Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Is This Abuse Of Power Not A Crime?  
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5833 times:

So apparently there is this big bru-ha-ha going on over something someone at Chick-Fil-A has said. Don't really know what it was, don't really care, that is not what is at question here.

http://www.boston.com/business/news/.../FWZEhX8jLqiQm04ZH5PMTL/story.html

http://www.boston.com/business/news/.../Qnx4ngfLZveFOwtv0w0u0O/story.html

Senior elected officials in at least two cities (Boston and Chicago) have vowed to keep them away from opening up shop in their cities because they didn't like what was said. Take notice - they are not blocking them from opening stores because of some health and safety violation, or some zoning infringement, which would be in their power, I guess. They are basically publicly admitting to abusing the power entrusted in them by arbitrarily targeting a specific business because they don't like it, at the very least an impeachable offense if not a criminal act. Can you imagine the uproar that would rightfully happen if some Republican Mayor vowed to ban the opening of a Ben & Jerry's store because he or she doesn't like their political leaning?

And liberals wonder why conservatives have a natural distrust of government. When an elected government official can come out and say something like this publicly without any repercussion whatsoever, just imagine the untold damage your garden variety faceless bureaucrat with a grudge can inflict.


Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
148 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21098 posts, RR: 56
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5817 times:

If Chick-fil-A really wanted to open up stores in Boston or Chicago, I doubt the objections of Menino and whoever the other guy is would stand up in a court. So it's just hot air coming out of a politician, which is nothing new.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinejpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4355 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

Normally I find your posts like nails on the chalkboard, but i'm largely inclined to agree here, i don't like the precedent and general principle behind it. There are tons of ways to keep an establishment away, but this shouldn't be one of them. I think its more about influence than teeth behind their words, but I sure wouldn't like to see it the other way around, true.


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently onlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5750 times:

What's potentially interesting here is that Alderman Moreno in Chicago goes on record saying he doesn't want Chick-Fil-A because he doesn't like their politics. The article later says,

He said he was not worried about being sued. First, he said, there are well-documented traffic and congestion issues in the Logan Square neighborhood that he could raise to justify his decision.

But in a lawsuit, is that really going to be his escape, when he's already gone on record saying his real reason to block the restaurant is something else?



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5728 times:

Well a public servant derelicting his duty (and ensuring equal conditions for new business openings is one) is a crime.

But they haven't got there yet, it's just a loudmouth politician.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12880 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5680 times:

Last week at another site, I made a comment that I thought some cities as well as mall operators would take actions to deny Chick-Fil-A and other companies operating in their cities and malls if they have corporate policies or leaders that discriminate or show prejudice against GLTB's. Chick-Fil-A also clearly shows openly Christian views in the process of selecting and training of franchisees and doesn't allow stores to be open on Sundays as part of their core beliefs. Some of these and other cities like San Francisco and New York have also denied Walmart from building and operating stores over their anit-union and labor issues. Yet these same politics say OK to Target which is not better than Walmart as to the pay and anti-union attitudes or McDonald's a major purveyor of bad/junk food which is damaging to he health of millions.

The reality is that politicians bashing Chick-Fil-A are not doing anything illegal, they are just looking for a cheap way to get votes of a very vocal group, GLTB's, by bashing a company with attitudes that GLTB's find very offensive.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24638 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5632 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 5):
The reality is that politicians bashing Chick-Fil-A are not doing anything illegal, they are just looking for a cheap way to get votes of a very vocal group, GLTB's, by bashing a company with attitudes that GLTB's find very offensive.

This GLBT(Q) doesn't find what the Chick-Fil-A CEO said offensive at all, it's his right to say pretty much anything he wants - same for politicians.

I thought it was a pretty stupid thing for the CEO to say - unless he's been asleep for twenty years he must have known there would be backlash.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineSmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 1283 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5566 times:

This is a pretty complicated question, really. At what point does the population expect/require the government to intervene in matters like this.

For instance, if I privately owned a restaurant and openly stated that one of my core beliefs was the superiority of the white race and the critical importance of maintaining racial purity (these are NOT my beliefs LOL), would/should my establishment be welcome? Would non-white people and/or interracial couples think that was acceptable?

My attitude is uphold the First Amendment and let the market decide, but not everyone can handle genuine freedom of speech when it is unpalatable.

As for Chick Fil A, I don't like the 'cut of their jib' at all and would most likely never go into one other than to use the men's room (if I had explosive diahhrea).



We live in an age surrounded by complex machines but the basic knowledge of the average punter is minimal. -GDB
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1783 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
How Is This Abuse Of Power Not A Crime?

Well, the only way it could be a crime is if it actually happens, which it hasn't. So far we just have politicians blowing hot air to make a statement. I don't like what the President of Chick-fil-A said, but it's not a mayor's place to go off like this (especially in such major cities).

But with that said, the BoD needs to re-visit this Dan Cathy guy's conduct. This guy is paid to run a company, not run his mouth. If I were a stakeholder in this company I would not be pleased that a C-level manager is making politicized statements. Profitability and growth need to be a priority over personal biases.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Lately, you would think Democrats object to Chick-Fil-A because it is not a government program funded by debt. Plus, it makes a profit off of workers by selling goods for money. Practically a human rights violation.

User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5514 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
But with that said, the BoD needs to re-visit this Dan Cathy guy's conduct. This guy is paid to run a company, not run his mouth. If I were a stakeholder in this company I would not be pleased that a C-level manager is making politicized statements. Profitability and growth need to be a priority over personal biases.

Chick-fil-A is a privately held company and does not have a board of directors, it has an executive committee (6 one way, half dozen another). Not sure what a 'C' level manager is, but Mr. Cathy is the COO of Chick-fil-A and is well within his rights as the COO to make whatever statement he wants.

So long as Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against its employees or customers, I don't see where the mayor and the council can legally prevent Chick-fil-A from expanding in Boston, especially since they are on the record saying what they said.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 7):
This is a pretty complicated question, really. At what point does the population expect/require the government to intervene in matters like this.

Again, so long as the entity involved does not break the law, it is not the government's business. The public can 'vote' with their wallets and refuse to do business with the entity in question.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 7):
but not everyone can handle genuine freedom of speech when it is unpalatable.

And, that would be that particular person's or group's problem.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 4):
But they haven't got there yet, it's just a loudmouth politician

Exactly, someone trying to make political hay over someone else's convictions, whether that someone is a person or a business entity.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1783 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5506 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Chick-fil-A is a privately held company and does not have a board of directors
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Mr. Cathy is the COO of Chick-fil-A and is well within his rights as the COO to make whatever statement he wants

I wasn't aware they were private. But knowing that now, I guess he can say whatever he wants as long as it is in line with the other owners' views. But I still maintain that a smart business leader won't want to rile feathers within it's (potential and existing) customer base.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Not sure what a 'C' level manager is

"C-level executive" may have been a more accurate way to put it. It's basically what it says: any executive with a CXX title, like CEO, COO, CFO, etc.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5499 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
But I still maintain that a smart business leader won't want to rile feathers within it's (potential and existing) customer base.

Agreed, but, up to them. And, it's up to the consumer to decide whether the entity's political (is it political or religious or cultural?) position is compatible with where the consumer wants to spend his money.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
"C-level executive" may have been a more accurate way to put it. It's basically what it says: any executive with a CXX title, like CEO, COO, CFO, etc.

Yeah, I picked up on that later on. Only 2 cups of coffee in this am.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 1283 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5488 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
Again, so long as the entity involved does not break the law, it is not the government's business. The public can 'vote' with their wallets and refuse to do business with the entity in question.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 10):
And, that would be that particular person's or group's problem.

For the record I am with you on both counts above. As long as they aren't yelling the proverbial "fire" in a crowded movie theater people or companies should have the freedom to be as much of a douchebag as they like without government interference. In fact I don't see how government could possibly claim the 'moral high ground' when it comes to regulating douche baggery!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
But I still maintain that a smart business leader won't want to rile feathers

Well played my friend, well played indeed.



We live in an age surrounded by complex machines but the basic knowledge of the average punter is minimal. -GDB
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
If Chick-fil-A really wanted to open up stores in Boston or Chicago, I doubt the objections of Menino and whoever the other guy is would stand up in a court. So it's just hot air coming out of a politician, which is nothing new.

Bingo. At least in MA, however, Chick-fil-A will need to recognize same-sex marriages among their employees and provide benefits accordingly. The mayor could have simply made that clear.

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
This GLBT(Q) doesn't find what the Chick-Fil-A CEO said offensive at all, it's his right to say pretty much anything he wants - same for politicians.

I think it's very offensive. And as a result I will not eat at CFA. Which is a pity because their food is delicious (you can't eat for a week before having a single waffle fry, but it's really nom!).

However, I agree that he has a right to say it. That said, good luck to him if he ever wants to open a branch in Germany with that kind of corporate policy. And with an increasing number of American adults supporting gay marriage and vehemently opposing homophobia, that was a horrible business decision for him to make.

Now, absolutely ON-TOPIC video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO-msplukrw

Listen carefully to the lyrics. I've not laughed so hard in a very long time.  rotfl 

[Edited 2012-07-26 09:13:56]

User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5419 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
This GLBT(Q) doesn't find what the Chick-Fil-A CEO said offensive at all, it's his right to say pretty much anything he wants - same for politicians.

Yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants and to run his company any way he wants within the law. That means: he can not order his franchises to deny employment based on sexual orientation and, in some states, must extend benefits to same sex partners. Both of which he is on the record as being against.

At the same time ANY politician has the right to voice their own opinion. If the mayor of Boston says his opinion is he will not allow CFA to open, why is that opinion an issue? Are elected officials not allowed to have opinions?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
Chick-fil-A will need to recognize same-sex marriages among their employees and provide benefits accordingly.

Not gonna happen with this current CEO.

BTW, I ate at Chick-Fil-A once 12 years ago. It was awful. The taste and presentation and price were all a perfect storm of awful. ARCO/AM-PM does better chicken sandwiches.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 480 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 14):
In fact I don't see how government could possibly claim the 'moral high ground' when it comes to regulating douche baggery!

Somehow I found this line very funny..  



'What's it doing now?'
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
How Is This Abuse Of Power Not A Crime?

It is an abuse and maybe in theory a crime, but in the case of Boston, no jury would ever convict.

Rightly or wrongly, it's just how things are done in Beantown.

It reminds me of the situation where Bob Kraft wanted to build the new Patriots stadium in South Boston. The problem with Kraft was that he went in high-profile, and didn't grease the right palms and kiss the right butts, so even though the project would have been wonderful for the city, he was shown the door, and he had to resort to offering up Hartford as a strawman to even get the state to pay for road and sewer improvements in Foxborough.

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
So it's just hot air coming out of a politician, which is nothing new.

Wrong. If Menino has the public on his side the store will almost certainly not open, and even if it does, the owners will wish they never opened it. You can take that to the bank.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 4):
Well a public servant derelicting his duty (and ensuring equal conditions for new business openings is one) is a crime.

The difference here is that he has the public on his side, so one can argue he's doing the will of the people.

While Boston in the past has had its share of prejudiced people, they've more or less died off.

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
I thought it was a pretty stupid thing for the CEO to say

Indeed. If it was all about the chicken, there'd be no issue. Instead, that idiot made it all about gay marraige, not about the chicken. Sure, maybe he'll get some more business from the hardcore conservatives, but I bet this is a very bad move on his part.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 1283 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5394 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
At the same time ANY politician has the right to voice their own opinion. If the mayor of Boston says his opinion is he will not allow CFA to open, why is that opinion an issue? Are elected officials not allowed to have opinions?

Sure, they can have opinions...but you said "his opinion is he will not allow CFA to open". There are actually two pieces to that:

His opinion is that the CFA should not open. Not allowing the CFA to open is an action taken based on that opinion.

Whatever an elected official's opinion might be, he/she needs to make sure that the actions taken are in fact within the legal authority of his/her office.

In this case I don't know what legal authority they have.



We live in an age surrounded by complex machines but the basic knowledge of the average punter is minimal. -GDB
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21098 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5390 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
BTW, I ate at Chick-Fil-A once 12 years ago. It was awful.

   I don't get the hype. Chick-Fil-A opened a branch at my college, replacing the previous chicken place. It was not an improvement - lower quality, higher prices.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
If Menino has the public on his side the store will almost certainly not open, and even if it does, the owners will wish they never opened it. You can take that to the bank.

If the public were against Chick-Fil-A, then they wouldn't be opening a store anyway, regardless of what Menino might think about it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 5381 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants and to run his company any way he wants within the law. That means: he can not order his franchises to deny employment based on sexual orientation and, in some states, must extend benefits to same sex partners. Both of which he is on the record as being against.

In which case he would be free to close up his place or not open one up. It would be up to the state to enforce the law, if such a law exists in that state.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
The difference here is that he has the public on his side, so one can argue he's doing the will of the people.

As I recall, the 'will of the people' in NY was that a mosque not be built near ground zero, but Bloomberg and gang kept pushing it. The will of the people can be a dubious thing, not a bad thing, but dubious.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
the hardcore conservatives

See, you had to go there. I know plenty of liberals who are against gay marriage and I know plenty of conservatives (some on this very forum) who are for it.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5335 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
BTW, I ate at Chick-Fil-A once 12 years ago. It was awful.
Quoting Mir (Reply 21):
It was not an improvement - lower quality, higher prices.

Strange... I've never once met a person that didn't love their chicken!

It's been a moral dilemma for me lately. CFA is by far, without a doubt, my favorite fast food restaurant (the only one I'll eat at) but then they do this... ... ...  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24638 posts, RR: 86
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5329 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Yes, he has the right to say whatever he wants and to run his company any way he wants within the law. That means: he can not order his franchises to deny employment based on sexual orientation and, in some states, must extend benefits to same sex partners. Both of which he is on the record as being against.

He may have said he is against it - but as long as he doesn't actually do it, as long as he acts within the law, I assume he's in the clear.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 11):
But I still maintain that a smart business leader won't want to rile feathers within it's (potential and existing) customer base.

