FA+
Shop
Surprise Surprise, Chick-Fil-A still funding hate groups
12 years ago
Despite promises to the contrary and breaking the ninth commandment, it seems Chick-Fil-A has misled the public and is in fact still funding anti-gay groups, Never trust these people, they will lie to take your money but the hate stays close to their hearts.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/0.....ts-anti/192434
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/0.....ts-anti/192434
what I'm saying is don't sell t-shirts/bumper stickers that say "eat more ____"
... and of course if you aren't selling them as t-shirts and just printing them up for yourself then there is no actual damage being done that they can legally sue you for. they can send you a cease and desist but you can fight it if you aren't making money off of it (since most of those are against people gaining financially from other people's trademarks... and if it's a one-off thing for yourself, then there is no damage being done other than Public relations which is arguable.)
so, as long as you don't sell them or mass-distribute them (or advertise as that implies sales,) legally you're in the clear.
things such as preaching that other faiths are going to have you sent to hell is a violation of hubris (since according to the bible, only god (or St Peter depending on your brand) can determine who does or does not get sent there) as well as it embodies the sin of narcissism/pride (since they use it to elevate their own egos at the expensive of other people's beliefs.) and what's more, this arrogance in them saying they "know" that their beliefs are correct is rather entertaining in a "Wile-e-Coyote" kind of way since if they "know" that their beliefs are correct, then they aren't "beliefs" at all.
they'll often make a point of praying in public (which Jesus himself said pray in private, don't be like the hypocrites whom make a point of showing their 'piety' by making a point of being seen while praying.)
They'll even, with no understanding of irony, have the women themselves do a lot of preaching (which if you read Timothy, is something that they should be stoned for since Women are forbidded to teach or preach to the masses.)
in all seriousness, if the god of the bible did exist, a great deal of those fundamentalists would probably be denied heaven based on their behavior which is often against the actual teaching of the bible.
Discrimination never tasted so good!
... i live two blocks from one... and i'd be much fatter if i could eat there every day.
Fuck Chick-ful-a-shit........ And Papa Johns.....
I work at a hotel, part of my job is directing people to local restaurants and deliveries. It's amazing how much business you can make a company lose just by omitting that they exist..
I say fuck 'em. Chik-FIl-A isn't hurting the movement anyway, so why would I try and put good people out of business JUST to cut off the jerk at the top? The branch out here is super clean, the only fast food place with real chicken, and all the staff is super friendly. Quality of service and good food is what they should be judged on, and damn do they have a high quality of service and good food.
And apparently he followed up on it and tried to tell all the franchise owners they were required to under employ ALL employees...so that none would qualify for the Affordable Care Act.. better known by the lable that douche bag republicans call it. "Obama Care".
Honestly, do you think that Chick-fil-a is going to spend billions of dollars looking for companies that are against gay rights and use only their products? Think about it, it's going to cost serious money to break contracts, retool their electronics, locate new realtors, etc. Remember, they have to pay those suppliers that do support gay rights for their services and goods, so giving them your business only makes the irony even sweeter.
Look at their suppliers of their food supplies, services, etc. a fair number of those suppliers do support and donate to gay rights. In order for them get away from those suppliers, they are going to have to pay a pretty penny, which can possibly put them out of business.
=^.,.^=
I've been boycotting their restaurants for little over a year now and it doesn't look as if I'll be stopping anytime soon. As long as the guy in charge continues donating his money to hate groups I see no reason to give him my patronage.
Papa John's
Koch Industries
I fucking hate people that use their corporations as soap boxes and for special interests. There was a time in the United States when sharing a bad opinion when they were the head of a corporation could get you sunk. Now people buy franchising rights to bigots, liars and hypocrites.
You would think Chick-Fil-A would have lost of ton of business just on moral principles alone. You don't use corporate money to fund hate... but NOPE! Chick-Fil-A has opened up dozens of restaurants everywhere, including my college campus.
A CORPORATION IS NOT A PERSON. (Contrary to what American conservatives think)
IT SHOULD NOT HAVE AN OPINION.
*gasp*
1. The shit-a-fil-a is located in our Centennial Student Union. This means that the students, not the administration, can decide to cancel the contract.
2. The governing body of the students is M.S.S.A. (basically the college's official student council) is in charge of the contract.
3. Shitty-fil-a is rumored to be giving funds to support M.S.S.A.
We have a ways to go to get rid of the restaurant, but we are gaining more support.
How unfortunate :(
it's what used to be called being an "uncle tom" or an "aunt jemima" (to draw a parallel to the African-american civil rights movement.)
or, if you want to get into even more nasty words from history, it's the difference between the "field-niggers" and the "house-niggers."
(disclaimer to the mods and anyone else that might read this... those were actual words and me saying them is not intended to mean i am against equality... this is the usual disclaimer i feel i have to do since those words are so very, very charged and have a very, very negative connotation attached to them. i say them merely to place this into a historical context and draw a parallel between the fight for equality of the old-days and the fight for equality today.)
now? now it's a shadow of it's former self and the rest of the world would be laughing if it weren't so paranoid that they control most of the nukes. It's one reason why in some countries it's suggested that American citizens not flash old-glory (and one of the reasons why a lot of Americans have been known to sew Canadian flags on their luggage... so, that, to me, speaks a great deal about the perception of the nation in the eyes of it's own citizens.)
Yeah dude, we USED to be super perf and everything was amazing.. and then in the past 40 years all the stupid bullshit came in and ruined everything we worked so hard for. It's like we killed people for nothing! Jeez!
See, that's where you're wrong. Just because you eat at/own Chik-fil-a doesn't mean you dislike or want gay people to fail, even if you're pro-gay. From a business standpoint, Chik-Fil-A is a successful food chain and thus it's likely that opening one of your own will be a lucrative business..and you will make money, plenty to get by comfortably. Do you.. see how that works? People who want to run restaurant chains as their work aren't going to go "Hmm.. I wonder what Taco Bell thinks about immigration and illegals..." and research it. "I wonder if KFC funds pro or anti-Obama groups..." and makes their choice that way. That isn't how it works. It's about income, money, mine, my restaurant, we serve you well, our food is good, come eat.
Businesses need to be evaluated based on their performance, not their involvement in politics. I know you people seem to think that money and funding can stop civil rights movements but uh.. I'd like to know one that was stopped.
We freed slaves, gave women the right to vote, integrated races, reforming immigration, workplace equality, legalizing marijuana.. and now more and more states are legalizing gay marriage. I mean.. how exactly is Chik-Fil-A's funding of anti-gay groups at all hurting the movement in general? We seem to be pushing forward despite all the funding.
So go put good people out of work if you want, my gay friends and myself will continue to enjoy eating Chik-Fil-A, because damn it's nice having real chicken in fast food and table-side service at a fast food joint that's CLEAN.
because i have a little thing called "dignity" and "self-respect."
Self-Respect, n. - proper esteem or regard for the dignity of one's character
You can do business with a company whom you are morally opposed to without thinking less of yourself. As you can see, the words are nouns..not verbs. Dignity and Self-Respect are entirely different from your actions. In fact, you could have what is publicly considered to be an AWFUL personality, that everything you do makes you awful and you always will be awful, and you can still have dignity and self-respect.
What you have is what we call...
Self-Conscious, adj. - Aware of oneself as an individual or of one's own being, actions, or thoughts. Socially ill at ease. Excessively conscious of one's appearance or manner
...and thus feel the need to boycott and trash talk a company over one of its individual's actions and views.. because if you don't, other people might question or judge your personality and beliefs, and we certainly can't have that.
