man, like him or not, like what he does or not, is not doing anything wrong, not "tricking" anyone, ect.
As I have said, he's no longer making people unknowingly fund their own discrimination. As for not doing anything wrong... I'll accept that he's not doing anything illegal.
However, just because something is legal, it doesn't mean that it's right.
You have a nebulous stance on drugs where you can say
"drug users are all lazy and I don't think people should have legal drugs until we can prove it benefits society",
It's bad enough manners to bring in stuff from other threads, let alone utterly misrepresenting me.
Stop being a twat.
So, short answer, you agree with me about not spending your money at the place if it bothers you.
And that funding an anti-rights group is unethical.
You agree with me that the system needs to change for this all to change, yet have a go at me for expressing that opinion.
I don't think the system needs to change. I think that refusing to give money to chick-a-fila is the correct and ethical thing to do. That holding an "opinion" doesn't mean that you should be immune from criticism and backlash (even if the opinion is legal but incredibly distateful)
So why exactly did you disagree with my post since you seem to agree with my stance on things?
Because you stated that funding anti-rights group is not ethically or morally different to merely thinking that gays shouldn't get married.
I've been patient with your bullshit, misrepresentation and taking things from unrelated threads. This is not trolling, just correcting your lies.
I said the ACTIONS they are undertaking are NOT unethical.
So- Preaching, endorsing and lobbying for discrimination is ethical behaviour.
Random religious nutjobs, or hicks attacking gays is not the same thing at all to having governmental agents break in to your house, and shoot your children, non-violent offenders or your pets.
You said that people didn't get attacked for being gay. The truth is that they don't get attacked by some governments for being gay.
And to try and compare the two is a new low.
I wasn't trying to compare the two. I was just presenting facts that demonstrate that your opinion is wrong.
One of the groups they're financially supporting is actively defending the "Kill the gays" law in Uganda, thus they're actively giving money to a group who openly encourages people to be murdered due to their sexual preferences.
Is that violent enough for you?
First of all, it's bad manners to bring up unrelated threads. And this isn't anger, it's just that I no longer consider you worthy of kind words and so I am at liberty to call you a twat because of the way you insist on misrepresenting me.
I did was pointed out a belief you have, that is analogous to the one you are upset over, and how you support similarly oppressive ideas.
Not a belief I've had. Nor one that I've expressed. I don't make sweeping generalisations without accepting that they're generalisations. I am not going to bring my opinions on drugs because I know that the pro lot on this site are so blinded by their persecution complexes that any time you say "drugs aren't as great as you insist" results in the flagrant lies that you are currently spouting about my opinions.
It is not any different than anyone else "fighting for their beliefs".
You say that, but you're wrong. Your beliefs can be unethical, and so fighting and promoting them can also be unethical.
Take your drugs example- funding a group that says "drugs are completely harmless" is unethical. Funding a group that says "This is what you do to stay safe and these should be the start of a conversation on legality" is ethical.
One does not have to agree with the message, to agree that people have the freedom to express and support it if they so desire.
Depends on the message. An anti-rights message should not be supported or condoned. People can say it as much as they want, they can spout all sorts of unethical bullshit and they can have legal protection for their words. If a person wishes to support such groups, fine... However that does not make them ethical.
I said that the government is not currently breaking in to gay people's homes and shooting them.
No you didn't. You said:
"Both idea are furthered in the same ways, well except gay people aren't getting raided and shot over nothing."
Not a single mention of the government anywhere.
Gay people are getting shot, nailbombed and raided over nothing. They have been subject to terrorist attacks for no better reason than the genitalia they prefer.
lol So what you thank about the issue?
No, it wasn't her fault that the president of the company she works for is an asshole, is it?