They've been riling feathers for years and still have done remarkably well. People acted surprised at all of this, but come on, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out. Read Truet Cathy's book, or even just listen to the music in the stores --- Christian music. And we're "surprised" about this? Come on.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
Both of which he is on the record as being against.

Big deal. I'm against paying unemployment insurance or social security tax as an employee, as a business owner, and as a business owner with employees. Doesn't mean I'm going to break the law or am breaking the law.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 17):
The taste and presentation and price were all a perfect storm of awful.

I lol'd.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23):
It's been a moral dilemma for me lately. CFA is by far, without a doubt, my favorite fast food restaurant (the only one I'll eat at) but then they do this... ... ...

As I said above, anybody should have known about this to begin with. Certainly you have seen their values and their mission, or given where you grew up, even drove past or visited their HQs on a school trip. They don't hide anything. Yet they've done well. Quite well. Keep eating there and enjoy the food - you've supported them this far, why stop now?  

.
.
.

Now I guess I better say I have gay friends, blah blah blah I'm not a homophobe. I just don't let politics and food mix. If its good and safe, I'll eat it. I'm sure I've eaten at plenty of LGBT (BTW what does the (Q) mean now?) establishments, and despite my PERSONAL sexual preferences, I haven't complained. Nor have I complained about eating at establishments that go against my politics. Big deal.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5316 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 23):
It's been a moral dilemma for me lately. CFA is by far, without a doubt, my favorite fast food restaurant (the only one I'll eat at) but then they do this... ... ...

It goes back to the thread on boycotts. Do you deprive yourself of, what is "by far, without a doubt, my favorite fast food restaurant..." based on this issue and thus, depriving CfA of any revenue you provide or do you enjoy a chicken sandwich and their, oh-so-yummy, waffle fries?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
I'm sure I've eaten at plenty of LGBT

I'm not sure I could differeniate an LGBT establishment from a non-LGBT establishment. I mean, is there a secret rainbow somewhere in the establishment to denote it as an LGBT establishment? Wink

I eat where I eat and don't let their politics, religion or culture get in the way.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
(BTW what does the (Q) mean now?)

One presumes 'queer'.

[Edited 2012-07-26 13:02:04]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5342 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
I eat where I eat and don't let their politics, religion or culture get in the way.

  

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
I mean, is there a secret rainbow somewhere in the establishment to denote it as an LGBT establishment?

Actually, it wasn't secret. One intersection in town is known as the LGBT area and one quite excellent establishment has a rainbow flag out front. I don't care. It's good food. I'm not LGBTQWERTYASDFGLMNOP123 - nor do I quite understand that behavior - but good food is good food. We all know there are plenty of people in the world with political views quite polar opposite of our own, yet we still do business with companies that employ such people, are led by such people, etc. Too many people/things/ideas to disagree with to let it matter.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineSmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 1283 posts, RR: 3
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
Strange... I've never once met a person that didn't love their chicken!

I honestly don't even know what their food is like these days, but about 20 years ago I remember having some kind of pressed chicken scrap sandwich that could have gagged a maggot. And this is coming from someone who can and does eat nearly anything - see the White Castle thread!

(Looking at their menu online, it must have been the chicken salad. The other stuff looks good.)

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
I eat where I eat and don't let their politics, religion or culture get in the way.

Generally the same here unless the culture involves unannounced cannibalism, bans on handwashing or the like!



We live in an age surrounded by complex machines but the basic knowledge of the average punter is minimal. -GDB
User currently offlineImperialEagle From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2062 posts, RR: 20
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Growing-up in Atlanta we drove down to the CFA all the time. They had a great breakfast----best waffles you ever ate.
They had everything from ice-box pies to fried pies. Flying back in to ATL late at night we could always stop in for a burger or chicken sandwich before heading north to home. Over the years I knew quite a few gay people who helped make Truett Cathy and his family a fortune and helped put Chick-Fil-A "on the map". They were and have been some of the best employees they ever had.

What a smack in the face for the Cathy family to have this "Christian" attitude towards all those loyal employees. Sure they have the right to say anything they want.
I have the right to never buy another thing from them, too.

I wouldn't even buy a dog biscuit from them at this point.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day. It said:

I like Christ

I do not like his Christians.

They are so unlike their Christ.

Amen.



"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough!"
User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 580 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5314 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
(BTW what does the (Q) mean now?)

One presumes 'queer'

Questioning



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5313 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
I'm sure I've eaten at plenty of LGBT (BTW what does the (Q) mean now?) establishments, and despite my PERSONAL sexual preferences, I haven't complained. Nor have I complained about eating at establishments that go against my politics. Big deal.

And that is probably because most of the time "Gay" establishments welcome straight people. Say - if you were to kiss your girlfriend or wife - no one would bat an eye. If 2 guys kiss at a "family restaurant" - they might not be looked upon as kindly.

Point being - that you say it not a "big deal" to eat in places which you don't agree with because simply, you don't have any skin in the game. You are treated well everywhere you go because of your sexuality. So for you there is no problem, and you forget that others do have a stake and are directly affected.

(Gay Bars not allowing Bachelorette Parties not withstanding   )



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5281 times:

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 18):
In this case I don't know what legal authority they have.

None at all. If CFA wants to open a store and they are willing to comply with local laws and regulations, then he can't stop them. He can raise a stink, but he can't stop them.

That said, when CFA learns that they have to offer benefits to same-sex spouses and that they will be under the microscope for discrimination complaints, I'm guessing that they will choose to go elsewhere.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
It's been a moral dilemma for me lately. CFA is by far, without a doubt, my favorite fast food restaurant (the only one I'll eat at) but then they do this... ... ...

Start "Chicken MD90" and out-do them?

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 26):
I'm not LGBTQWERTYASDFGLMNOP123

  

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 26):
nor do I quite understand that behavior

What behavior? You don't like sex? Ever been to a burlesque? A strip club? Honestly, leaving the cross-dressing aside, we don't do very much that straight folks don't.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5254 times:

First, you could have picked a better thread title. Perhaps one that actually described the event you're complaining about. (See Rule 1(l): "Please use the most relevant and descriptive title for your topics. The topic of your thread should therefore be as detailed as possible." http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/rules.main?confirm=no)

Second, it's not even an abuse of power to tell a person or a company that he does not want them coming into town.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5249 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):
If the public were against Chick-Fil-A, then they wouldn't be opening a store anyway, regardless of what Menino might think about it.

IMHO this event shows until recently the "locals" weren't aware that they'd be getting served morality if not prejudice along with their chicken....

As Doc points out, maybe CFA wasn't aware that they would be obliged to provide family benefits to same sex couples either.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
Read Truet Cathy's book, or even just listen to the music in the stores --- Christian music. And we're "surprised" about this? Come on.

CFA is almost unknown in the Northeast.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
None at all. If CFA wants to open a store and they are willing to comply with local laws and regulations, then he can't stop them. He can raise a stink, but he can't stop them.

You may be right by the letter of the law, but if Menino is opposed, they are fools to go forward. Like it or not, pretty much every city employee owes their job to the patronage system, and Menino has been mayor for pretty much forever.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2715 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5247 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):

BTW, I ate at Chick-Fil-A once 12 years ago. It was awful. The taste and presentation and price were all a perfect storm of awful.

You aren't missing much. Greasy and somewhat rubbery chicken with sad looking shriveled pickle chips between two pieces of bun. The waffle fries are ok. I only ever go there if I'm with a group of people that want to eat there.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 2):
Normally I find your posts like nails on the chalkboard

Thank you, I aim to please. Oh wait, no I don't. Carry on...

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 7):
For instance, if I privately owned a restaurant and openly stated that one of my core beliefs was the superiority of the white race and the critical importance of maintaining racial purity (these are NOT my beliefs LOL), would/should my establishment be welcome? Would non-white people and/or interracial couples think that was acceptable?

Whether they thought it was acceptable or not is irrelevant... you could be serving a McHitler with a large side of Vichy fries and a glass of Goebbelsade, if it meets health and safety regulations there is nothing you (or any lected politician) can do about it.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
Bingo. At least in MA, however, Chick-fil-A will need to recognize same-sex marriages among their employees and provide benefits accordingly. The mayor could have simply made that clear.

He could have, but he didn't, because that was not his point. His point is he is another entrenched politician on a power trip clamoring for powers he doesn't have. Must have seen too many Hugo Chavez TV specials.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 15):
If the mayor of Boston says his opinion is he will not allow CFA to open, why is that opinion an issue? Are elected officials not allowed to have opinions?

I would respond but SmittyOne has already thoroughly schooled you on this.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
While Boston in the past has had its share of prejudiced people, they've more or less died off.

BS... lived there for two years and there is absolutely no lack of ignorant, intolerant people. They just don't think they are. Case in point - Menino.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
As I recall, the 'will of the people' in NY was that a mosque not be built near ground zero, but Bloomberg and gang kept pushing it.

Screw that, at least now we know that the "will of the people" is always to be respected regardless (iunless, of course, the people is the voters of California and the will is Proposition 8). I am sure that will be an argument that will come in handy.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
I'm not sure I could differeniate an LGBT establishment from a non-LGBT establishment.

You have clearly never been to Hell's Kitchen...

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 25):
I mean, is there a secret rainbow somewhere in the establishment to denote it as an LGBT establishment? 

At least the ones near me, the male waiters in the tight pink t-shirts with "bitch" written on them is usually a give-away. Anyway, the food is usually pretty good.

Quoting D L X (Reply 32):
Second, it's not even an abuse of power to tell a person or a company that he does not want them coming into town.

Read the articles - he did not say he did not want them coming into town. He said he would not allow them to come into town. Very, very different things.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
As Doc points out, maybe CFA wasn't aware that they would be obliged to provide family benefits to same sex couples either.

Wait, fast food chains provide benefits?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
You may be right by the letter of the law, but if Menino is opposed, they are fools to go forward. Like it or not, pretty much every city employee owes their job to the patronage system, and Menino has been mayor for pretty much forever.

With the free ammunition Menino just gave Chick-Fil-A's lawyers, with a good enough lawyer they could be serving up Fried Cockroach Sandwich and the City of Boston would still have to go out of their way to prove they are not just harassing a business.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5150 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):
Quoting D L X (Reply 32):
Second, it's not even an abuse of power to tell a person or a company that he does not want them coming into town.

Read the articles - he did not say he did not want them coming into town. He said he would not allow them to come into town. Very, very different things.

Right.


Here's the ACTUAL letter from Menino:

http://boston.eater.com/uploads/meninolttrPicture-5.jpg

Care to rephrase your argument?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 36):
Here's the ACTUAL letter from Menino:

Yes, I saw the letter. There is also the interview he gave the Boston Herald... Even civil rights lawyers, not usually the more tolerant bunch towards conservative opinions, are tripping over themselves to represent Chick-Fil-A on this. Menino is already trying to chicken out.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...page=1&listingType=Loc#articleFull



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1718 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5120 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
The difference here is that he has the public on his side, so one can argue he's doing the will of the people.

It doesn't matter. Keeping a fast food business from opening because of the owner's beliefs is against the law.

The "public" has no word on that other than their choice of not patronising the place once it's open.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3841 posts, RR: 14
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
They are basically publicly admitting to abusing the power entrusted in them by arbitrarily targeting a specific business because they don't like it, at the very least an impeachable offense if not a criminal act
Quoting Pyrex (Thread starter):
When an elected government official can come out and say something like this publicly without any repercussion whatsoever, just imagine the untold damage your garden variety faceless bureaucrat with a grudge can inflict.
Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
So it's just hot air coming out of a politician, which is nothing new.

Mir's right. Menino has not blocked any Chick-fil-a restaurant from starting up in Boston---so there is actually no cause of action. And the letter did not say that he would block them from opening a restaurant. He said it would be an insult for Chick-fil-a to do so. "urge you to back out" does not equate to "I will stop you from opening a restaurant."

This just a politician trying to gain points with the electorate by acting like a perceived moral crusader. Find the random (straw) boogeyman and rally against him.

Quoting mariner (Reply 6):
I thought it was a pretty stupid thing for the CEO to say - unless he's been asleep for twenty years he must have known there would be backlash

Yep. He's only hurting his own company. He made an issue over something that wasn't an issue before (although plenty of people knew about the company's political contributions).

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
Well, the only way it could be a crime is if it actually happens, which it hasn't

Again, there's no cause of action right now--just an exercise of free speech by a politician to counter the free speech exercised by a citizen.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 33):
CFA is almost unknown in the Northeast.

Heck, there isn't even one in Washington DC (Although we have a food truck).


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5043 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):
His point is he is another entrenched politician on a power trip clamoring for powers he doesn't have.

I think CFA will find that he does have enough powers to make their life so miserable that they will regret not working things out with the Mayor.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):
BS... lived there for two years and there is absolutely no lack of ignorant, intolerant people. They just don't think they are. Case in point - Menino.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):
Wait, fast food chains provide benefits?

Uhm, yeah. Not every CFA employee is an entry level minimum wage part time worker, but you knew that already.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):
With the free ammunition Menino just gave Chick-Fil-A's lawyers, with a good enough lawyer they could be serving up Fried Cockroach Sandwich and the City of Boston would still have to go out of their way to prove they are not just harassing a business.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 37):
Menino is already trying to chicken out.

Chicken out, eh?

I see what you've done there...

In any case, he's a Boston politician.

Surely he's made the political calculation in his head about saying nothing on this issue, vs bashing CFA, and you can see he chose to bash CFA. He certainly has given CFA's lawyers a bunch of ammo, but that's the price of setting out the city policy loud and clear, and getting himself lots of positive press locally. The legal ammo means nothing in a Boston courthouse, certainly not enough to matter in Menino's political calculation. If CFA takes the city to court, all they will get in return is a much more angry customer base, and next to no hope of a positive outcome.

Since you say you were in Boston for two years, certainly you know Menino is not going to be writing memos telling city employees to make life miserable for any CFA establishment that tries to open in the city. What he's already done has sent the unmistakeable message loud and clear to all city employees.

The current "chickening out" phase (love it!) is just to stop giving lawyers more ammunition. At this point he has done has already sent out the message, and there's no need to do more of it.