To continue redregon's allusions to the Black Civil Rights movement, let me ask you a few questions. Was it a political view when white people used to beat up black people in the South for even looking at a white woman? No, not in the 1860s, the 1960s (of which I did take a history course and got As across the board). Was it okay?
Or how about this? Were calling Black people the n-word and treating them like property in the 1800s truly political views? (Sure, Lincoln made freedom of slaves one of his "political views", but he based it off of human and civil rights, the whole idea that "all men are created equal".)
Or, how about I reframe things into something a bit more potent and relevant since you seem to fasten to a belief that gay civil rights are nothing more than "political viewpoints". Would it still be a simple "political view" if, instead, Chik-Fil-A donated to the KKK, Neo Nazis, and other racist hate groups of that nature rather than to anti-gay groups? What would YOU care more about then? Financial success? Or taking a hit to the wallet and standing up for the rights of Black Americans and other minorities who are targets of these groups?
i dislike having to position it in an antagonistic frame of mind but (frankly) that's kinda what it is... the religious right (of which they are, ironically, neither) insisting on denying basic human rights to LGBT people is no different than their insistence on denying the African-descended people their own rights as well... it's almost as if they are those pitiable kinds of people that need someone or something to hate so that they can function (because there is hate but it's often projected on to the wrong things.)
You're entirely confusing the discussion. White people beating up black people is an active crime. White people sending money to organizations that say "We shouldn't let black people vote!" is not an active crime. It's a donation to a political view. He's not using his money to buy brass knuckles to go out on a nightly gay-beating fest with his friends. He's donating to organizations whose political view is that gays should not marry. That is a harmless action. I don't consider words to be a violent weapon, because words only have as much meaning as YOU instill into them.
White people calling black people the n-word is active discrimination. I'm not walking into Chik-Fil-A and being called a dirty faggot whore by anybody.
Gay civil rights is a movement fueled by political views. One political view is that gays should marry, the other is that gays should not, and the arguments are to prove that it is or is not a civil right. Regardless of your belief, there are people who believe it is not a civil right, like this guy. He's entirely entitled to think that, and to donate his money where he wants to.
I can stand up for the rights of anything I wish to, and it doesn't involve boycotting.
Let me pose a scenario to you, though. Say you're the owner of a very successful department store branch. You've owned it for years, had your ups and downs in the economy, and even though it's low and taxes on businesses are being raised, between lay-offs and pay cuts, you're still making it through. You're a good guy; non-discriminatory, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, you've gone through AA to get over your alcohol addiction and you've been sober for years.. this store is what gets you through the day. You've a wife and kids to feed and support.
Suddenly, SCANDAL! The owner of your department store chain is publicly smeared for donating his funds to a weapons research facility known to arm radical terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Suddenly, there's anti-hate protestors crammed outside your doors, screaming and shouting they should shut down ALL these stupid chains, they won't shop at a place that supports terrorism! Down with them! Suddenly, your revenue takes a big hit, you have to let a few more employees go. You miss a month, two months.. you're going into the hole, and then bam.. the city steps in and forcibly removes your store. Now you have no job, no income, no insurance, nothing.
Shitty, yeah? You don't even like terrorism, hell you'd be right out there picketing with those fools if they were marching through the street protesting it! But no.. now you've lost everything, and in this sluggish, shitty economy, good luck finding a job.
There's two sides to every coin, dude. By forcing out Chik-Fil-As, your effectively putting everyone who once worked there out of work. For some, it's all they have. Others are luckier. And all the while, that man already has enough money invested into the stock market and in his bank to literally end the chain and retire, while still donating as much as he desires to those hate groups.
Point is, even if you successfully run Chik-Fil-A out of business, you will not stop his funding of those groups. All you do by trying to close branches is hurt the innocent people working there. People who, in this economy, could only find a job at a fast food place they probably don't even like.. but hell, it's a paycheck.
My political prowess ends where harming other people begins. I'll scream and shout in the street, bark all over the internet, write my senator, and vote in every election. But I will NOT put people out of work, I will NOT insult and degrade the other side of the argument for their view, I will NOT uncomfortably force my views on someone else.. and I'll be damned the minute I treat a business like an individual. Just because there's one bad egg doesn't mean the whole dozen is ruined. You throw away the bad egg, not the carton. So figure out a way to get rid of the bad egg that doesn't involve breaking the other 11.
But, the first part, the gay civil rights movement, is NOT fueled by "political views". We're up against Bible-thumping political idealists who think it's against their god for two men or two women to marry. It should be our right to be married by the state if we so choose. Should we force churches to marry us? Of COURSE not. That goes against whatever religious views they have a right to. Then again, we shouldn't be forced not to marry because it goes against some religion. It goes against our human rights.
I can put on my own type of celebration and, if I so choose, hire a gay-friendly pastor to bless my union with my partner. However, to be married by the state, i.e. a civil union, means one partner isn't stranded if the other partner passes away. It's the same type of marital benefits as a heterosexual couple would receive, and THAT is what us gays and bis deserve by rights! It isn't a political view. It's a human right. If you are gay or bi yourself, you should understand this yourself and become proactive instead of sitting back lazily and labeling things simply as politics. If that is what you believe, then you truly are a sorry person.
If it WAS a defined human right, then it couldn't be made illegal by any state. But until it is, our opinion is our political view.
I do totally understand, but I'm also able to withhold my own emotions to think logically. Yeah, I feel it's a human right and that's a no-brainer, but I have to accept that not everyone thinks it's a human right, and the federal government has yet to recognize it as one. So I can't going around saying without a doubt it's a human right and everyone else is just wrong and mean. All I can do is try to convince them.
This right above is the biggest bunch of uncle tom bullshit I've ever heard in my life. I accept that not everyone thinks it's a human right yet and the government hasn't recognised it as such yet, but why the fuck can't I go around saying without a doubt marriage equality is a human right? I can't say it because it isn't officially recognised as a human right under law? If Black people thought this way 50-60 years ago, if Martin Luther King Jr. thought that way, if Malcolm X thought this way, if Rosa Parks felt that way, that it IS a human right but they can't go around saying it is without a doubt, NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED!
So, please, stop defending the actions of other people and stand up and proclaim it is the right of gays to marry just like everybody else! Not in churches since we don't want to force people to do things against their own antiquated beliefs (which is also a human right), but rather in courts and by law!
You misunderstand me. I can BELIEVE it is a human right, but it's technically not a human right until law says it is. It doesn't matter what you think, that's the truth. You can go to court and say "BUT BUT.. IT'S A HUMAN RIGHT!" and they will just scan over the law and go "Mm...no, you're wrong, it doesn't say here anywhere that it's a human right." and you lose. That's why you BELIEVE and FIGHT for it to be written into law as a human right, you think it is one, you want it to be recognized as one. But you have to realize what you think is a belief, not a fact. JUST LIKE RELIGION, DUDE. They feel their religion is FACT and INARGUABLY CORRECT. But the government has said "No, we cannot prove this is correct, so we write it as a belief, and it will remain that way." So until the law shows that yes, gay marriage is a human right, it is not one.. and I'll be right out there with you trying to convince them that it's a human right, since I feel it is. But I have enough class to recognize that the law decides what is true and what is false.. and just because I feel it's right, if the law doesn't reflect that feeling, I'm not "correct." So I will fight to make it correct.
But shutting down Chik-Fil-A doesn't show the government that gay marriage is a human right. It doesn't help our cause, fortify our position, improve our chances. Like I said, that guy has enough money in the stock market and retirement to continue his donations at the same rate for the rest of his life. Even if you take away his company, the donations will not cease.
Congrats.