Seems to me you weren't paying much attention to politics in your two years in Boston. All you had to do was tune your radio to the Howie Carr show or read the Herald and you'd be much better informed on the topic. I wish the situation was different, but it just is not. Decades if not centuries of the Boston political system do not change over night.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 1283 posts, RR: 3
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 5039 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):

Whether they thought it was acceptable or not is irrelevant... you could be serving a McHitler with a large side of Vichy fries and a glass of Goebbelsade, if it meets health and safety regulations there is nothing you (or any lected politician) can do about it.

LOL.

Just to be clear, this was a rhetorical question! Not planning to sell Mussolini Milkshakes or anything...



We live in an age surrounded by complex machines but the basic knowledge of the average punter is minimal. -GDB
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 30):
So for you there is no problem, and you forget that others do have a stake and are directly affected.

Yep, I know. I don't have skin in the game on this one. Nor do I in most things, actually. I just like stirring the pot and pretending I do have a stake, when in reality I only have a steak. And no, I don't forget that others do have a stake.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
sex

What's that?

 



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5021 times:

So, I'm assuming that everybody crying foul on Chick-fil-a here is also not patronizing other companies that have similar views? I would only expect the best from those on this site, so don't be hypocrites or have double standards.

Yes?



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4975 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):

Wait, fast food chains provide benefits?

To management-level personnel, yes.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 35):

Read the articles - he did not say he did not want them coming into town. He said he would not allow them to come into town. Very, very different things.

Please quote the mayor's letter at the part where it says that. Because I've read it very carefully and it doesn't. Or did you not bother to read it?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 40):

Surely he's made the political calculation in his head about saying nothing on this issue, vs bashing CFA, and you can see he chose to bash CFA. He certainly has given CFA's lawyers a bunch of ammo, but that's the price of setting out the city policy loud and clear, and getting himself lots of positive press locally. The legal ammo means nothing in a Boston courthouse, certainly not enough to matter in Menino's political calculation. If CFA takes the city to court, all they will get in return is a much more angry customer base, and next to no hope of a positive outcome.

CFA can hire all the lawyers they like, but they can't prove a tort, they can't prove a violation of their rights, and they can't prove damages, and so they will lose.

And with the way public opinion about gay marriage is in MA, it can only help Menino. I oppose what he did, but I'll grant it may have been more shrewd than I thought.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5098 posts, RR: 12
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4959 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
Please quote the mayor's letter at the part where it says that. Because I've read it very carefully and it doesn't. Or did you not bother to read it?

He did not say it was in the letter. It is in the article:
Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

Last week, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the city.

Moreno said holding up construction would be as simple as refusing to introduce an ordinance to subdivide the land where Chick-fil-A wants to build.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 44):
CFA can hire all the lawyers they like, but they can't prove a tort, they can't prove a violation of their rights, and they can't prove damages, and so they will lose.

I think they do have a tort. Both the mayor and the alderman are on the record as saying they oppose the restaurant because of CfA's political/cultural/religious position.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12163 posts, RR: 36
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4941 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 43):
So, I'm assuming that everybody crying foul on Chick-fil-a here is also not patronizing other companies that have similar views? I would only expect the best from those on this site, so don't be hypocrites or have double standards.

Such as all aviation geeks' favorite burger joint?



That being said. I love Chick-Fil-A, I love In-N-Out.



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4934 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
Alderman Joe Moreno said Wednesday that unless the company comes up with a written anti-discrimination policy, Chick-fil-A will not open its first free-standing restaurant in the city as it plans to do.

Again, this is state law and city law. There is no grounds for a suit. CFA is not banned from opening in Boston; they are quite welcome to open in Boston *IF* they come up with a written anti-discrimination policy. You can't sue the government for making you follow a law. And I'm pretty sure the "it's my religious belief to discriminate in my business" argument got knocked down back in the '60's with the Civil Rights Act.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
I think they do have a tort. Both the mayor and the alderman are on the record as saying they oppose the restaurant because of CfA's political/cultural/religious position.

Be that as it may, their political/cultural/religious position is ILLEGAL as for conducting a for-profit business. If they want to run a church, then they may discriminate, but they may not make a profit and they probably can't sell Waffle Fries, either.

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 46):
Such as all aviation geeks' favorite burger joint?

From In-N-Out Burger's official policies:

Quote:
In-N-Out Burger is committed to providing a work environment that is free of harrassment and discrimination. In keeping with this commitment, In-N-Out Burger maintains a strict policy prohibiting all forms of unlawful harrassment, including sexual harrassment, and harrassment based on national origin, ancestry, citizenship, race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, military service, pregnancy status, age, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition, gender identity, or any other characteristic protected by state and federal law.

(emphasis added)

In-N-Out is owned by a family that is Christian. The small, cryptically-placed bible verse references (not texts) are as close as they get to prosyletizing. The only theme that seems to recur in the verses is belief in God. Fair enough. I have no problem with Christians. I have a BIG problem with hateful bigots who want to use religion --whatever religion it may be-- to justify their hateful bigotry.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7006 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4922 times:

I would love to see any of these politicians try to ban Chick-Fil-A in any of their cities for social reasons. I would be amusing to watch. I am sure they know that they can't do what they are saying, they are just saying it. Honestly even though this may be bad press Chick-Fil-A's main market is in smaller towns and in the south. They are getting a lot of free press now and will probably be even more intrigued to open up in Boston and Chicago and I guarantee you those locations will do great. Its food.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
It is an abuse and maybe in theory a crime, but in the case of Boston, no jury would ever convict.

Rightly or wrongly, it's just how things are done in Beantown.


This is a type of case that the final decision would be decided by judges and have nothing to do with a jury. If the Boston judges want to not follow the law and the state judges too then the Supreme Court would likely take it. But I doubt it will ever go to court because the politicians can't be that dumb, right?

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 46):
That being said. I love Chick-Fil-A, I love In-N-Out.


Same here, they are cooking and giving me food not teaching me core values. As long as the food is good and safe that is all I care about. Not that I think Chick-Fil-A should be on the same level as In-N-Out in any category. Going to LA in a few weeks, can't wait to get some In-N-Out! 



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4902 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 45):
I think they do have a tort. Both the mayor and the alderman are on the record as saying they oppose the restaurant because of CfA's political/cultural/religious position.

I searched bostonherald.com and got the following line: "Menino kicked up the coast-to-coast ruckus when he told the Herald last week “it will be very difficult” for Chick-fil-A to get licenses for a restaurant in Boston".

And the letter he wrote said "I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston.”

Not much meat on the bones, says I.

I'm sure a court case could be filed on the basis of this, but it's far too little to prove the city or Menino actually did something that caused the city to not treat CFA equally. If you had a memo or a taped phone call to the planning board telling them to withhold licenses it'd be a different case entirely.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting flymia (Reply 48):
ame here, they are cooking and giving me food not teaching me core values. As long as the food is good and safe that is all I care about. Not that I think Chick-Fil-A should be on the same level as In-N-Out in any category. Going to LA in a few weeks, can't wait to get some In-N-Out!

Well, as I showed above, you can do it with a clean conscience.

You CANNOT, however, do it with clean arteries.  
Quoting flymia (Reply 48):
I would love to see any of these politicians try to ban Chick-Fil-A in any of their cities for social reasons.

They can't. But when CFA is informed that they WILL comply with local nondiscrimination laws or they WILL NOT be openin gin the state, I bet CFA will back out. Either that or they will comply, which will be interesting to watch. Wouldn't shock me, because this sort of "Christian" always values money over morals when it comes down to it.


User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7006 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 50):

Certainly right. Not something one wants in a daily or even weekly diet. Once In a while doesn't hurt  , much.

You are certainly right about local and state laws though. Whether they would want to follow them to make money or not is up to them.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
I have no problem with Christians. I have a BIG problem with hateful bigots who want to use religion --whatever religion it may be-- to justify their hateful bigotry.

Yes!!

I don't understand, though, why a company is trying so hard to fight against state laws and against a contract between two consenting adults. Tell me again what a state contract between two consenting adults has to do with religion.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4822 times:

How about the certain oil company or association that was caught red-handed executing homosexuals? Certainly you don't drive gasoline powered vehicles then, right? Certainly you keep from purchasing goods or using services from countries who do the same thing?

I'm not saying CFA is right or wrong here, nor am I asserting an opinion on the issue. Rather, just playing traffic cop and making sure we all play by whatever rules and values we so dearly hold.

.
.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
From In-N-Out Burger's official policies:

AFAIK, that is state law in states they operate in. I'll bet Chick-fil-a has the same policies in states that require such policies as well. The difference here is the upper managements attitudes towards same sex relations.

Try again, Doc.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineKaiGywer From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 12163 posts, RR: 36
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4791 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flymia (Reply 51):
Certainly right. Not something one wants in a daily or even weekly diet. Once In a while doesn't hurt , much.

Breakfast, lunch and dinner during vacation  



911, where is your emergency?
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 53):
How about the certain oil company or association that was caught red-handed executing homosexuals? Certainly you don't drive gasoline powered vehicles then, right? Certainly you keep from purchasing goods or using services from countries who do the same thing?

I don't have much of a choice. Without gasoline, I don't have a job. I don't eat. I die. But that is one of many reasons why I would like to move away from fossil fuels, yes.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 53):
AFAIK, that is state law in states they operate in. I'll bet Chick-fil-a has the same policies in states that require such policies as well. The difference here is the upper managements attitudes towards same sex relations.

Apparently, CFA does operate some branches in Massachusetts. $o much for their Chri$tian value$, I gue$$.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):
Apparently, CFA does operate some branches in Massachusetts. $o much for their Chri$tian value$, I gue$$.

So much for your argument, too.  

I still fail to see how one top exec's personal opinion on a matter has such an overbearing influence on corporate decisions. They aren't breaking the law, they aren't even staying out of states that recognize gay marriage. It was just his opinion.

Never give up a chance to blow things out of proportion, though.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 56):
I still fail to see how one top exec's personal opinion on a matter has such an overbearing influence on corporate decisions.

Then I guess you also fail to see how one politician's opinion on a matter has such an overbearing influence on governmental decisions?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1783 posts, RR: 10
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4721 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 56):
I still fail to see how one top exec's personal opinion on a matter has such an overbearing influence on corporate decisions.

That "one top exec" holds the highest position in the company. His family also just happens to own it...but of course that wouldn't give him an overbearing influence on corporate decisions  



Flying refined.
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4722 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):

Apparently, CFA does operate some branches in Massachusetts. $o much for their Chri$tian value$, I gue$$.

So, because they probably have some written anti-discrimination policy or some other bull-shit nobody ever reads but they need to have as a CYA when lawyers come trolling around (isn't that the purpose of all internal policies anyway?) that means they are no longer upholding their values?

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 58):
That "one top exec" holds the highest position in the company. His family also just happens to own it...but of course that wouldn't give him an overbearing influence on corporate decisions

Attention-seeking mayors got their panties in a twist because a company representative came out and defended a policy that is the current policy in most states in the U.S. (and where it isn't. it usually is because of activist judges, not referendums or legislative efforts). Yes, this is being blown way out of proportion (but then again, that is typical liberal policy - get your name in the media no matter what, just look at their Koch obsession).

Now for the truly controversial part - I really don't understand the whole obsession with In-n-Out. Had it once and it tasted like a glorified Big Mac to me.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4699 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 59):
So, because they probably have some written anti-discrimination policy or some other bull-shit nobody ever reads but they need to have as a CYA when lawyers come trolling around (isn't that the purpose of all internal policies anyway?) that means they are no longer upholding their values?

Yes, it does. You either believe in what you believe and are willing to sacrifice money and business for it...
...or you don't.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 56):
It was just his opinion.

Yes, he's not important. He's only the CEO and his family only... like... owns the company. And stuff.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 57):
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 58):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):

I should have explained a little more, knowing none of you would follow the thread down. His personal opinion has no overbearing decision on corporate decisions dealing with legal matters. I was responding to Doc's quote of In-n-Out Burger's corporate policy on equal opportunity employment, etc. I bet Chick-fil-a has the SAME corporate policy, at least in states requiring that policy. One top exec's opinion on that legal requirement is NOT going to change the company's decision to comply with the laws, in the case of Chick-fil-a.

As for his own personal ideas for his own personal life, or even political ideas, that is his choice. He votes for himself, not for the company. The company doesn't have a vote in elections.

My previous question seems to remain unanswered, except for Doc (I'll get to that in a sec). If you won't eat Chick-fil-a because of an exec's personal opinion on bedroom activities, is it safe to assume you don't patronize other companies, or even products that come from countries with similar views, because you disagree with their point of view on bedroom activities?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):
I don't have much of a choice. Without gasoline, I don't have a job. I don't eat. I die.

Our founding fathers died for a cause they believed in. Therefore it is safe to say your valuation of this topic falls somewhere between boycotting fast food joints and risking life or limb?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 55):
I would like to move away from fossil fuels, yes.

I have to take it out of context, but we do agree on some things.  



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 62, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4657 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 61):
is it safe to assume you don't patronize other companies, or even products that come from countries with similar views, because you disagree with their point of view on bedroom activities?

In-N-Out does not have their board of directors telling everyone how to conduct themselves in the bedroom and in public. I know In-N-Out is a Christian based company. But, they do not shove it down our throats.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 63, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4646 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
In-N-Out does not have their board of directors telling everyone how to conduct themselves in the bedroom and in public. I know In-N-Out is a Christian based company. But, they do not shove it down our throats.

Oh, so the issue is purely and only whether they tell people how to act? Nothing about the fear that those individuals may vote, with their personal votes, for somebody who restricts LGBT rights? Or fear that the company may support lobbying to protect family values?



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4628 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 63):
Oh, so the issue is purely and only whether they tell people how to act?

Yup. That's all I care about. You stay out of my business as long as I'm not bothering you. You don't try to keep me from raising a family, having a job, and going about my life for no good reason and we won't have a problem. I'm actually a very nice guy.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4614 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 63):
Oh, so the issue is purely and only whether they tell people how to act? Nothing about the fear that those individuals may vote, with their personal votes, for somebody who restricts LGBT rights? Or fear that the company may support lobbying to protect family values?

Yes.

This is just more evidence of how amazingly wrong the "corporation are people" decision is.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 66, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 65):
This is just more evidence of how amazingly wrong the "corporation are people" decision is.

Because they uphold the notion that is currently the law in the majority of U.S. states?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 67, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 66):
Because they uphold the notion that is currently the law in the majority of U.S. states?

Because they routinely represent a concentration of wealth and power that a "person" is unlikely to achieve.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 68, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4575 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 66):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 65):This is just more evidence of how amazingly wrong the "corporation are people" decision is.
Because they uphold the notion that is currently the law in the majority of U.S. states?

It also shows how contradictary the right is. They will support the notion of small government and keeping government out of our lives but they will do everything they can to be as intrusive and Orwellian as possible. The right is using the false notion that we are a Christian nation to keep two consenting adults from being able to sign a legal document issued by an individual state (they love states rights, after all) by making a federal law and bringing federal law suits based on their personal religous beliefs. See the contradiction?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
Yup. That's all I care about.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 65):
Yes.

So then why are we discussing this topic in this thread? AFAIK Cathy's comment was during an interview with a baptist organization. To me, that seems Cathy isn't telling YOU how to live, especially given that you aren't really the target audience of the organization. He's not "ramming it down your throats". If religious people can't promote their ideas within their OWN religious circles, then what? Next up, pastors can't promote religious ideas in church?

See my point?



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 70, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 31):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
It's been a moral dilemma for me lately. CFA is by far, without a doubt, my favorite fast food restaurant (the only one I'll eat at) but then they do this... ... ...

Start "Chicken MD90" and out-do them?

It would be called "Chicks-are-gay" and every lesbian that kisses in the restaurant will receive a free sandwich. Needless to say, this restaurant would also be banned in Chicago and Boston and will create a bigger controversy than Chick-Fil-A is now 



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4543 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 69):
He's not "ramming it down your throats". If religious people can't promote their ideas within their OWN religious circles, then what?

This is "ramming it down thru our throats":


"An analysis of charitable donations by Chick-Fil-A shows the fast-food chain gave nearly $2 million to antigay groups in 2010."

http://www.advocate.com/business/201...k-fil-donates-2-mil-antigay-groups

and before you criticize the source

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/chickfila.asp



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 72, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 71):
"An analysis of charitable donations by Chick-Fil-A shows the fast-food chain gave nearly $2 million to antigay groups in 2010."

So why the huff now? It's 2012. Why wasn't this thread in 2010?

Also, shouldn't there be a thread for every other group who donated to antigay groups?

I think you're bluffing. This thread and all of the huff around this is because somebody said something that people don't like, and now you're looking for rational ways to attack said somebody or group.

Others (and I know it wasn't you) said that the only issue is 'ramming ideas down your throats', and lobbying to protect family values isn't an issue. How is donating to anti-gay groups different than lobbying? Seems like the same end result to me... (see quote below for context)

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 63):
Or fear that the company may support lobbying to protect family values?

.
.
.

Before anybody says I don't like gay people, let me re-quote what I said above:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
Now I guess I better say I have gay friends, blah blah blah I'm not a homophobe. I just don't let politics and food mix. If its good and safe, I'll eat it.

I'm just trying to make sense of all this hubbub. All the pieces don't add up, in my mind.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10998 posts, RR: 52
Reply 73, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4538 times:

This thread has troll thread written all over it.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 37):
Even civil rights lawyers, not usually the more tolerant bunch towards conservative opinions

Shows how much you know.

The ACLU also represents the Klan frequently. Not exactly a liberal group. You only don't like them when they represent liberal causes, and you don't notice that they're fighting conservative abuses of liberty.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 37):
Menino is already trying to chicken out.

Then seriously, what the hell is your problem?

You complain when you MISTAKENLY believe that Menino is blocking CFA, then when you are better educated about it and realize that you were wrong, you say Menino is chickening out?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4520 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 72):
So why the huff now? It's 2012. Why wasn't this thread in 2010?

Because a "liberal" politician from Boston didn't make much of a big deal about it in 2010.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 69):
that seems Cathy isn't telling YOU how to live,

Well, actually, he is. He is telling a Christian magazine that he is trying to run his business and hire workers to be Christian and live by his myopic views of Christianity and "family values."



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 75, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4517 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 72):
This thread and all of the huff around this is because somebody said something that people don't like, and now you're looking for rational ways to attack said somebody or group.

I think if you reread the beginning of the thread, you'll find that's not how things went down.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 76, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 73):
Shows how much you know.

The ACLU also represents the Klan frequently. Not exactly a liberal group. You only don't like them when they represent liberal causes, and you don't notice that they're fighting conservative abuses of liberty.

They came running to Rush Limbaugh's defense when his privacy was violated during his little pill-popping scandal, too. I'm sure they had a fantastic time doing it, too.  


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 317 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4490 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 8):
But with that said, the BoD needs to re-visit this Dan Cathy guy's conduct. This guy is paid to run a company, not run his mouth. If I were a stakeholder in this company I would not be pleased that a C-level manager is making politicized statements. Profitability and growth need to be a priority over personal biases.

Um, having met Truett Cathy, having gone to school with several of his grandchildren, having my sister's best friend being his granddaughter, and enjoyed ridiculously cheap food throughout HS thanks to the boxes upon boxes of 2 for 1 coupons he would send the school I went to...

I can firmly state that the entire management team of Chick-fil-a fully supports what Dan Cathy, considering that the BoD is basically Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy and Truett owns Chick-fil-a which is a private company. Both are devout southern baptists with all that that entails. One of those things is obviously that homosexuality is the devil's work/etc. Southern Baptists, not the most open minded religion.

Did Dan Cathy realize that his remarks would cause controversy? Yeah. Did he care? Probably not. Chick-fil-a doesn't exactly hide their values and beliefs.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8204 posts, RR: 3
Reply 78, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 71):
"An analysis of charitable donations by Chick-Fil-A shows the fast-food chain gave nearly $2 million to antigay groups in 2010."

How embarrassing for the one person at the center of this, who is having personal confusion about this issue. I feel kind of bad for him. All opinions on this topic are self testimony. IMO. I have no axe to grind on this topic, but some people do. It is up to them to reveal their own private terrors and turmoils, lashing out at others etc. Sad, but this is a person crying out to be embraced, really.


User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 79, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4460 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 73):
Then seriously, what the hell is your problem?

You complain when you MISTAKENLY believe that Menino is blocking CFA, then when you are better educated about it and realize that you were wrong, you say Menino is chickening out?

Read again what he said to the newspapers - he did basically flat out say he would block them off from "his city" (as autochratic Dem mayor thugs are want to think) until the manure hit the windmill, even civil rights lawyers came out clamoring to represent CFA and quite probably Boston City Hall's lawyers told him to shut the hell up and backtrack your statements.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 80, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4440 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
Well, actually, he is. He is telling a Christian magazine that he is trying to run his business and hire workers to be Christian and live by his myopic views of Christianity and "family values."

Are you a Christian? I don't seem to think you are. That rules that out.
Are you a reader of said Christian magazine? I don't seem to think you are. That rules that out.
Are you an employee of Chick-fil-a? I don't seem to think you are. That rules that out.

I still fail to see the connection. Please explain, in detail, how his statement personally tells YOU, seb146, YOU personally, how to conduct your life.

If I tell my child to eat their broccoli and somehow get quoted in some publication, is that me telling YOU how to conduct your personal life? No, and it would be asinine to think so.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 75):
I think if you reread the beginning of the thread, you'll find that's not how things went down.

I said "and all the huff" simply because this thread definitely had other motives. I'm questioning the overall "huff", globally.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 78):
It is up to them to reveal their own private terrors and turmoils, lashing out at others etc. Sad, but this is a person crying out to be embraced, really.

Don't dance around the issue. Call the person out.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4421 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 80):
I still fail to see the connection. Please explain, in detail, how his statement personally tells YOU, seb146, YOU personally, how to conduct your life.

If I tell my child to eat their broccoli and somehow get quoted in some publication, is that me telling YOU how to conduct your personal life? No, and it would be asinine to think so.

Are you donating millions of dollars to a campaign to force children other than your own to eat broccoli?

Is that so hard to understand?

Some here criticize Michele Obama for trying to make kids healthier.. God forbid she suggest kids eat their veggies - before all Tea Partiers/GOP/Right wing nuts call Government Intrusion - Imagine if she had donates any money to support a law to force veggies on children.

[Edited 2012-07-29 19:09:42]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 82, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 79):
Read again what he said to the newspapers - he did basically flat out say he would block them off from "his city"

How about a direct quote? "basically" doesn't quite cut it.



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 83, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 80):
Are you a Christian? I don't seem to think you are.

Because you know me so well. Yes, I am a Christian. I just don't believe in the militant Christianity of the right wing political sphere.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 80):
Please explain, in detail, how his statement personally tells YOU, seb146, YOU personally, how to conduct your life.

Contributing billions of dollars and hiring those he and his "Christian" corporation believe are Christian like. Then, they complain that there are no people willing to be hired?

There are CFAs here. I can guarantee that, if there are gays in committed relationships, they have so few hours and have zero power so they are not getting any benefits for themself and their partner. Because that is how the corporation wants it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):
Because you know me so well.

Never said I did know you well. We're on an internet forum. Be real. I said I didn't seem to "think" so, I didn't say you weren't.

So, the only issue here is that Cathy was telling you how to live your life because you and he are Christians? Ok. Finally I got an answer. Took a while.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 74):
hire workers to be Christian

Hmm, if you're Christian, why would you have a problem with hiring other Christians? Just wondering, that's all.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):
they complain that there are no people willing to be hired?

Source?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):
I can guarantee that

Source?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 81):
Are you donating millions of dollars to a campaign to force children other than your own to eat broccoli?

Ah, you're extrapolating when we already capped the conversation. The issue isn't lobbying or similar - it is telling one how to live their personal life. So... "children other than your own" is out of scope.

Revelation and Doc limited our scope to that, so if you disagree with the two of them you may have a fair point.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 85, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 84):
Ah, you're extrapolating when we already capped the conversation. The issue isn't lobbying or similar - it is telling one how to live their personal life. So... "children other than your own" is out of scope

He is telling other people how to live by donating million of dollars to anti-gay groups.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 84):
Revelation and Doc limited our scope to that, so if you disagree with the two of them you may have a fair point.

I am sorry - but as much as I like Revelation and Doc, you are not responding to them, you are responding to me. and since that is the case - i am glad that you agree with me. Maybe there is still hope for you yet!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 84):
so if you disagree with the two of them you may have a fair point.


[Edited 2012-07-29 19:59:03]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 86, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4387 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 85):
Maybe there is still hope for you yet!

 

Thanks, enlightened one. As I said, I'm just trying to make sense of this all logically.

 

At any rate, I did respond to them. We're all talking over and past each other so I don't know what views you took.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 87, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 86):
Thanks, enlightened one. As I said, I'm just trying to make sense of this all logically.

Keep trying..it not that hard.. just keep at it and you will get it... we have confidence in you..



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 88, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4380 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 87):
Keep trying..it not that hard.. just keep at it and you will get it... we have confidence in you..

Eh, I'll wait until they get their arguments in a row, too. At any rate, you stuck your nose in my reply to seb so I assumed you wanted some of that pie too.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 72):
Quoting mt99 (Reply 71):
"An analysis of charitable donations by Chick-Fil-A shows the fast-food chain gave nearly $2 million to antigay groups in 2010."

So why the huff now? It's 2012. Why wasn't this thread in 2010?

Anyway, what about my question here?

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 72):
Also, shouldn't there be a thread for every other group who donated to antigay groups?

And that?

[Edited 2012-07-29 20:29:51]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 89, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4373 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 88):
I assumed you wanted some of that pie too.

When you "assume" you make an a**... you know the rest...

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 88):
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 72):
Also, shouldn't there be a thread for every other group who donated to antigay groups?

And that?


Sure - why not!.. Get to it..

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 88):

So why the huff now? It's 2012. Why wasn't this thread in 2010?

Anyway, what about my question here?

Because we gays were busy in 2010  Smile

Seriously - so when - according to you- does it become valid to discuss donations to anti-gay groups? What is the statute of limitations?

[Edited 2012-07-29 20:36:41]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 90, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 84):
the only issue here is that Cathy was telling you how to live your life because you and he are Christians?

He is CEO of a corporation and claims to be a Christian telling me how to be a Christian. Sorry, I already have a guideline for that. I don't need some self-righteous arrogant rich person telling me I am not good enough to enter the Kingom of Heaven.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 84):
if you're Christian, why would you have a problem with hiring other Christians?

Why is that an issue in the first place? Tell me where EXACTLY in our Constitution it says preferences are given to Christians and that this is a Christian nation?

Better yet, since this is a states rights issue, tell me where EXACTLY it says in the laws of Massachussetts it says preferences are given to heterosexual Christians?

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 84):
Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):they complain that there are no people willing to be hired?
Source?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):I can guarantee that
Source?

Look at the labor practices of Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Costco, McDonalds, Macy's and all the other stores our work force has been forced to go to because manufacturing has been outsourced.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 91, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4364 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 89):
Because we gays were busy in 2010

 
Quoting mt99 (Reply 89):
Sure - why not!.. Get to it..

I'm not the one in a huff about this.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 89):
Seriously - so when - according to you- does it become valid to discuss donations to anti-gay groups?

You got that backwards. I'm not saying you can't discuss it until now ("when does it become valid" implies that it wasn't at an earlier point); I was actually asking why it took so long.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 89):
What is the statute of limitations?

Ah, there we go. Now we're going the right way. There's none as far as I'm concerned. It just seems like this is SUCH a BIG DEAL that I would have thought it was a little more pressing to talk about.

That said, I don't discuss all my pressing issues on A.net lulztopic... err... off-topic... so if that's your reasoning, I'd agree with that.

^ Slow ball... I'll bet you can nail that one.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 92, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
Why is that an issue in the first place? Tell me where EXACTLY in our Constitution it says preferences are given to Christians and that this is a Christian nation?