Also, thanks for explaining what you meant. I get your logic now, and it's cool. We must make it right, make it correct. If there was only a way to rally a "Million Gays March" and get at least a million of us non-straights to march in Washington. Speakers - as far as celebrities are concerned, I would try to have at least Lady Gaga and Chaz Bono. Gaga, because she's one of the biggest celebrities worldwide and already advocates for gay civil rights. Chaz, because he started life as a female, and he did have a girlfriend for about 5-6 years. The good question he could raise is, "Would it be alright for me to marry the girl I love now that I'm a man? All of a sudden, it's okay? What if I were still stuck in the body of a woman?" Or something like that.
I'm wondering who else would make good speakers.
The country is slowly legalizing it. I'm pretty certain this issue will be over soon.. in the next decade, anyway, since no doubt more and more states will legalize it as the years go on.
It's really true, though.. despite not being DIRECTLY stipulated in the constitution.. it's written in there. It makes me proud to find that court judges can see that.
That said, the corporate CEO's have too much power to try to "influence" them to change their minds. Money talks in the Oligarchic States of America. I wish this wasn't so, but this is what we have to work with.
So.. rant and rave all you want, but the only people that care about a business' politics are the individuals. Businesses don't really care, because politics don't matter to them. Only money.
The problem is so many estadounidenses cannot live without a damn chicken-sandwich, and they won't be bothered to eat something else, even if it would mean making a positive change.
And, I am one who is able to live without the chicken sandwich. Being on a diet, I avoid that overly processed gunk.
but... this is the first time i've ever seen someone admit to selling it for such a low price.
Corporations will often take positive social positions (if they have to take one at all) because of the PR that results.. and in the end it all boils down to money being the thing that they really only pay attention to nowadays.
If i knew someone working for a company that i was boycotting, i should hope that they'd be mature enough to understand my reasons and wouldn't try and influence my position merely because the place where they work is the target of my ire... and if they did try to change me, then that speaks more for them not being able to accept me as i am and that isn't friendship (though they don't have to like it, acceptance is a big thing in my books... so long as it isn't blind-acceptance.)
As far as the employees losing their jobs, there is also this to consider:
1. The employees made a conscious choice to apply for and accept a job with Chick-fil-a.
2. If they know about the anti-LGBT sentiment of their company, they are making a conscious choice to continue working for the company.
3. While the job market is quite limited, there are plenty of other fast-food restaurants to work for, and the turnover rates are very high anyways.
4. Therefor, if they lose their precious jobs at Chick-fil-a, then it was at their own risk.
5. Because the Chick-fil-a closed, they were not fired, and it won't hurt their chances for a new job. (Notice I did not say it guarantees a new job.)
6. If they are raising 4+ children on a salary less than 20K a year, they should have rethought making 4+ babies.
Boycotts are usually voluntary, and spreading the knowledge of the CEO's horrible use of his profits will probably be enough to help increase the boycott overall. The CEO is responsible for his own company and actions... not the potential customers and whether or not they spend money on his chicken sandwiches. If he's done something vile that hurts his company and its employees, he is responsible for that. It's not the consumer's responsibility to give him money so that his restaurants stay open.
1. Yeah, most likely because Chik-Fil-A was the only place they COULD get a job.
2. Is it REALLY worth being homeless just because you REAWWY WANT GAY WIGHTS?
3. True, but that doesn't mean the local fast food restaurants near them are hiring.
4. As..is..any job...?
5. Doesn't matter, the point is they aren't receiving a paycheck.
6. Who said anything about 4+ children? Raising ONE child is hard enough, and maybe it was an accident because their condom broke AND the pill failed (it happens).
Of course it isn't the consumer's responsibility to give him money. It's their choice. I just have an inherent dislike of people telling me I need to stop eating somewhere I like just because it doesn't see eye to eye with them politically. So.. no. I like eating there, I'm gonna keep doing it, and I'm no lesser of a person for doing it.
And as I've said.. you can shut down EVERY SINGLE Chik-Fil-A and run the company bankrupt. That man has enough money saved and tied up in the stock market to continue donating the same amount to the same organizations the rest of his life anyway. So.. you're doing nothing to stop him by not eating there and closing branches.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
The point of shutting down the company is that this person will no longer have the same source of constant money-flow and revenue that he did before, thus, lessening his political power. While he probably has plenty of assets, without his corporation to support him anymore, he's now in a much less powerful position than he was before.
Whether you like it or not, the ones really in charge of this country's operation are those with money. If you cut off their money-train, they lose power. This is much how the Black Community was able to gain more civil rights and end segregation in the past. Yes they marched, demanded their equal rights, made big speeches, held rallies, and wrote to their representatives and senators.... they also boycotted companies and businesses that supported segregation and unequal treatment. Guess what? Those companies took notice and realized that they were losing a lot of money... and eventually changed their ways. The process wasn't quite as immediate or simple as that, but money talks more than you think. Did you know that some entire cities have banned the Chick-fil-A company? Boston and Chicago are among them, and the Jim Hensen Company, a major corporate backer, has withdrawn all of its support for the restaurant.
You might say, other corporations (CEO's) and companies, "Get it." You can't just support hate and discrimination and expect to get away with it anymore... especially if you're in the executive and business world.
There is another simple solution to the issue. If the CEO would just come forward and apologize for using his company profits to fund hate-groups and pro-gay-bashing/killing groups, and that he should keep his personal religious beliefs out of his business in the future. PR stunts and "statements" have already started being leaked and released to the public, allegedly from the company, and you might say that the CEO is already beginning to backtrack.
Honestly, though.. sure, I know that money talks, I told you that myself. I know that companies just want to make money and flip their views to support the popular opinion so that they make more money. What I'm saying is that the issue with Chick-Fil-A is that its profits are being used to fund hate groups, not that it has an inherent dislike of gay people. What people are saying to stop doing is stop supporting the restaurant so that it doesn't get money to continue funding the groups.. and I'm saying that's a stupid method of doing it because you won't stop the funding even if the company goes out of business. You're playing petty politics just like they are.. you're stooping to their level to fight the same ultimately unimportant war: We are politically stronger than you.
The Constitution speaks louder than money, in this country, because you have a lot of voices that incite the Constitution as its proof. So when you have something like racial equality, gender equality, and orientation equality, you aren't fighting the same battle as, say, the decision to fund education, or the decision to send troops overseas (or keep them here), or that we're purchasing slave-labor goods, or abortion, or immigration. When people are intelligently proving that, in the Constitution, these people's right to do x is protected.. then it doesn't matter who has the political upper hand. Racial equality was not won by Boycotts.. that's a silly idea that you're simply trying to use to connect the dots. Companies didn't care that they were racist, even if they were losing money, because if racial equality wasn't established, they probably would have continued segregating anyway and gotten plenty of business from whites. No, what won that war was INTELLIGENT blacks, latinos, asians.. all gathering together as one big group and citing our own Constitution against the country. Telling us that our own Constitution protects them, and that what is happening is wrong. They had the strength to stand up and deny authority to ensure the government understood and saw what they were saying. Money had nothing to do with it.. money was economic penis that people waved around to make them feel superior to others and somehow validate their point over another.. but it really did not play a big role.
And yes, money DID have something to do with it... did you not ever hear of Rosa Parks, and how her civil disobedience landing her an arrest acted as a catalyst to begin the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which started in December of 1955, and ended in 1956? The reason the boycott ended was because the Supreme Court mandated that segregation of buses in Montgomery, and all of Alabama, was unconstitutional.