Better yet, since this is a states rights issue, tell me where EXACTLY it says in the laws of Massachussetts it says preferences are given to heterosexual Christians?

Neither say that anywhere. I didn't say they did, either. I was simply asking why you'd have an issue with a company hiring Christians. Not exclusively Christians, but hiring Christians just like they'd hire others... seeing as you didn't say "exclusively". Ref:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 83):
hiring those he and his "Christian" corporation believe are Christian like.

.
.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 90):
Look at the labor practices of Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, Costco, McDonalds, Macy's and all the other stores our work force has been forced to go to because manufacturing has been outsourced.

How does that guarantee Chick-fil-a managers give fewer hours to gay employees?





Anyway I gotta get some sleep guys. I'm up for more fun tomorrow, though.

[Edited 2012-07-29 20:50:43]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 93, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 91):
I'm not the one in a huff about this.

You are in huff that people are in a huff.. which is even sillier..

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 91):
There's none as far as I'm concerned. It just seems like this is SUCH a BIG DEAL that I would have thought it was a little more pressing to talk about.

You can thank Mr Cathy for putting it to the front burner for us.

Yes - that may put is on the same level as the "One Million Moms" group - who huff and puff against companies who support gay marriage.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 91):
That said, I don't discuss all my pressing issues on A.net lulztopic... err... off-topic... so if that's your reasoning, I'd agree with that.

Ahh now it makes sense - that is the reason that you have not started a topic against "one million moms"

So - seriously now - do you agree with gay marriage or are you just here for the entertainment value of this thread?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 94, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4354 times:

Quoting mt99 (Reply 93):
So - seriously now - do you agree with gay marriage or are you just here for the entertainment value of this thread?

Both.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage in the least. In fact, I voted for it in my state. I find this thread hilarious, though. Mostly because of the huff around an old conservative guy saying what he thinks.  Wow!
Quoting mt99 (Reply 93):
which is even sillier

  

I had a good run going, though.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6546 posts, RR: 6
Reply 95, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4347 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 94):
I had a good run going, though.

Good trolling indeed! Congrats!



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 96, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 92):
why you'd have an issue with a company hiring Christians.

Both federal and state law state that there shall be no discrimination based on religion, among other points. When I go into a McDonalds or Target, I don't care which God the food prep workers and cashiers pray to. I don't care who they are dating. AFAIK, management of both those companes do not care, either. Just the way it should be.

So, with CFA hiring Christians, that breaks the law. Plus, it creates a homogonous society. It creates resentment among others who are discriminated against. I was not alive in the 1960s, but that was one catalyst for change in the equality movement.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 92):
How does that guarantee Chick-fil-a managers give fewer hours to gay employees?

All they have to say is "It's the economy" or "other people have responsibilities outside work" or some other such lie. When I was manager of Taco Bell and had employees who did nothing to contribute (i.e. stand around, gossip with customers, take two hour lunches) they would get fewer hours and were told exactly why. Out of fear of lawsuits, CFA probably lies. Which, IIRC, is NOT a Christian value.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 97, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4266 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 96):
So, with CFA hiring Christians, that breaks the law.

They don't break the law by hiring Christians. They would break the law if they hired EXCLUSIVELY Christians, which you never qualified.

Splitting hairs, but it makes a difference.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 96):
probably lies

Yep, so let's hang them on a 'probably'.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 98, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

I think the arguments is getting off track.

1: Do you agree with CFA donating to these certain groups?

2: Is that ok to do (freedom of expression)?

3: Should CFA be able to be blocked for their views as long as they aren't violating the law?

4: ARE they being blocked?


Those are the valid questions here IMO, not these side arguments that are beating around the bush. I don't think it was ever the case that "CFA is being blocked because they only hire Christians" or something, don't even think that is true so why are we arguing that?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 99, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
1: Do you agree with CFA donating to these certain groups?

My understanding is that these groups' main purpose is to help troubled marriages. I don't think divorce is a good thing in general (don't get married to begin with if you can't keep a promise), so I'm for that; I think people call it quits too easily when a marriage is a life-long project. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely cases where divorce is the only answer. I'll admit I don't know in what tangible ways these groups are "anti-gay", but if they indeed are, that leaves me with reservations.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
2: Is that ok to do (freedom of expression)?

As a privately-held company, they are and should be allowed to donate to any legal cause that they wish to.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
3: Should CFA be able to be blocked for their views as long as they aren't violating the law

Not an easy answer. Would it be legal for a chemical waste yard to apply for a zoning change next door to me and build? Yes. Do I want that? No. It is legal, though, so it shouldn't be blocked, but of course I will have stronger views on the topic than somebody five states away from me. I don't think it should be illegally or nefariously blocked, but rather if anybody wishes them to not establish business in a location, go about legal and peaceful ways to do so. I don't think anybody is "wrong" or "right" in either situation, however.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
4: ARE they being blocked?

Are they being forced, legally, not to build? No. Is a politician saying something that could be construed as intent to look for any failing criteria to block the establishment, more-so than a Wendy's or McDonalds might face? Yes. Would blocking it necessarily be illegal? No, not if there are legal criteria for blocking Chick-fil-a.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1252 posts, RR: 8
Reply 100, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4202 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 99):

My understanding is that these groups' main purpose is to help troubled marriages.

And you would be wrong. They are not nearly so benign.

The express purpose of these groups is to deny equal treatment under the law to gay persons, and the rationale used is "our Relgion said so."

While these groups often masquerade with family-friendly names that appear to support wholesome family values, the real rationale is to keep Gay people from enjoying these values. They are also very happy to denigrate those who choose to have children out of wedlock for similar reasons.

But beyond the issue of Marriage Equality, these groups often work to take an even more active role in stripping away rights and protections for Gay people, such as lobbying the State of Pennsylvania to get rid of a ban on hiring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

These groups also do their utmost to defame Gay people in general, and several groups that Chick-Fil-A has given to have actively and repeatedly attempted to paint all homosexual men as pedophiles. In fact, this is one of their main justifications for opposing gay adoption. Entirely spurious it may be, but that doesn't stop them from repeating it as often and as loudly as possible.

As recently as the spring of 2010, one of these groups was on national television demanding that there be criminal prosecution of homosexuals.

The work of the groups Chick-Fil-A supports goes beyond anti-gay activities as well. Some groups they support with generous donations have openly stated that "A woman's place is in the home as a homemaker" and they also work to prevent equality for women, equal pay, equal education, and any form of sex education.

Frankly, groups like Family research Council and the National Organization for Marriage are hate groups no different from the KKK. They're just more acceptable to "Christians" (and I should stress, not all Christians but a cetain vociferous minority) who use religion as an excuse to hate others or to make themselves feel better about, or justified in, their hatred of others.

So just so you know, this is what you're defending, and what you are supporting when you eat at Chick-Fil-a.

[Edited 2012-07-30 13:49:26]

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 101, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4175 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
1: Do you agree with CFA donating to these certain groups?

Yes, it is their money and choice.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
2: Is that ok to do (freedom of expression)?

Yes

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
3: Should CFA be able to be blocked for their views as long as they aren't violating the law?

No

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 98):
4: ARE they being blocked?

No, it would nto stand up in court.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 102, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 100):
So just so you know, this is what you're defending, and what you are supporting when you eat at Chick-Fil-a.

No, I'm not defending that if I eat there. Just like I'm not defending violations of civil rights while living in states that don't allow gay marriage.

If I eat at Chick-fil-a, I am eating their food, pure and simple.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 103, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 97):
They don't break the law by hiring Christians. They would break the law if they hired EXCLUSIVELY Christians, which you never qualified.

Splitting hairs, but it makes a difference.

So, if Mohammed is not hired but Cathy is, that's fine?

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 97):
Yep, so let's hang them on a 'probably'.

A lot worse has been done on a lot less to Democrats. Anthony Wiener?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 104, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4110 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 61):

Our founding fathers died for a cause they believed in.

So... They believed in living to a ripe old age then? Because that's what they died of.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):

In-N-Out does not have their board of directors telling everyone how to conduct themselves in the bedroom and in public. I know In-N-Out is a Christian based company. But, they do not shove it down our throats.

Not wild about In n Out's practices their either, but yes, they're much less obnoxious about it. As well, much unlike CFA, they at least value their customers enough to ensure a better experience by paying a much more livable wage to their employees

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 63):
Or fear that the company may support lobbying to protect family values?

"Family Values" needs to be outed for what it is. This generation's "Separate but Equal." All nature of garbage is espoused and lobbied for under that banner, and like most of the social agendas america's right wingers are pushing, it needs to get shown the door.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 105, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4109 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 104):
"Family Values" needs to be outed for what it is. This generation's "Separate but Equal."

What is "family values" anyway? If it is a right you already have, why stop a small group from gaining said right? Besides, it is not a special right if you are entitled to it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11929 posts, RR: 25
Reply 106, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4098 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 105):
What is "family values" anyway?

It's something conservatives like to talk about but not actually do. See Sarah/Todd/Bristol Palin for a prime example.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1252 posts, RR: 8
Reply 107, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4056 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 102):
No, I'm not defending that if I eat there. Just like I'm not defending violations of civil rights while living in states that don't allow gay marriage.

If I eat at Chick-fil-a, I am eating their food, pure and simple.

Yeah, actually you are, unless Chick-Fil-A is giving you food for free, which I don't think they are.

It's your money. You choose to give it to them knowing what they do with it. You could easily give it to another business that does not do things like actively work to strip away people's civil rights.

You can vote in a state to change the political landscape of that state, but you cannot "vote" on what Chick-Fil-A does with it's money. You can only "vote" on whether or not you choose to give them your money.

I reiterate, the objectionable things that Chick-Fil-A does with your money are funded by you. You have a choice to support them or not.

If you give a group money, you cannot then claim to totally dissociate yourself from what it does with that money.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 108, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 107):

At risk of running through previous circles on this thread, if you're going to use that logic, then use that logic.

Check with the produce at the store you purchase. Often times it has stickers saying what farm it comes from. Are those farmers in an ultra-conservative group that supports 'family values'?

Big oil comes largely from the middle east, a region notorious for trampling on gay rights. Have you purchased a Chevy Volt? At least you would be using electricity which is partly produced by solar/wind and other non-oil sources.

What company do you work for? Have you checked the board of directors? Who are they? What political leanings do they have? What groups do they donate to? Who supplies the products your company uses?

What state do you live in? Sure, you can vote - but they're still taking your taxes. You have a choice there. There are 49 other states to choose from.

Your mutual funds; are you making sure that the stocks that the fund buys into aren't for companies that oppose gay rights by giving in to lobbyists who also promote 'family values'?

Quoting cargolex (Reply 107):
If you give a group money, you cannot then claim to totally dissociate yourself from what it does with that money.

I simply don't have the time or energy to check on each and every company that may receive a penny of my hard-earned money - and I give my money to a massive amount of companies by purchasing products, services, or products or services offered by a company who uses other company's products or services. Where do we stop? By your very statement, you yourself cannot claim to totally disassociate yourself from what companies do with your money. Why does that make me any worse than you? Simply because I might give more money to groups that are more anti-gay? Who's to say in other areas I am, by chance, contributing less to anti-gay companies overall than you are, even though I eat at Chick-fil-a (let's be honest, they maybe get $120 a year from me, and that's pushing it.)

While you could argue that now that things have "come to light" about Chick-fil-a and therefore it is an easy decision to stop patronizing the company, I wonder what the due diligence required is in order to be "in the clear".

At the end of the day, I don't have issues eating at Chick-fil-a, and frankly could care less what an internet forum tells me I am for doing so. I can sleep at night. If you can't sleep at night after eating there, then please don't - it would be wrong for you to do so if it goes against your beliefs. However, just like we ask others to not dictate what people do in their bedroom, please don't try to dictate where I eat.

[Edited 2012-07-31 10:05:02]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1252 posts, RR: 8
Reply 109, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 108):
I simply don't have the time or energy to check on each and every company that may receive a penny of my hard-earned money - and I give my money to a massive amount of companies by purchasing products, services, or products or services offered by a company who uses other company's products or services. Where do we stop?

All of this is quite correct. Your point is well taken.

However, some of us do choose not to support companies who go out of their way to advertise that they are doing nefarious things with our money, and some of us choose to actually research what the companies we buy from are doing.

The difference between judging the values of a hyper conservative farmer in California who produces Bell Peppers that I eat and judging Chick-Fil-A is that Chick-Fil-A has gone way out of it's way to advertise and support its repugnant, bigoted views - and Chick-Fil-A has the resources to make things happen.

Just like a variety of corporations who contributed to stripping out protections against anti-gay discrimination in Tennessee earlier this year. And you know what? When customers of these companies complained that they objected to supporting such legislation, most of those corporations, acting via the state chamber of commerce, changed their minds and took positions against it. So voting with your wallet and complaining publicly about objectionable things actually does have value in terms of protecting civil rights. Sometimes.

There are always compromises and there are few absolutes, but once a company has gone waaaay out of it's way to tell you that it is doing objectionable things - after that point you're making a judgement to either endorse or reject those things.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 108):
However, just like we ask others to not dictate what people do in their bedroom, please don't try to dictate where I eat.

Except for the fact that your dollars are being used to dictate what people do in their bedrooms. It's your choice if you want to continue eating at Chick-Fil-A - although your arteries would probably prefer you did not - but don't expect not to hear that you're supporting bad things by doing so.

You know, if it's entirely under the radar, then that's one thing. Not a good thing, but it would be understandable if you were an HSBC customer that you did not know that HSBC might hold the Taliban's bank account. But now you know, and are making a more conscious choice.

Nobody is saying you "cannot" eat at Chick-Fil-A. They're saying you shouldn't.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 110, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4010 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 109):
The difference between judging the values of a hyper conservative farmer in California who produces Bell Peppers that I eat and judging Chick-Fil-A is that Chick-Fil-A has gone way out of it's way to advertise and support its repugnant, bigoted views - and Chick-Fil-A has the resources to make things happen.

Very true. And yes, I'll fully admit there's more harm done by Chick-fil-a overall in that case. Let's look at oil companies, though. While a lot harder to not use their products due to their integration and our reliance they are even worse offenders overall than Chick-fil-a. Chick-fil-a hasn't broken the law - and is a far cry from executing homosexuals.

I have a hard time rationalizing not eating CFA but still buying gas. If I buy gas and don't eat CFA, it would be hypocritical in my mind. Just because not buying gas and instead using public transit or a Chevy Volt makes my life harder and therefore I won't do it is cheapening the issue. I think, regardless of what CFA donates, ideologies will continue on in some areas, and continue to change in others. One Million Moms will still do their thing regardless of whether CFA donates to other organizations or not. Now that it is "ok" to be GBLT, more people will come out even if CFA donates the money.

I'm sure we'll have to just disagree on his. I certainly don't think you are in the wrong here - if you think it is the right thing to do, then by all means do it. I'm glad to see some more rationalization from you than "it's just wrong to eat a Chick-fil-a now".

Quoting cargolex (Reply 109):
although your arteries would probably prefer you did not

  true. Their cookies and cream milkshake though... oh my god.

[Edited 2012-07-31 11:54:46]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 111, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3943 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 109):
The difference between judging the values of a hyper conservative farmer in California who produces Bell Peppers that I eat and judging Chick-Fil-A is that Chick-Fil-A has gone way out of it's way to advertise and support its repugnant, bigoted views - and Chick-Fil-A has the resources to make things happen.

Exactly. CFA isn't passively supporting or opposing anything. As loudmouthed as they've been about the issue, it is effectively impossible to rationalize eating there. This is why it's just a huge strawman/smokescreen to draw other companies' preferences into this issue. While it is true that quite a few companies have a lot to be embarrassed about, they at least seem to know this enough to attempt to hide/deflect these things, and if all else fails, apologize.

CFA on the other hand, has royally screwed the dog here. It isn't enough for them to merely support the destructive and morally depraved causes they do. They need to make sure folks know how much they enjoy doing so. And this, more than merely "supporting" these things is what makes their existence in any modern society unacceptable. Knowing that, yes, it is quite impossible to patronize such a company.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 112, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 111):

Ok so if I were to kill somebody and hide my actions, and possibly apologize if I were found out, then I am better than if I were to kill somebody and then come forward about it?

Right. Ok.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 113, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3877 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 112):
Right. Ok.

Taking a life is completely different than corporations denying rights given to us by law.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 114, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 113):
Taking a life is completely different than corporations denying rights given to us by law.

Indeed it is. But...

1) Chick-fil-a is not denying rights given to you by law. They are attempting to change laws, which is not illegal. Be careful.
2) Suddenly the middle east is getting a free pass on killing homosexuals. Let's not forget where our oil comes from and who we're funding by buying said oil.

I used the killing example for a reason.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 115, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3844 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 112):

Ok so if I were to kill somebody and hide my actions, and possibly apologize if I were found out, then I am better than if I were to kill somebody and then come forward about it?

If you don't mind, a more focused analogy is in order. CFA isn't "coming forward" about anything. They're openly bragging about it, and actively trying to sell their beliefs.

Now, if you were to change your quote to this (alterations and emphasis mine)


Ok so if I were to kill somebody and hide my actions, and possibly apologize if I were found out, then I am better than if I were to kill somebody without cause, brag about it and advocate changing the law so I can kill people at will?


Yes, you would be. But not by much.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 114):

2) Suddenly the middle east is getting a free pass on killing homosexuals.

They most certainly are not. I don't often post in non-av, but theses middle easterners you speak of get no relief from me either when it comes to human rights abuses. I've been on record on more than a few occasions advocating the complete financial withdrawal from the saudi "kingdom" until they get their house in order, and come up to code on their human rights issues. This is all I'm going to say about that here, because, as I said before, this is a smokescreen argument that does nothing to excuse CFA's childish and backward "ideals."

But, obviously I cannot have an opinion like that about foreigners and be ok with problems like CFA in our own country. There's no question that their behavior needs a stop put to it.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1252 posts, RR: 8
Reply 116, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 114):
Suddenly the middle east is getting a free pass on killing homosexuals. Let's not forget where our oil comes from and who we're funding by buying said oil.

The majority of "our" (the United States') oil comes from Canada. But as before, you're right, oil comes to us in spite of all kinds of abuses, only some of which involve Gay rights.

But...

We're not in a position to not buy oil, but some people do try to make sure they understand where their products are coming from. We are in a position to not buy Chicken sandwiches.

It would be very hard for Americans as a whole, let alone a small subset (say 10%) of Americans to change the policies of a place like Saudi Arabia, where laws are religiously motivated as well as coming from civil and political concerns. Saudi Arabia is another society, and though we can suggest changes we do not have a right to demand them. We can, however refuse to travel there, patronize their businesses, or buy their goods. We can't stop buying oil, but we can choose where that oil comes from to some extent.

With Chick-Fil-A, there is the opportunity to directly stop buying things from them and call them out publicly for what they are doing because this is our society and we're right here. Where I live, there isn't a Chick-Fil-A location for hundreds of miles. So "boycotting" them is a pretty easy choice for me. Similarly, it would be very difficult for me to go out and demonstrate in front of on of their locations (expect this to begin happening soon, however). Geographically, Chick-Fil-A might as well be in Saudi Arabia for me. But for most people, you can go to a Chick-Fil-A location and voice your displeasure. You can't go to a Saudi or Angolan oil field even if you wanted to.

Don't think, either, that the middle east or middle eastern businesses get a free pass. Plenty of heat directed at the likes of Emirates for their home country's policies, and if those policies ever became popularly controversial, it would directly impact those companies. In fact, I'm of the opinion that it is only a matter of time before some major incident makes the gulf states look really draconian, and then there will be a reaction among the public. That's one reason why those carriers NEVER emphasize the more conservative elements of their home states. There were even protests to bar countries with anti-gay laws from participating in the 2012 Olympics, and Singapore has drawn huge amounts of fire from other countries (primarily Taiwan) for retaining it's discriminatory laws.

Furthermore, just because other people do worse things does not make Chick-Fil-A's behavior "better" even if it isn't as bad as murder. I'd also posit that in the ideal world of Dan Cathy, criminalization of homosexuality, as in Dubai or Singapore, would be a laudable goal. While Chick-Fil-A may not advocate that now, they advocate the roots of that, and they also give to people who advocate that directly.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 117, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3828 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 115):
I don't often post in non-av, but theses middle easterners you speak of get no relief from me either when it comes to human rights abuses.

Good. We both know it is impossible to track everybody's postings on a specific issue, so I was speaking in generalities here. That said, I respect your actions there.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 115):
If you don't mind, a more focused analogy is in order.

Fair enough, although I wouldn't quite agree with how far you have taken it. I, personally, don't buy seb's talk about how CFA is a hostile environment to customers and employees; by and large you can eat at a CFA and not be bombarded with 'anti-gay' sentiment. I would disagree with you that CFA is openly proclaiming their stance, even if the CEO is. Basically I'd say the pendulum doesn't swing as far as you say it swings, but I won't contest that.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 115):
this is a smokescreen argument that does nothing to excuse CFA's childish and backward "ideals."

That I do disagree with. I'm not trying to smokescreen anything. Read my disclaimers above. I'm playing devils advocate and trying to logically and unemotionally walk through this. I'm not trying to hide anything by bringing up other companies.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 116):
We're not in a position to not buy oil, but some people do try to make sure they understand where their products are coming from. We are in a position to not buy Chicken sandwiches.

While we can't fully stop our dependance on oil, I have been told by many people that I'm a 'bad person', environmentally speaking, for driving myself to work and back every day and not carpooling. I'm just trying to point out that, with the stink this CFA mess has caused, you'd think every gay person would also be driving a Chevy Volt, riding public trans, carpooling with 4 others, or working from home. Seems to me (and I don't know people here personally, so I'm not trying to make a final judgement here, just anecdotal evidence based on what I observe around me in the world) that is not the case. Yes, it is easier to not buy a Chicken Sandwich... but if you feel that strongly, is it that hard to carpool?

Quoting cargolex (Reply 116):
Furthermore, just because other people do worse things does not make Chick-Fil-A's behavior "better" even if it isn't as bad as murder.

Fair enough. See above.


In the end, I'm trying to pin a "badness" level of CFA here. How "wrong" are they compared to oil companies, and at what point do we need to alter our behaviors so as no to offend the GLBT group? Of course we have to take in all the inputs or variables; actions of the offenders, how heavily they are integrated into our lives, whether they took such actions in our country or another, etc. Please don't take that as an offensive statement, it is a genuine question - and I know we can't pre-define every possible outcome. So far I still haven't gotten more clarity than it falls somewhere between not eating at a fast food joint and not buying gas. That's a pretty big spread... surely we can narrow it down?

[Edited 2012-08-01 11:59:21]


The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlinecargolex From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1252 posts, RR: 8
Reply 118, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
While we can't fully stop our dependance on oil, I have been told by many people that I'm a 'bad person', environmentally speaking, for driving myself to work and back every day and not carpooling. I'm just trying to point out that, with the stink this CFA mess has caused, you'd think every gay person would also be driving a Chevy Volt, riding public trans, carpooling with 4 others, or working from home. Seems to me (and I don't know people here personally, so I'm not trying to make a final judgement here, just anecdotal evidence based on what I observe around me in the world) that is not the case. Yes, it is easier to not buy a Chicken Sandwich... but if you feel that strongly, is it that hard to carpool?

Apples and Oranges, I think.

The evils of oil companies are not targeted at a specific group of people and they're definitely not motivated by religious intolerance. They also don't make moral pronouncements.

The evils that CFA and it's CEO are advocating are, and do. Therefore, I don't think your comparison of a very general kind of situation with a very targeted situation is apt.

Furthermore, Gay people are allowed to choose what they drive and where they go just like you are, and there may be alot of gay people who think that's its perfectly fine to drive a gas guzzling car, but don't want to be told that they do not have the right to equal treatment under the law when it comes to their civil rights.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
How "wrong" are they compared to oil companies, and at what point do we need to alter our behaviors so as no to offend the GLBT group?

I think it's actually very simple.

Stop advocating for Gay people to be treated differently under the law, stop telling gay people they are immoral or pedophiles or whatever other insane nonsense, and stop supporting those who do, particularly when it so easy and then you will not offend the GLBT community. (Just to note, I am not saying that you are doing this, this is rhetorical but I don't want it to be misunderstood as an accusation, because I do not believe you personally do or advocate these things).

You're looking at this in very abolutist terms - i.e. "This is not as bad as the worst offenses, so why are people not focused on worse things?" and "People who only focus on this are hypocrites for not doing more on other issues that may not concern them as directly but may be worse overall."

People are upset about Chick-Fil-A because it effects them personally, and because most people who are effected by this personally have already absorbed a lifetime of abuse from the very people who support Chick-Fil-A and whom CFA gives money to.

It's personal in a way that the offenses of oil companies in far off places aren't. One of the greatest issues with keeping oil companies from doing bad things is that those bad things typically happen far away, usually out of sight. That does not excuse them, but it does make them less immediate and certainly less personal. It also makes them much harder to fight against.

CFA's management has deliberately (and, if you believe them, proudly) placed the company in the spotlight on this issue, the exact opposite of keeping things under the radar.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
Please don't take that as an offensive statement, it is a genuine question

I take your question seriously, but I think the majority of GLBT adults are not generally offended until somebody tells them "You should not be allowed to get married" or "You should not be allowed to have children" or "You are a danger to our community" or "you have no morals" simply because of how you were born or what you do in your bedroom with consenting adults.

I think that the "religious" opposition to Gay rights exists as it does only because it is the last form of "acceptable" bigotry towards gay persons. You can't behave like Jesse Helms or Anita Bryant these days. But if you cloak what you're thinking in religion, it becomes socially acceptable - to a point - though less so every day. If I were a more religious person who was part of the religion in question, this might upset me, as I know it upsets some of my friends who are religious and don't feel that talking smack about gay people is particularly "religious" or particularly useful.

Gay people can get married in several states - the sky has not fallen. Gay people are on TV - all our kids haven't turned gay. Gay people are in the military (and have been for a long time) and we still have an awesome Military.

There are no reasonable explanations as to why we should, as a society, restrict the legal rights of gay people. And yet, we're constantly bombarded with people looking to do exactly that, usually bearing "religious" motivations in a country that has no official religion and was founded in the wake of religiously motivated conflicts like the English civil war. That really is offensive, and should be to most people.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):

In the end, I'm trying to pin a "badness" level of CFA here.

Essentially they are giving money to people advocate and maintain a kind of Jim Crow world for GLBT people. Is it as bad as the worst of Jim Crow? Not anymore, but it's not long ago that it was just as bad, and the people who made it that way still have alot of influence on government - such as when the supposedly "moderate" governor of Virginia not only rolled back anti-discrimination laws against gay people on the state level, he also forced private colleges to do it as well or risk losing state aid and accreditation.

On another level, some of the organizations that CFA gives money to have influenced, if not created, even more serious things in other countries - like Uganda's "Kill the gays" law.

[Edited 2012-08-01 14:17:19]

User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 119, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
I, personally, don't buy seb's talk about how CFA is a hostile environment to customers and employees; by and large you can eat at a CFA and not be bombarded with 'anti-gay' sentiment.

Of course I cannot speak for Seb, but my take on that is that CFA actively promotes a hostile work environment by taking the stances it does and by making it clear that they are a "Christian" company, and by choosing to remain closed on Sundays (though that one is more hostile to customers than employees, I would imagine).

Does this translate into ugly looks or racist jokes/innuendo on the job? Not neccessarily. But we can be sure that rules are enforced more specifically against folks who are gay or gay friendly (I do know that is the case, but only annecdotally), and that such people are likely to be scheduled less favorably and are generally not considered for promotion. We all know that that is of course illegal (except in places like virginia, who's governor recently launch a series of anti-human rights measures WRT higher education accredidation), but try enforcing it.

So, no, you're right, it's probably not hell on earth to eat or work there. But that doesn't make what they do right, or make it a "good" place to work.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
I would disagree with you that CFA is openly proclaiming their stance, even if the CEO is.