The reason the city and state governments took notice? Almost all of the black population (I believe in Montgomery) took part in the boycott, and it severely hurt the economic condition of the bus transportation system. If the government wanted to keep the system intact... they would have had to either severely hike the prices of bus rides, severely cut down the amount of buses being used or routes covered... or they could appease those who participated in the boycott, and make segregating the buses illegal.
The same will (and has already started) to happen with Chick-fil-A. They can either raise their prices on food, cut down their operating costs (crappier ingredients, less employees, fewer stores and hours of operation), or they can appease the participants of the boycott, and change their business practices and not donate profits to hate-groups, and giving an apology for doing so in the first place would be appreciated.
Also... boycotting a business with shitty side-dealings IS a way to stand up for what you believe. Not supporting companies and people who discriminate and support bigotry is one of the easiest, simplest, yet most powerful abilities we have in this country. If we don't like what a company is doing, we stop supporting that company.
Sure, boycotting a small city transport system is WAY DIFFERENT than taking on a nationwide super-chain. That bus system has ONE MODE of income, Chick-Fil-A has SO MANY modes of income that a boycott will not hurt business and, clearly, it's not, since it keeps doing what it's doing.
You might think a boycott is a way of standing up for something you believe, I think it's stupid, lazy, and inactivism. You don't have to do anything but..not do anything. That's not standing up for anything, that's not caring and trying to pass it off as caring. Don't fool yourself. Trying to take the branch out of business by going to the higher ups is being active, and that's not a boycott.
My point is, if you REALLY CARE about your rights, boycotting a chain that is doing NOTHING to harm your cause (and, literally, donating money to groups that have no real bearing on the law IS NOTHING) is not the way to go. That's grabbing for anything you can find to try and feel like you matter. Write letters and get up and GO DO SOMETHING.
VOTING is actually the easiest, simplest, and most powerful abilities we have in this country.. but you can keep pretending that boycotts mean anything anymore.
I've participated in protests, raising awareness, the boycott, and keeping up to date with what's happening with the company, and am a member of an on-campus group working towards the overall goal of acceptance of the LGBT community and equal rights for us, too. I have no idea what you're doing to help the cause, but don't call me "lazy" in terms of my activism and support for the cause when you don't even know what I do day to day. Not everyone can just walk right into Chick-fil-A headquarters and tell the company what they think... but apparently you have a direct hotline with their head office. :P Or you know, maybe if you write enough polite letters about how you simply disapprove of their funding practices, they'll eventually listen? Get real, nobody but secretaries read those letters.
I'm not against Chick-Fil-A or its practices, so no, I've done nothing to combat them because they've done nothing to harm me. Yes, I DO tolerate hatred, because hatred can and always will be prevalent in society, and no matter where you go, hate will follow. The only thing you CAN do is learn to live with and tolerate it, while keeping an open mind and open eye so that it doesn't sneak its way into law.
Obviously we can't vote on Chick-Fil-A and its policies, and neither of those things will ever need voting upon. I meant you can VOTE for your rights, not for what other people do. Vote against the bills and measures that injure you, vote for the bills and measures that uplift you; there are still way too many people not voting for their rights in this country.
I voted on Prop 8, I marched through SF for a few No on 8 rallies, I read the news and keep up with what's happening in the lgbt community in terms of LAW-AFFECTING news, and not the typical "OMG THESE PPL R EVL SO LETS YELL AT THEM" crap that most 'humanitarian' groups screech about (for example, reading about how prop 8 has weaved through court and what measures and laws are being passed through the country regarding gay marriage, while entirely ignoring distractions like Chick-Fil-A's money usage and outbursts from places like protectmarriage.com) which, honestly, makes you (and by 'you' I mean the collective 'you,' not the personal 'you') NO BETTER than the Westboro Baptist Church (ouch, pretty harsh, yeah?). But think about it, they have a belief, and they go about it by telling people who don't fit their frame of mind evil, sinful, and wrong in the most despicable manner.. and what do you guys do? People that speak their mind against you.. you call them evil, sinful, despicable names, and even try and force them out of their jobs.. trying to justify it as having a politically 'progressive' mindset.
One negative thing you did say.. yes, yes I do defend someone's right to be bigoted. That's what's so great about this country, Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, speech, and press. That includes EVERYBODY. You have a right to be hateful, you have a right to be wonderful, you have a right to speak, feel, believe, and donate to whomever the hell you want, and I won't ever speak against someone's right to that. I will merely speak against those that try and weave their hate into our legal system, and vote it right back out.
It all just makes sense to me, now.. I wish it did for others.
Please see annotation to sentence below.
What I will never understand is tolerance of bigoted hatred that is taken to the point of oppressing, incarcerating, enslaving, and killing innocent people in other countries when such has no bearing upon the laws, health conditions, and well-being of the people and persons in the native country in which such bigoted hatred is originating
i.e. Who cares what happens in Africa/England/Norway/China/Russia when it doesn't affect the laws, health conditions, and/or well-being of the citizens of your country of residence/origin.
There are enough problems here for me to compound further stress caused by worrying what happens to people out there. And this is the view of the vast majority of the people in this nation. Also, keeping yourself up to speed with current events in the world is different than participating in an effort to clean up another country whose problems are not affecting your own nation.
You stress that it doesn't matter what happens in other countries... you take it for granted that you live in the USA, the most politically powerful country with one of the largest and over-funded military operations in the world. I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point, unless you're just playing Devil's Advocate. My efforts to boycott and help decrease the profits of a company with a bigoted C.E.O. for some reason ruffles your feathers, when at the same time, you clearly state that you don't care what happens to other people, especially those who don't live in the United States. I can't tell where you stand on any of these issues, because you're not making a consistent stance to begin with. On one hand, you say I'm taking the wrong approach to the Chick-fil-A problem, that I'm hurting US Citizens, and that it won't make a difference, and then at the same time, you're saying that you and many others don't care about civil rights in other countries, and you only offer limited care about them in your own country. If apathy is what you consider a good excuse, I don't know what to say.
All I can deduce from those things is that you are either slightly ethnocentric, or "nationalist." I have to change the definition of "nationalist" to make my point, but it essentially means that you only care about your own country, or that you believe in staying out of foreign affairs. I assume you aren't quite that callous, but then it forces me to continue my uncertainty about your overall position on these topics. Do you only think certain kinds of activism are OK, and that only types you have approved mean anything?
All you leave me with is a question... what in the dickens are you even talking about anymore?
In the words of
You really, REALLY need to very slowly read and then RE-READ what I'm saying. I care very, very much about what happens to other people in this country, and I don't care about what happens to them outside of it when what happens to them has no direct effect on this country.
I'm not arguing at this point, it hasn't been that for ages, now I'm just trying to explain my meaning and reasoning to you.
Deduce this, a very clear, concise list.
1. Chick-Fil-A is not hurting anybody, and their donations to piss poor groups is in no way damaging the LGBT fight for equality.
2. You wish to Boycott them to stop the donations, and I'm telling you the boycott will not stop the donations.
3. I'm very concerned about national issues, I have merely learned how to ignore distractions like Chick-Fil-A and be active about real problems like Prop 8
4. I, like the majority of Americans, am not concerned about international SOCIAL issues. (War/Civil War, Economics, and the sort are not social problems) But I say it is still very important to stay informed of international news.
5. I get it. I'm not looking for an explanation, I really, really get everything you're talking about. I'm not lost, misinformed, or looking for answers.
What ruffles my feathers is people who think less of or belittle people who do not share their opinion on a matter of belief. This is what happens:
1. Fact: Chick-Fil-A is donating money to hate groups.
2. OPINION: This must be stopped, and is hurting the LGBT marriage equality movement.
3. Fact: It is not hurting the LGBT marriage equality movement.
4. MY OPINION: I'm going to ignore it since it's not hurting the LBGT marriage equality movement, and tell people not to worry because it's actually not hurting anything.
5. OPINION: YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE AND HAVE NO SELF-RESPECT OR DIGNITY BECAUSE YOU ARE IGNORING THIS.
That reasoning, that #5 reasoning, ruffles the absolute SHIT out of my feathers.. when people tell me I'm less of a person because I'm choosing to ignore their opinionated non-issue.
Also, it's not anyone's job to police the world. That's why countries hate America; we send in troops and enforce our way of life through military action.
You're so deep in your own ignorance and privilege that you refuse to see how you could be hurting other countries and other people, and eating a breaded-chicken sandwich is more important than potentially helping to curtail some of the donations to hate groups, even if boycotting the restaurant only helps a tiny fraction, you still wouldn't do it. Ironically, you're more concerned with voting, even though, once again, your vote only counts for a tiny fraction of a difference overall. I don't see any difference between the two scenarios... other than that one of the policies takes place in the USA, while the other one doesn't. Ethnocentrism... you have potential power to change both, but you ignore the one that is perhaps more important... protecting the lives of the LGBT community, simply because it is in another country.
Maybe you never eat or spend money at Chick-fil-A, but I hope if you ever have the chance to do so, you think twice before buying their products. Maybe boycotting them won't stop the funding... but you're offering your support with every cent you give the company.
Implying that I indirectly help fund hate groups by buying food at Chick-Fil-A is in any way my responsibility to curtail is like saying an employer has the responsibility to monitor what his employees buy with the money they earn because, well it's HIS fault, HIS money, and HIS responsibility to make sure they don't purchase anything distasteful or illegal with it. Are you really going to hold the employer accountable for what an employee buys?
It's not my responsibility to tell Chick-Fil-A what they can and can't do with their money. It's their money, and the minute it leaves my hand and goes into their cash register, I have no responsibility of, for, nor can I be faulted for where it goes and what it's used for. I have given up my money for what I want: Food and Service. In return I have received: Food and Service. Transaction done, end of discussion. They held up their end of the bargain, I in turn left a happy customer. I have no other duty to what happens to their money after that.
And also explained in another post, the LGBT movement is going to roll forward regardless of the hate and discrimination. From the country's conception to 2008, 232 years, only Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. In the past 4 years, 8 other states have joined in and legalized gay marriage. You can bet Chick-Fil-A was funding hate groups that ENTIRE time. Yeah.. those are some real damaging groups.
To hurt the movement, laws that hurt the movement would need to be put into play. How many discriminatory laws are being overridden? Relative to time, they're going out like hotcakes. How many have been implemented? Prop 8 got close, and even that was overruled.
What you don't understand is that these hate groups AREN'T hurting LGBT in AMERICA because they are old, outdated ideas that the law makers, supporters, and judges don't believe in any more.
Also I've already said that I tolerate violence and discrimination because they're a part of human nature and they will, at no point in time, go away. I will tolerate violence and discrimination, and I will fight to keep violent and discriminatory laws out of the legal system.
Let's look at it this way... if you know someone plans to murder someone with a gun, but they don't have money for it, so you give the guy an extra $30 because he mowed your lawn... do you not see yourself as even remotely responsible once the murder is carried out?
Yes, it's true, the guy would have come up with the money for the gun in one way or another if you didn't give him your money, but the fact is that you DID pay for his gun. It would be different if you didn't know he wanted to buy a gun, or didn't know he wanted to murder someone... but you DO know, and you still didn't care. Of course, attempting to reason with him or have him seek counseling would be the "right" thing to do, but funding his operation simultaneously only ensures that he will have the ability to carry out that murder with your personal benefaction. (Or maybe we should call it a malefaction.)
Just because this man... or the C.E.O. of Chick-fil-A will try to find (and probably be successful) another way to fund bigotry, it doesn't mean that you have to add your money to his cause, even if that's not your intention.
To be not so blunt: It's one thing to go "Here's some money so you can buy that gun and kill someone." and another thing to pay someone to mow your lawn every week. It's one thing to go "You need money to kill someone? Come work for me." and another to have someone whom you've already been paying for awhile go "Hey, I want to kill someone." Also, you're talking about killing someone, a crime, versus protesting against gay marriage, not a crime. (again, we're keeping it relevant to THIS country, not the world)
If -I- paid for his gun, that means I used MY money to buy HIS gun, not that I used MY money to have him do WORK for me. I paid for his work, HE paid for HIS gun. Again, if we all worried about where our money goes after we spend it, no one would spend money and the economy would crash (again.. holy shit, sounds familiar doesn't it?).
There is a distinct difference between DONATING your money (giving it to a person/group/organization to spend as they see fit with nothing asked for in return), LOANING your money (giving it to a person/group/organization with the intent of being paid back later), and SPENDING your money (giving it to a person/group/organization for another item or service in return). When you DONATE your money, it is because you want whatever cause you are donating it to to come to light; in other words, you are responsible bu not accountable for how it is then used. When you LOAN your money, you are entrusting someone to use it responsibly so they may later pay you back; in other words, you are not responsible but are accountable for how it is used, but will most likely be upset if it's used poorly. When you SPEND money, you are requesting something in return; in other words, you are NOT responsible NOR accountable for how it is used.
Call it an excuse, it's still a fact. I am not responsible for nor accountable for how Chick-Fil-A uses their money (notice how I said 'their', not 'my'). Nothing you say will ever change that fact, and it holds true for everybody. I am SPENDING my money at Chick-Fil-A. SPENDING. They are giving me food that I want in return. That's it. You and everyone else who thinks me and anyone else who spends money for Chick-Fil-A's food responsible for or supporting of the causes that the company donates to are not only assholes, but also the same kind of jerks that blame the victim of a crime. I know your immediate response is telling me I'm not a victim, that wasn't the point. The point is, just like someone who was raped is not at fault for wearing skimpy clothing or being flirtatious, someone who buys food at Chick-Fil-A is not at fault for its use after the fact.
This is fact, not opinion, and unless you can see that and change your opinion to include that fact, you will always be fighting the wrong battle and doing nothing to further progress. You will only be adding to the violence and bigotry you claim to be fighting against (since it really is a bigoted and ignorant thing to blame consumers for corporate expenditures).
Part of being a responsible consumer is doing your research on what kinds of business practices and ethics various companies execute and stand for, and also paying attention to where you money will go after it is spent. You're right, I cannot "fault" you for valuing a chicken sandwich over the lives of innocent people in impoverished and oppressed nations, as you didn't actually tell the company what to do with your money... but claiming that you have absolutely no role in what happens with your money after it is no longer "your money" is a very short-sighted and naïve perspective.
You DO control where your money goes after you spend it in this case. You are 100% fully aware of what Chick-fil-A does and is still doing with its profits from consumers buying their food. You do have the power to say, "I don't want them to use my money to fund hate-groups, I'll buy a chicken sandwich from another business!" I think you even mentioned Wendy's in another comment as a potential different restaurant to patronize.
If everyone acted like you, businesses would probably never be held accountable for their actions and how they use their profits, and giant corporations would hold even more control over the United States population and the world population than they do now.
And while I know you only care about the United States and don't give one single care for other countries... but how can you be so proud that we fight for our own LGBT rights, and simultaneously say "Who cares about Uganda's LGBT community, let them die for all I care." ?