It's a company that refuses to go public and has a board of trustees whose job it is to rubber-stamp whatever the CEO says/does. He very much speaks for the company. If they're ok with his actions thus far, and no attempt or effort has been made to dispose of him, then they (being CFA) need to accept being seen as bigots.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
Read my disclaimers above. I'm playing devils advocate and trying to logically and unemotionally walk through this. I'm not trying to hide anything by bringing up other companies.

Understood. But as said elsewhere, it's a combination of that fact that they are very emphatic about their "stance", and that it is very easy to do something about it. Hence, something will get done about it.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
While we can't fully stop our dependance on oil, I have been told by many people that I'm a 'bad person', environmentally speaking, for driving myself to work and back every day and not carpooling.

I wouldn't say that. Off topic, but if there are better, more responsible options, take them. If not, drive to work. I'm personally an advocate of stratified fuel pricing, and progressive (based on safety and efficiency ratings) vehicle taxation. But even then, if you can afford it, knock yourself out. Just don't complain about it.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
Yes, it is easier to not buy a Chicken Sandwich... but if you feel that strongly, is it that hard to carpool?

Not for me, no.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
In the end, I'm trying to pin a "badness" level of CFA here. How "wrong" are they compared to oil companies, and at what point do we need to alter our behaviors so as no to offend the GLBT group?


The same point you would for any other race or group. They're people. People that aren't trying to take anything from you ro me, but unfortuanately don't enjoy the same luxuries for themselves. To me, that's embarassing as hell. CFA certainly isn't the cause of that, but they're throwing their weight on the wrong side of history. If this means they have to get taken out in the end, so be it. I'm sure the world will turn just fine with another chicken place to step right in.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 120, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 114):
1) Chick-fil-a is not denying rights given to you by law. They are attempting to change laws, which is not illegal. Be careful.

So, to deny a sector of society rights that are already granted to a majority of people? That is acceptable to you? It is acceptable to CFA. Look what happened in the 1960s when that happened.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 114):
Suddenly the middle east is getting a free pass on killing homosexuals.

Wrong. Try again.

This is different because denial of rights is happening in our own land. They are not being given a free pass so much as it is easier to change our own country.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 114):
Let's not forget where our oil comes from and who we're funding by buying said oil.

Canada and the Chinese and al-Qaida

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 119):
by choosing to remain closed on Sundays

This also irks Adventists, since they do not do anything sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. And they don't eat pork.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 121, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Quoting cargolex (Reply 118):
Furthermore, Gay people are allowed to choose what they drive and where they go just like you are, and there may be alot of gay people who think that's its perfectly fine to drive a gas guzzling car, but don't want to be told that they do not have the right to equal treatment under the law when it comes to their civil rights.

Absolutely; my original statement was not in relation to equal treatment or forcing anything, but rather a simple question of why they drive gas guzzlers if OPEC has such a bad record on GLBT treatment.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 118):
and stop supporting those who do, particularly when it so easy

We'll just go in circles on this, so feel free to not respond... but "those who do" include the oil companies I'm talking about.

Quoting cargolex (Reply 118):
One of the greatest issues with keeping oil companies from doing bad things is that those bad things typically happen far away, usually out of sight. That does not excuse them, but it does make them less immediate and certainly less personal.

Yes, and that is my issue. It makes it more of an emotional argument rather than a logical one. I'm not saying there's no room for emotion, but by and large, in my opinion, logical and thoughtful ideas tend to be better than emotional responses.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 119):
It's a company that refuses to go public

Side note - you say that as if it is bad, by way of saying "refuses". Am I mistaken in that interpretation?

.
.
I understand both of you all's arguments. It comes down to you all are more emotionally charged (not a bad thing) when it comes to this topic. I'm not. I'm typically not, even if I'm directly affected. Since I'm not, I don't understand, as much, the reasoning behind CFA being bad yet OPEC/Big Oil not being bad enough to have caused this much ruckus in the news.
.
.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 120):
That is acceptable to you?

Stop it. I never said it was.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 120):
Canada and the Chinese and al-Qaida

Actually, are huge percentage comes from OPEC.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 120):
Wrong. Try again.

Seeing as much flak I'm getting from daring to bring it up in this thread... I would, personally, disagree.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 122, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 121):
Stop it. I never said it was.

Since you are so adimant about supporting CFA and them supporting denial of rights to a small part of the population, I would say that is acceptable to you for rights to be denied.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 121):
Actually, are huge percentage comes from OPEC.

We get most of our oil from Canada. The money we pay for oil that we get from OPEC goes to fund al-Qaida and countries with horrible human rights records.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 121):
Seeing as much flak I'm getting from daring to bring it up in this thread... I would, personally, disagree.

That is the first time in this thread anyone said anything about middle east countries and homosexuals. This is a thread about one American company actively trying to deny a group of people rights that are granted to a majority BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. Not by God or any religion.

Let me explain: When two people get married, they have to alert the state in which they are getting married. Whether that marriage takes place in a park or the office of justice of the peace or temple or mom's basement. Otherwise, the couple will not be eligable for tax credits and medical and insurance and all kinds of benefits. If two people simply go to a house of worship and have the leader of that house perform the ceremony, the state still says they are two individuals. So, tell me (and CFA) how equal rights with regard to marriage has ANYTHING to do with God or religion?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 123, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 122):
Since you are so adimant about supporting CFA and them supporting denial of rights to a small part of the population, I would say that is acceptable to you for rights to be denied.

Ok, well I now see you're simply ignoring or purposefully not reading what I've been saying, if you say I'm supporting the denial of rights. I'm not going to respond to you anymore in this thread.

Have a nice day.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 124, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 123):
Ok, well I now see you're simply ignoring or purposefully not reading what I've been saying, if you say I'm supporting the denial of rights. I'm not going to respond to you anymore in this thread.

I understand where you are coming from. I get that way with a few people here.

Let me explain my way of thinking (I know you are going to read, even if you don't respond. I do):

CFA supports groups who use the law to deny marriage equality. Hence, you and CFA support segragation and discrimination.

CFA also supports Exodus. Which, according to every legitimate psychological network, is more damaging to people than anything. Not part of the original topic, but Exodus is very harmful to life. Is that what Christianity is all about? Harming life?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 125, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3581 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 123):
Ok, well I now see you're simply ignoring or purposefully not reading what I've been saying, if you say I'm supporting the denial of rights. I'm not going to respond to you anymore in this thread.

Because he's correct. If you think that you should have access to something I shouldn't, just because of some inherent characteristic of mine that has no effect on your life, that makes you a bigot. By definition.

So I really hope you don't.


User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 125):

Jesus, Doc. I'd expect better from you.

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
They've been riling feathers for years
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 23):
Now I guess I better say I have gay friends, blah blah blah I'm not a homophobe
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 53):
I'm not saying CFA is right or wrong here, nor am I asserting an opinion on the issue.
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 72):
I'm just trying to make sense of all this hubbub.
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 117):
I'm playing devils advocate and trying to logically and unemotionally walk through this.
Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 94):
I don't have a problem with gay marriage in the least. In fact, I voted for it in my state.

See? Obviously you haven't been reading the thread fully. Why the hell would I VOTE FOR SOMETHING if I'm against it? But no, since I'm playing devils advocate and also trying to understand other people's point of view by arguing the opposite point, just assume I'm a bad, bad person.

Ok then.

 



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 127, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3461 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 126):
But no, since I'm playing devils advocate and also trying to understand other people's point of view by arguing the opposite point, just assume I'm a bad, bad person.

Don't worry, I see where you're coming from. I think the thread got so convoluted a lot of people aren't sure who said what. I kinda tried to straighten it out in my reply (98) because I honestly don't think the ORIGINAL issue of this thread is if CFA donating money to certain groups is right or wrong, it's "can a politician deny a corporation because of a group they donate to or because of something that the president said (assuming they don't break any laws in doing it)?" I agree with you that they do have that right, but it's a passionate subject to many (for obvious reasons,) and I don't agree with CFA on this, but that is besides the point if we're sticking to the original topic.

Just trying to keep the peace  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2979 posts, RR: 9
Reply 128, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3362 times:

Copied from my post in the "new" thread, because it will probably be deleted as a duplicate thread...

(Haven't read thru this one yet. Will do tomorrow)
Before I start, just so you know where I'm coming from, I'll disclose that I'm straight, not a Democrat, not very liberal, always loved the chicken and waffle fries, and always respected that he closed his stores on Sunday based on his beliefs.

Here's how I see this... I keep seeing Mr. Cathy's supporters framing this as a freedom of speech issue. I don't think it is. He is certainly free to believe in the "biblical version" of marriage. Where this issue explodes is that he donates the money he makes from his restaurants to organizations whose sole reason to exist is to deny other citizens legal rights that others enjoy. Seems like a fine line, but it really isn't. He can support and "believe in" marriage = man woman, but it does not require trying to enact laws that remove the rights of people who do not share this view to enter into civil (not church) unions. But that's what he's done.
Think of it this way... (hypothetically) The owner of KFC believes that the "traditional" roles of women should be respected and as such their right to work and vote removed, and he donates millions of KFC earned dollars to organizations working to enact laws ensuring that women can't work or vote, is it still a "freedom of speech" issue or something more? Should a woman then be alright buying a bucket of extra crispy if the profits go to to remove her liberties? Should Jewish people (or non-Jews for that matter) not say something if the owner of a popular company uses it's proceeds to fund skinhead groups? What if the "free speech" he was expressing not only supported, but funded the KKK? Al Qaeda?
Also... It becomes more than 'free speech' when you try to eliminate liberties of fellow citizens.
I just believe that in the United States of America, liberties should be restricted only for compelling reasons. Paying taxes, not robbing or killing your neighbor or even not driving 70 MPH down the local street are all examples of compelling reasons. That you, or your pastor, don't think that someone else's version of love is fittin' is not compelling enough.
So the speech and beliefs part... I don't agree with his but I respect them, and would never agree to force a church to perform marriages. But this is civil law, not "God's law". And when you use your product to fund the legal fight to remove freedoms from fellow Americans based on your personal values... Well then I believe you've crossed a line. And you've made your product more than a sandwich. It is now a symbol of your personal, well, hatred, of some of your workers and customers. Or former customers...

Final thoughts:
While I believe that hummus, broccoli, and yogurt are an abomination on the earth, I do not support banning them for all others.
Don't think one should marry ones own gender? Then don't! What's the problem?
I believe civil laws based on religious teachings are out of place in the USA. In the middle east it happens, but not here.
Dang I'm gonna miss that chicken...



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 129, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3330 times:

Quoting 4holer (Reply 128):
Think of it this way... (hypothetically) The owner of KFC believes that the "traditional" roles of women should be respected and as such their right to work and vote removed, and he donates millions of KFC earned dollars to organizations working to enact laws ensuring that women can't work or vote, is it still a "freedom of speech" issue or something more?

As much as I am against it, I'd say it's freedom of speech. Who's to say that we're right and he's wrong? There is a big enough anti-gay movement in the US that wields a lot of political power, I'd hate to see them turn it around on us and ban people giving money to pro-gay organizations (because I don't know, supporting illegal activities?) Who knows what they'd do, but limit speech in some areas can lead to some unintended circumstances, IMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18704 posts, RR: 58
Reply 130, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3328 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 126):
Jesus, Doc. I'd expect better from you.

I tell it like it is. If you think that I don't deserve something that you do deserve, even though I haven't done anything wrong, just because of some inherent characteristic, that's bigotry.

Defined.

Don't like it? Don't be that way.


User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 131, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 3304 times:

Another example of the tolerance of the left... this douche-nozzle got fired, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPLNgkP9nzc

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 119):
It's a company that refuses to go public

"Refuses"? Who the hell are you to use that word, as if they somehow owe it to you the right to buy their shares? You don't even want to eat there and now you are concerned because you can't buy their shares? Companies go public to facilitate raising financing, provide liquidity to their early investors or allow them to issue stock options to attract and retain employees. If you don't need the cash because you are offering a good product and service at a reasonable price which allows the money to flow in, your investors do not need the liquidity because it is basically one dude who is clearly not motivated by money and your employees are mostly low qualified positions that probably get better conditions than at any comparable job anyway, why the hell would you go public?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 119):
has a board of trustees whose job it is to rubber-stamp whatever the CEO says/does

If he owns the damn thing what the heck would the job of the board of trustees be?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 132, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3242 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 121):

Side note - you say that as if it is bad, by way of saying "refuses". Am I mistaken in that interpretation?

Nope, you're not. If I'm being intellectually honest, the company's existence is a bad thing, public or private. But more on this below...

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 131):
"Refuses"? Who the hell are you to use that word,

Who are you to ask?   But seriously though... I'm a taxpayer, that's who. You know, those people that foot the infrastructure bill so cfa can sell fried chicken. Yeah, see the thing is, most of such people don't enjoy the idea of their money being used to help a business take money that they in turn use to assault the rights of other, tax paying citizens here.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 131):
You don't even want to eat there and now you are concerned because you can't buy their shares?

Eat there? Their assets would be seized by the gov't for supporting hate speech by now if I had my way. No kidding, I wouldn't eat there, or buy shares. I do have a conscience to live with after all...

The problem with them staying private is that it gives them a lot more opportunity to infect other people with their sickness. There's a lot that needs to happen in this country to correct this flaw, but in most civilized nations, they simply simply wouldn't be allowed to exist in the fashion they now do.

If however, they were compelled to be financially and social responsible to the communities they take money from, this problem simply wouldn't exist. But we're getting off topic.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 129):

Unless you meant something totally other than that, that is completely absurd. But specifically...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 129):
Who knows what they'd do, but limit speech in some areas can lead to some unintended circumstances, IMO

Unintended consequences are hard to get away from. Using your opinion, we better be careful and roll back women & minorities right to vote (or do anything else for that matter), since there may be consequences we don't like.

But if you're really worried about that, why not simply support anti hate speech legislation and/or amendments? There are a lot places in the world that do this, and quite simply don't have problems like cfa and their "supporters" to put up with.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 129):
There is a big enough anti-gay movement in the US that wields a lot of political power

No, there is no such movement; just a bunch of shrieking, ignorant bigots. This was explained by DocLightning in a post further up, when he defined what bigotry actually is. Secondly, they do not wield a lot of power, just a lot of noise.