That right there is the bigoted judging I'm talking about. You literally just assumed what my values are because I buy food from Chick-Fil-A. That's what makes you no better than all the other extremist jerks that sit on the street and scream their hateful anti-whatever. That's the kind of mindset you need to stop having, that's what makes you fight the wrong battle. You're assuming people's values based on their actions, and not based on their actual values (i.e. Debbie had an abortion therefor she is a slut and does not value human life).
The problem you're having is.. well, everyone DOES act like me, and you're trying to change them because, if not, companies will.. how did you say it? "businesses would probably never be held accountable for their actions and how they use their profits, and giant corporations would hold even more control over the United States population and the world population than they do now." Oh, yeah. That one. But as you can see, with 236 years of people acting just like me, big businesses are still held accountable BY THE GOVERNMENT and THE COURTS and, in fact, DO NOT control the US and the world. I know the massive conspiracy theories that say big business owns everyone and the government is just a lie to keep the masses blind and stupid but.. honestly, with so many active people, I don't believe any of it. Since the world still turns and this nation remains just, I will never believe it. If businesses controlled the nation, boycotts would be even more useless, and they would never change their opinion to suit the public eye since, of course, they control the public eye anyway.
This, too. "I don't want them to use my money to fund hate-groups," That notion is still your 'blaming the victim' mentality. I'm NOT using my money to fund hate-groups, I'm using my money to buy food. You may think that my view is short sighted and naive, but I would consider it open minded and pro-active. You retain the idea that the consumer controls business, which is not true. Business doesn't need the consumer at a certain point, they have enough money invested outside of this country they no longer need their business to make obscene amounts of money. In truth, I'm looking beyond that. I can see that businesses DON'T run this country, and that a just law will always reign supreme over unjust morals no matter HOW MUCH money is spent on them. I'm being pro-active by, in times of hardship, supporting the country by continuing to put money into its economy and support companies big and small to continue job growth.
I -know- gay marriage will be legalized throughout the country. I'm willing to set my ill-wills and hatred aside to judge something based on its merits, not its faults. Running companies and people out of business is an old, outdated technique that is no longer viable in a world with 7 billion people, where companies are no longer national companies, but global companies. You aren't helping anyone by boycotting, that's a fact. Revise your protest technique, update it to the 21st century.. that way doesn't work anymore.
Hell, try a Chick-Fil-A chicken sandwich, god forbid you might actually enjoy it and be cast aside by your other judgmental LGBT 'friends.' Then you may see why other fast food chicken sandwiches aren't even worth buying.
Think of my non-caring in this way. You see, on the street in front of you maybe 10 feet away, a beloved family member being mugged and beaten. 500 yards away is a complete stranger also being mugged and beaten before your very eyes. You only have time to save one. Who are you going to save?
In other words, this country isn't perfect, I'm going to help fix the issues here first before trying to fix them over there. It's not that I don't care about Uganda's LGBT community, it's that I'm going to let them fight their own battles while they let me fight my own.
1. It hurts the employees.
2. It won't make any difference 'cause the C.E.O. is rich and there are too many people who will still eat there.
Point 1 is a legitimate point, but there are plenty of rebuttals to it. Point 2 is just an utter cop-out with a defeatist attitude attached.
You're obviously off in la-la-land somewhere if you're calling me the bigot now. Maybe I shouldn't have said that you value eating a chicken sandwich over murdering and incarcerating of innocent people in other countries... but keep in mind what you've already said in this thread... that you don't care what goes on in other countries, and that includes oppression of innocent groups. I'm only re-iterating what you've said. If you think that's being unfair and misrepresenting your case, then maybe you need to watch what you say, and make your assertions more clear. Otherwise, you're getting defensive over your own offensive language. When you say things like...
"I really don't care what happens in Uganda. I mean, I'm probably the only one with the balls to admit that, but I really don't give a shit what happens outside of the US, in terms of the law. I'm not moving countries anytime soon (my entire life) so.. yeah, I don't really care. It's already been proven that gay rights in other countries have no bearing on gay rights in the US (Seriously, even Norway has gotten on board and legalized it.) so.. yeah. Don't care."
...be prepared to hear people calling you arrogant, selfish, and potentially bigoted, as the context of that statement deals with innocent people being killed and incarcerated in Uganda. When you make a statement like that, it's going to come back to haunt you later.
For example, when Elizabeth Hasselbeck and Rosie O'Donnel had a fight on the View, while I love Rosie a hundred times more than Elizabeth, Elizabeth did make a good point. While she didn't necessarily believe that Rosie thought that the US Military was a terrorist organization, she could understand why the quote Rosie said could have been construed to mean that she felt they were terrorists.
You're also calling me the equivalent of a "victim-blamer." Thing is, you're not a victim, at least not in the way you're making it out to be. The company doesn't force you to give them money and buy their product, you make a conscious choice to do so. Considering your lavish computer set-up, I doubt you're hard-up for money to fund food at this point, and even if you were, I'm certain that there are more restaurants and stores around than Chick-fil-A that you could get cheap food from. The only way you're a victim is that you've brainwashed yourself to believe that you don't have to boycott the company because it doesn't matter what they do with their money after you give it to them, even if it means funding hate-groups that are trying to oppress you and your friends and family.
And before you correct me about that, let me remind you of this statement you also made:
"It's not my responsibility to tell Chick-Fil-A what they can and can't do with their money. It's their money, and the minute it leaves my hand and goes into their cash register, I have no responsibility of, for, nor can I be faulted for where it goes and what it's used for. I have given up my money for what I want: Food and Service. In return I have received: Food and Service. Transaction done, end of discussion. They held up their end of the bargain, I in turn left a happy customer. I have no other duty to what happens to their money after that."
To most people, what this really sounds like is, "I don't care what Chick-fil-A does with my money, so long as I get my chicken sandwich!"
Don't call me a bigot for calling an orange an orange.
I don't expect to convince you to change your mind, as multiple people have pleaded their cases to you. Let's just leave this argument alone at my final post. You think I'm some kind of "extremist, bigoted, monstrous, bleeding-heart liberal," and I see you as a two-faced, selfish, log-cabin republican and establishment-puppet. We don't need to take this further.
Read and then re-read, please.
Yes, I understand interpretation and how it changes for different people. It's actually a really sneaky way to write a debate paper for school without really defending any side.. all you do is make a statement and spend the entire paper iterating and re-iterating the same sentence so that it can't be misinterpreted in any way, shape, or form. The problem is.. I don't care. If you don't have the maturity to read "I really don't care what happens in Uganda." and understand that I don't mean "I have no compassion or sorrow for the perils of the Ugandans." then you're not worth explaining it to. Seriously, I call you an extremist bigoted etc etc because, like they, you look for the worst in people and the things they say, instead of thinking about their words from ALL SIDES and accepting the least offensive meaning. That's part of what it means to be open-minded.. seeing the best in the worst. As we've said millions of times, if you don't get it, I can't explain it to you. Do I really BELIEVE you're an extremist? No, not really, but it's a good wake-up call to show someone that they're exhibiting that behavior.
Again, not even going to comment on the victim part since that entirely flew right over your head.. I'll let you re-read that whole discussion on your own and see if you can really understand what I'm saying. (It's really not cryptic at all, I promise)
"I don't care what Chick-fil-A does with my money, so long as I get my chicken sandwich!" is interpreting the worst in a person's words and failing to be open-minded enough to say "Hmmm.. maybe instead it means 'I still purchase their food without feeling guilty because there's no real guilt to be felt.'"
I'm not telling you to be a mind reader, I'm telling you to be a critical thinker.. something many Americans fail to be any more. They see words and run off with the first interpretation as if it's fact. No. You really, really need to THINK hard about an entire article or discussion, jumble around all the different interpretations and pick out the least offensive ones. I'm tired of people trying to push the "Be incredibly clear and concise about your words and make sure you cover every single meaning so that the stupid masses interpret it properly." mentality. People are only stupid because we spoon-feed everything to them, if we promoted critical thought.. so many things would make sense to people.
Getting off topic I know, but yeah, you need to be a better critical thinker. This "could have been construed to mean that she felt they were terrorists" needs to not even be an issue with you.
I'm calling you a bigot for picking an orange before it's ripe and calling it sour. I'm also not going to explain what I mean by that (I know you can do it!).
I've come here to politely argue/discuss the issue with people because I'm honestly tired of seeing it, and I'm tired of people getting up in arms over it. People are STILL making a big deal out of this topic when they can't even see that it's NOT a big issue, and they only think of THEIR causes without thinking of the collateral damage that comes from their actions (again, I know you can do it!). Let me redo my bullet points for you, to end my side.
1. It hurts the employees.
2. It won't stop or lessen the funding anyway
3. It's not hurting the LGBT movement anyway
Call it a defeatist attitude, I call it seeing what is really hurting LGBT and what really isn't.. and Chick-Fil-A really isn't. I call it dividing my time to separate the real issues from the non-issues. All this negative attention is just free publicity for them.
In closing, you won't understand what I'm saying until you learn how to look at the big picture. Small picture, 'obviously funding unsavory groups is bad! Stop it!' Big picture, 'these groups have.. literally NO bearing on anything that happens in this country. I have far more important issues to worry about.'
You can't go around and say, "I don't care what happens in Uganda," and then say "I still feel sorry for them," and then say, "Can I have my sandwich, please?" You know what the money you bought that sandwich with is being used for, even if it's not directly going from your hand into the hate-group's bank account. Your response is honest, but it's also insensitive. You're playing to two different tunes; one action is claiming you care, the other is claiming you don't.
I'm currently at the MBLGTACC 2013 in Lansing, Michigan, and a phrase that's been flowing around the conference has been, "Justice, or just us?" and a few other variations exist. The point is, that the LGBT movement is incredibly cross-sectional, affects everyone, is on a global scale, and minorities from all other movements are a part of it, just as much as we are a part of their movements.
If we tolerate an injustice, we are not only hurting those being oppressed, but we are also hurting ourselves and everyone else.
Now, to address your insults, yes, I read through your entire post carefully, without you having told me to do so. Before you say you came here to politely discuss your views, note that you've already called me a bigot, extremist, a poor critical thinker, told me that I'm fighting the wrong battles, sent me altered versions of my own statements to tell me what they REALLY mean, and then called me out when I did something similar to you, and indirectly accused me of being stupid and lazy through boycotting the restaurant.
Yes, I've called you several things, too, but to move on from this...
I know you think you're being clever by treating me like a child having trouble with homework, which if this is the point of where our argument and debate has gotten to, it's no longer either of those things, and it's definitely not constructive. It's a petty fight. That's why I said that I wanted that post to be my last. I'm obviously not going to change your mind, and you are most definitely not going to change mine. I can accept that, because I don't want to start a thread war over Chick-fil-A. So please, don't respond to this post; just let it go. This is the third time I've tried to end this thread. If you respond to this, I'm not going to read it, and just delete the notification. I've heard all I care to hear from you.
tl;dr Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me because I won't let them, and you should too.
Having the attitude of not caring and feeling compassionate for the same issue is simply "I hate to see it happen but this other thing is more important to me." How fancy, right? I really do love the idea of "We're all in this together as a species." but, it's an entirely impractical idea which is why countries were invented in the first place. Different ideas about how to govern people cause places to become two separate places.. and the laws of one of those places could be viewed as wrong to another, but it's not always in their place to alter that government. That's why they split.. 'You do it your way, I'll do it my way.' And then you sit back and criticize everyone else who's doing it differently than you are and since you have the monetary and military superiority, you go and enforce your ways on that other place.. and they just resent you for it.
tl;dr It's too stressful on yourself and your group to be all-inclusive as would be ideal, and other places resent you for forcefully changing their views.
The problem I have, ultimately, is seeing people travel down the same path I did merely a few years ago.. see the stress, anger, resentment, and spitefulness in their words and their views on others as a cause of some.. self-created moral superiority because they're apart of a 'greater whole' that other people 'don't understand', and they feel it is their sole and personal responsibility to not only fight against their perceived injustice, but to recruit others for their cause and cast away those who feel differently by insulting their views. I mostly posed those 'insults' to show you how it feels to be insulted for something you feel is entirely right and justified.. which is exactly what you're doing to anybody that is simply ordering food from a place they enjoy. And really, in the end, all you're doing is destroying yourself. I spew my words to forcibly make people think and rethink their views on an issue, intentionally play devil's advocate even if most of the time it is my serious view to show people their way isn't necessarily the right way. There's a billion ways to solve the same problem, and it will be solved one way or another.
tl;dr "My way or the highway" is the view you're taking and what you don't realize is that you're only hurting yourself and everyone around you and not solving the problem you've set out to solve. There are so many factors at play in every situation in the real world that your way isn't the only way nor is it the best way to overcome the issue.
And, ultimately, Chick-Fil-A's donations to whatever hate group they want is not only ineffective now, but will be irrelevant and forgotten in 10 years. You're getting worked up over, in the end, a non-issue. Here's my suggestion: All this effort you're putting into ending Chick-Fil-A could instead be put into directly aiding in ending Uganda's plight, instead of indirectly.
That's my point.
Unfortunately, if you're as exhausted of this conversation as you claim, you will never get to read this message and nothing I have done will have mattered anyway. But you'll figure it all out later in life.. or you won't and you'll just end up horribly bitter and exhausted.
I had wanted to try Chick-Fil-A, but I think I've changed my mind.
Best... Chicken... Ever...
But maybe one day. :3
But if in your travels you find yourself near one and you're hungry, certainly give it a go! but be warned, the hot sauces they have that you can put on your chicken is actually hot. they have mild sauces too... but, it's one of those few places where when they say "our sauce is spicy hot" they do mean it.
And that sounds awesome. I LOVE spicy food. :D
We need a place like Chick-Fil-A, but ran by atheists. And I dont mean KFC either (whomare absolutely expensive as fuck). We'll call our place "The Anti-Chick", where chicken is crucified and deep fried on a daily basis.
For those who really wanna get into the fun, when an order is up, the worker can say, "The deep fried body of chick", and the customer can reply "amen". xD
"Mmmm, this breading tastes better than those shitty wafers you get at church."
I returned that damn thing three times and told them "It's not cooked, it's cold and underdone. I don't want to get sick. Cook it right!"
Never again will they get MY money.
Its sucks, but fuck 'em.
Needless to say, our vicious, adamant protesting of the branch typically involves a #3 meal and an 8 piece nuggets with Polynesian and Buffalo sauce.
Eating REAL chicken for once? Waffle fries? And what the fuck...the employees actually like, come to your table and ask if you need any extra condiments or refills, or if they can remove your trash..WITH A SMILE. And the place is SPARKLEFUCKINGCLEAN at all times.
Honestly, it's above and beyond in food and quality of service, which is what it needs to be judged on, not what the higher ups do with their money. It's their money, and funding anti-gay groups isn't going to bring down gay rights for everyone. Despite all the funding against it, massive progress is being made anyway. Boycotting the branches isn't going to do anything but put people out of work in an already sluggish economy. Is the food good? Check. Service is good? Check. Clean place? Check. Gets my money any day.
so, technically, if you are adamant about still going there, know that your money is being used to discriminate. it'd be better not knowing to be completely honest.