I know your postings well enough to posit that you're likely playing devil's council rather than truly believing that, but it really isn't a concern. If legislation could be passed to dismantle companies that support "causes" such as theirs, there is truly no reason to believe that there would be negative consequences to society as whole here.

Keep in mind, it did take fundamental changes in our law (e.g. major constitutional amendments) to terminate embarrassments like slavery (and one honestly has to wonder what cathy's stance on that one would be if the issue were still "controversial") and correct the sufferage issues that kept women from voting. And at the time, yes, there were indeed plenty of moderates who objected to such legislation over similar concerns. The simple fact is that the constitution is not a dead document or a suicide pact. If we need to make fixes (which this case would involve preventing individuals and companies from supporting the elimination of any person's civil rights), then so be it. Yes people will object, and yes, they will be embarrassed to admit they did just a few decades later. This is what progress looks like oftentimes.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2979 posts, RR: 9
Reply 133, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 129):
As much as I am against it, I'd say it's freedom of speech. Who's to say that we're right and he's wrong?

Free speech is saying " I don't like you dating my daughter, young man!" That's expression of opinion. If "dad" takes it further by assaulting the young man or getting him fired or even arrested for a made up charge, it's wrong, right? When Cathy took action to negatively affect a part of the citizenry legally, it became more than speech. It became a very real assault on the lives of other Americans. And it ain't right!



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently onlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3816 posts, RR: 28
Reply 134, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
But seriously though... I'm a taxpayer, that's who

So, you are not a shareholder in the company but somehow you feel compelled to have them spend tens of millions of dollars in investment banking and lawyer fees, plus incur in millions of dollars of annual SEC reporting costs, for, what? It is amusing how the left seems to be all hell-bent against capital markets and willing to do everything they can to destroy them but when a company they do not support does not access those same capital markets because they don't need to they get their panties in a twist.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
You know, those people that foot the infrastructure bill so cfa can sell fried chicken.

Oh, yeah, I forgot - they didn't build that, the government did, right? That seems to be what Obama thinks. With people like you around who want to nationalize someones assets because you don't agree with their beliefs, no wonder the second amendment is extremely valuable.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
Yeah, see the thing is, most of such people don't enjoy the idea of their money being used to help a business take money that they in turn use to assault the rights of other, tax paying citizens here.

"Most"? Oh, and to attack "rights" that are not recognized by the majority of states, and up to a year ago were not even recognized by your beloved President. Not to mention that the business is not doing anything, its shareholders are (as should be the case).

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
The problem with them staying private is that it gives them a lot more opportunity to infect other people with their sickness.

So, are you offering to pay their investment banking and lawyer fees and SEC reporting costs? Since they didn't build that, the government did, why doesn't the government pay for them so you can be happy and have a 10-Q would never read or even begin to understand?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
If however, they were compelled to be financially and social responsible to the communities they take money from

Socially responsible under whose definition, the PC police?



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 135, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
I'm a taxpayer, that's who. You know, those people that foot the infrastructure bill so cfa can sell fried chicken.



LOL..CFA pays more than their fair share for the infrastructure that they use. They are taxpayers also and pay way more than you do.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
Their assets would be seized by the gov't for supporting hate speech by now if I had my way.



Bring in the brown shirts..

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
The problem with them staying private is that it gives them a lot more opportunity to infect other people with their sickness.



Actually staying private is not a problem. And I have never been sick after eating there.

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
There's a lot that needs to happen in this country to correct this flaw,



Freedom of Speech is a flaw?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
If however, they were compelled to be financially and social responsible to the communities they take money from, this problem simply wouldn't exist.



Compelled by who? And how do they "take" money from communities. Are they not providing a service? Whose idea of socially responsible?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
why not simply support anti hate speech legislation and/or amendments?



Whose definition do we use as to what hate speech is?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
There are a lot places in the world that do this, and quite simply don't have problems like cfa and their "supporters" to put up with.



It is amazing how in the name of equality and freedom people continue to want to take away someone else's right's and freedom.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 136, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 132):
Quoting 4holer (Reply 133):
Free speech is saying " I don't like you dating my daughter, young man!" That's expression of opinion. If "dad" takes it further by assaulting the young man or getting him fired or even arrested for a made up charge, it's wrong, right? When Cathy took action to negatively affect a part of the citizenry legally, it became more than speech. It became a very real assault on the lives of other Americans. And it ain't right!

Some see it as a vice and virtue case, just like prostitution and drugs and all. I don't agree with that, but I still value free speech.

I'll use a more realistic example... I am against abortion, in my mind (using reason not religion) I see it as killing a human. That being said, I am all for people donating to pro-abortion groups... that is their free speech, even if I see it as "a very real assault on the lives of other Americans." I staunchly disagree with pro-choice people, I see their actions as killing, but I support their right to say they are for abortion, to include giving money to pro-abortion organizations.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 137, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 134):
It is amusing how the left seems to be all hell-bent

No, what is amusing is how you seem to think that this is a left vs right thing. It isn't. This is a bigots vs non-bigots thing, and if you have any sense of obligation to defend equal rights of citizens, there is simply no way to avoid getting "hell bent" over this issue and still maintain a conscience.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 134):
Oh, yeah, I forgot - they didn't build that, the government did, right?

Damn Straight (no pun intended). Cfa didn't build any of the roads people traffic on, they do not pay for the police who protect them, they do not educate their employees enough to begin working there, they do not regulate the potablity of the water they take, they did not build the electrical grid that keeps them alive, they do not pay for the local fire brigades, they do not fund the FDA or Health Inspector, they did not pay for the copyright office... Looks like the "nots" have it here... Do you honestly believe there was no town for them to capitalize on before they opened?

They (and every other company in the history of ever) needed a host society, complete with infrastructural development, to begin. Just as you, personally, did not raise yourself from a zygote, these people couldn't have done what they did without assistance from the public. Why, on Earth, is this so hard for you to understand? Is it that Obama said it? Is that the issue?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 134):
no wonder the second amendment is extremely valuable.

Sigh, defend one flaw with another. That ammendment was designed to form state militias for the purpose of common defense, not so much as something that the more ignorant folks these days can waive around when they see somebody disagreeing with them. I'm not going to predict where this is headed over the next few years, but it doesn't look good for your cause. That wasn't put there so you can go shooting up movie goers or folks at political outings.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 134):
Socially responsible under whose definition, the PC police?

People who aren't bigots for starters...

Quoting windy95 (Reply 135):
Bring in the brown shirts..

Ah yes, the inevitable nazi comparison. I'll admit that hideously extreme attempt at analogy is used far too much on both sides, but indisputable truth is that these brown shirts you speak of had a lot more in common with right wing ideals and "values" and almost nothing to do with securing rights and freedoms for all members of society. 'Nuff said.

Edit... Found this recently... http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2...pictures-adolph-hitler-bush-obama/

More eloquent than what I said.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 135):
Freedom of Speech is a flaw?

Abusing it sure is. And for the record, it's "Freedom of Speech", not, as cfa and its supporters errorneously think, "Freedom from Responsibility."

Quoting windy95 (Reply 135):
Whose definition do we use as to what hate speech is?

A universal one. How, pray tell, is seeking legislation to keep a group of people listed as second class citizens not considered bigotry?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 135):


It is amazing how in the name of equality and freedom people continue to want to take away someone else's right's and freedom.

Taking your statement at face value, that's a hell of a lot better than than cfa wanting to take away someone else's right's and freedom for reasons relating to hatred and fear. What's amazing is that people will actually defend this.

And while we're there. What is it about equal rights you don't understand? If your beloved "Freedom of Speech" was truly more important than equality under the law, then you have no recourse when the majority decides that "your kind", what you may be, doesn't "need" the right to marry, vote, have a fair trial, etc, on down the line. Freedom of Speech was never, ever, intended to protect Tyranny of the Majority (or vanishing minority in this particular case).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 136):
I see their actions as killing, but I support their right to say they are for abortion, to include giving money to pro-abortion organizations.

You can say what you want. But there is a line that is crossed when one starts donating and actively facilitating actions that harm the natural and inalienable rights of others. Saying you want to shoot up a theater full of teenagers is not a crime. Trying to do it is.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 138, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3115 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 137):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 135):
Freedom of Speech is a flaw?


Abusing it sure is. And for the record, it's "Freedom of Speech", not, as cfa and its supporters errorneously think, "Freedom from Responsibility."

Whose responsibility. Is that more of that community social responsibility garbage?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 137):
A universal one. How, pray tell, is seeking legislation to keep a group of people listed as second class citizens not considered bigotry?

Who in this country is a second class citizen?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 137):
that's a hell of a lot better than than cfa wanting to take away someone else's right's and freedom for reasons relating to hatred and fear.

Hatred and fear...really? Do you not want to take away their religious beliefs because of your hatred and fear?

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 137):
If your beloved "Freedom of Speech" was truly more important than equality under the law,

We all have equality under the law. Right?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 139, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 138):

Whose responsibility. Is that more of that community social responsibility garbage?

We're straying off topic to go too far into detail, but yes, no man is an island, and whether we choose to acknowledge the obvious or not, the fact is that everything we do has effect. I cannot be another way. If you'd like to live in a republican dreamland where religions are protected all over the place, at the expense of civil liberties, I'm sure Afghanistan & Somalia will welcome you with open arms. You won't even have any of those pesky social outreach programs to trouble you...

Quoting windy95 (Reply 138):

Who in this country is a second class citizen?

Homosexuals, until they are allowed to marry one another, adopt children (which, by the way, our foster care programs are not short on!), etc, just like you and I are.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 138):

Hatred and fear...really? Do you not want to take away their religious beliefs because of your hatred and fear?

What's hateful about ensuring that everyone else in this country has the same rights you and I were born with? I think your side has hateful & fearful pretty much cornered...

Quoting windy95 (Reply 138):

We all have equality under the law. Right?

No, we do not. And that's the problem, windy. What you and a few others here don't seem to fully understand is that until everybody has the same rights and freedoms, nobody has them. Until their rights are as enshrined and protected as ours, there is nothing to prevent the same thing happening to you. As a heterosexual male, I have no trouble seeing this, which is why I consider to any attack on homosexual rights to be an attack on mine as well.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 140, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 138):
Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 137): If your beloved "Freedom of Speech" was truly more important than equality under the law,
We all have equality under the law. Right?

No. Two male or two female consenting adults can not enter into a legally binding contract, also known as marriage. CFA is contributing tons of money to groups who make sure that equality is never brought to pass.

I still want ANY right-winger to tell me why it is acceptable to deny a state backed contract between two consenting adults? Prop 8 is being challenged in FEDERAL COURT even though it was passed ONLY in California by the people of California. How is that right?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 141, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 130):
Don't like it? Don't be that way.

I'm not that way. Answer the question I asked above: why would I vote for gay marriage if I am against it? I'm all ears, Doc. Or, just ignore this and pretend you never saw it. You've done that a lot already in other threads.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 142, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3038 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 141):
why would I vote for gay marriage if I am against it?

As a right-winger who says they believe in small government and keeping government out of the lives of consenting adults, this is something you should be for. Equal rights. Not special rights. If you are true to your party's platform of individual liberty and freedom and letting people do what they want and keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible, you should be for it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 143, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3020 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 142):
As a right-winger who says they believe in small government and keeping government out of the lives of consenting adults, this is something you should be for. Equal rights. Not special rights. If you are true to your party's platform of individual liberty and freedom and letting people do what they want and keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible, you should be for it.

And I am. And as I said, I voted for it. Some people can't seem to comprehend arguing a point even if you're for it, for discussion or for more fully fleshing out how/why/what we believe.

But its ok. You can think I'm evil. I'll take one for the team.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11126 posts, RR: 15
Reply 144, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 143):
Some people can't seem to comprehend arguing a point even if you're for it, for discussion or for more fully fleshing out how/why/what we believe.

That's what I don't get: This is all about rights granted FROM THE GOVERNMENT and it was voted down by people who say they are for limited government. By all accounts the same people who vote for banning a small class of people obtaining equal rights should not have voted that way at all.

I mean, if you say you are for limited government and want government out of people's lives, that means let any consenting adult sign any contract they wish. But, this gets the government involved in people's lives and bedrooms. How can someone say they want government out of our lives then vote for the government to be in our lives?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7276 posts, RR: 52
Reply 145, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 144):

To be fair, it's hard to get a party that aligns itself with 100% of your beliefs. If I knew a candidate could get the US out of the mess that it's in but was against gay marriage, I'm sorry, I'd vote for that guy despite how strongly I am for gay marriage. Kinda going off topic, but that is why a lot of pro-gay moderates would vote for Romney. I honestly think that we won't have a country soon and gay or straight marriage won't matter if we don't get our country under control...

Sorry if I offended anyone who is gay/lesbian... don't mistake what I said as being against you  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1281 posts, RR: 3
Reply 146, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2965 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 145):
I honestly think that we won't have a country soon

I know it's off topic, but you know something we don't? As claims go, that's a pretty tall order...



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2979 posts, RR: 9
Reply 147, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2926 times:

Quoting ALTF4 (Reply 141):
Answer the question I asked above: why would I vote for gay marriage if I am against it?

Because in The United States of America, freedom and liberty should be the default. Removing those freedoms and liberties should only be done for compelling reasons (security, safety, etc).
I'm "against" the New York Yankees. But if there was a vote as to make illegal their existence or, I don't know, eliminate the right of Yankees fans to marry.... Well I'd see that vote as wrong and unAmerican and stand in line to vote "No"...



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineALTF4 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1199 posts, RR: 4
Reply 148, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Quoting 4holer (Reply 147):

Which is why I voted for it. I'm for it. I voted for it.

Seriously, am I speaking something other than English here? Everybody keeps lecturing me on freedoms when I keep saying I frickin voted for it, and all I'm doing in this thread is arguing the opposite point to better understand the issue.

What. the. hell.



The above post is my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read it.