I mean really.. "The provision of DOMA forbidding the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages has been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including two federal appeals courts. Five of these cases are pending review by the Supreme Court." Yep, anti-gay money winning left and right.
"As of January 2013, nine states—Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and two Native American tribes[1]—have legalized same-sex marriage." And wait.. you mean to say the only state before 2008 to have legal gay marriage was Massachusetts? That means 8 states in 4 years have legalized gay marriage? Wow, some anti-gay winning going on there.
Aka I don't care. It's not illegal to be against gay people, and those groups aren't going to prevent gay marriage from being legalized (since, clearly, they're failing at it). It all makes sense now.. time for some Chik-Fil-A.
Incorrect. Proposition 8 passed in California because it had very powerful (money) lobbying agencies behind it... It was struck down because of it's unconstitutional nature but in the end it still passed. hiding your head in the sand isn't going to make bad things go away... and that you'd defend a company that is open about it's stance on discrimination is, frankly, disgusting... because it means you have no shame or dignity.
And suggesting that initiatives that passed by a democratic vote is proof that anti-gay initiatives aren't working? no... that just means that the majority of citizens understand that there is no difference and it doesn't take into consideration the massive lobbying that occoured to prevent these measures from being added to the ballots.
and to address your last statement... though it is technically correct that it isn't illegal to be against LGBT people, that doesn't mean it is incorrect.
so, if you want to keep on eating at chick fil a even though i can tell that you're queer like i am, I hope you understand that i do not associate with people like you because, frankly, i need to be able to respect you for me to hold a conversation with you without feeling like i need to take a long scrub in the shower afterwards.
Probs going to the Supreme Court too, because those Prop 8 supporters just won't give up. Wonder what'll happen there? (spoiler alert: It will be ruled unconstitutional)
that just means that the majority of citizens understand that there is no difference and it doesn't take into consideration the massive lobbying that occoured to prevent these measures from being added to the ballots
Uhm.. I believe that is actually the textbook definition of money not winning social issues since.. er.. clearly all the massive funding against these causes is.. not.. helping..
It's totally fine if you don't wish to associate with me, as I have a hard time associating with people who don't know how to set aside their opinions and differences in order to live peacefully with others. I think the owner of chik-fil-a is a piece of shit, but I'm not going to punish a branch owner because of the big boss' idiocy. See.. I can differentiate when a PERSON (the owner) is an evil asshole, and when the CORPORATION (chik-fil-a) is just a restaurant.
I'm not going to stop shopping at JCPenney because the store manager once called someone a poop head.
I'm not going to stop buying milk because one of the dairy farmers used his money to buy cocaine.
I'm not going to stop wearing shoes because one of the company owners gave his money to PETA instead of ASPCA.
I'll stop shopping at JCPenney when their prices are too high for me, or the associates are unhelpful or rude to me.
I'll stop buying milk when they start filling all of it with poison
I'll stop wearing shoes because they suck and fall apart in a day anyway.
In other words, I judge a company by its product and performance, not its individuals. What you do is like saying you aren't going to pay your employees because they use that money to buy coffee that isn't Fair Trade, and you are morally opposed to that.
The Chik-Fil-A here has good food, excellent customer service, competitive prices, and is very clean. If it had bad food, poor customer service, terrible prices, and was very dirty...well, then I would stop going there.
BTW I'm not gay, I'm Bi.
So, rationalize all you want... but just know that you've established that your pride, your dignity and your self-respect was sold for $2.50. I hope it's worth it, Uncle.
But what I think of my MYSELF, and what I do, and what I BELIEVE, can only be done and judged by ME and nobody else. I don't care what you think of me. I'm proud of myself, I respect myself, and I'm glad to be who I am today. Nobody can take that away from me, not even you.
THAT is dignity and self-respect.
'They' aren't doing anything. HE (the owner) is being a jerk. The one guy at the top. He's allowed to do whatever he wants with his money, just like you are.
THEY (explained) are trying to make money by providing customers with a product and service. THEY should be judged by their performance in such regards, and not by the views of one of its members.
To put it in different terms.. something THEY would do is refuse service to a certain type of person (discrimination). Something THEY would do is use chicken from (insertregionhere) made by (insertfarmingmethodhere).
The company doesn't fund hate groups, the owner uses his earnings to fund hate groups. I find their product and service to be excellent, so they will continue to get my money in exchange for it.
Also, it's BULLSHIT that eating there in any way validates, invalidates, hints to, exposes, or relates to my personal political and social views. Purchasing something from a republican company doesn't mean you approve of republicans. Purchasing something from an atheist company doesn't mean you approve of atheism. I'm not offering them approval of anything except their product and service. "Wow guys! Your food is great, fast, and you're all nice people! Here's my money for that excellent food and thank you for the excellent service!"
If you feel ok with your money being funneled into vicious regressive groups who's sole purpose is to deny civil rights to people keep them relegated to the status of second class citizens then that's your business, Just dont kid yourself by pretending thats not what is happening.
Just because I patronize chik-fil-a in no way means I'm donating funds to hate groups. Boycotts are for, as you said, dissatisfaction in company practice, not political affiliation. The company's practice isn't under scrunity, they aren't using slave labor for their meat, they aren't unfairly refusing service, they aren't selling diseased or undercooked food. Those are business practices, dude. The company head donating his money to hate groups is not a business practice.
MY money isn't going anywhere. It's not being taken from me, I have no ownership of it. I'm giving it to another person in exchange for a service. I give them ownership of my money, they give me ownership of their product. What I do with my purchased product isn't any of their business. I can take their sandwich and use it like a dildo, then toss it into the garbage disposal. It's mine. That person can do what they want with their earned money. They can beat puppies over the head with it, they can tie it to a string and tug it down the street, they can then use it to buy something they want. It's theirs, not mine.
It doesn't work like taxes. That's my money. I earned it and it's being forcefully removed from my hands by law. As soon as I buy something from another person, that money is no longer mine.
If everyone worried about the circulation of their money after they spend it, we'd be hoarding our funds to use them when we see fit on what we see fit.. and when people hoard the money they receive, that's less money in circulation for other people. Soon, a group of people have a whole lot of the money, because they refuse to give it up, and other people have less of the money despite their hard work, and employers can't pay their employees the wages they deserve, and then people turn to the people hoarding all the money and try to get them to spend it. (Holy shit.. this sounds SO MUCH like society, doesn't it?)
But because you are worried about where your ex-money goes once you spend it doesn't mean the people who don't care where it goes are inadvertently supporting the cause it's being spent on. Just because I buy furry porn doesn't mean my employer supports furry porn. It's his money that he's giving me for work I do, and if he doesn't want his money to be spent on furry porn, he should be able to fire me so that I no longer get his money.. yeah?
Imagine you are the employer and Chik-Fil-A is the employee. You tell Chik-Fil-A "I will give you this money if you give me that sandwich, have a smile on your face, and tell me thank you." And they do it. They earned the money.
The only difference in the situations is that you aren't required by law to give chik-fil-a your money on a regular basis, it's whenever you choose.
Roundabout way of saying it, but.. yeah. You are right for your practice, but that doesn't make me wrong.. it doesn't mean I'm supporting or approve of anything they do with the money I give.
That, and I have a KFC about a mile or so from my house, so there's that.
"People willing to sacrifice basic liberties for temporary fried chicken deserve neither and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
He totally said that you guys. It might have been fried turkey actually knowing Benjamin Franklin.
*grabs Hammytoy and takes him to a chick-fil-a but only to then perform very lewd buck on buck sex acts the likes of which make angels cry and bucks moan in pleasure*