39 replies to this topic

[arunma]

Yeah I know we have a thread in Commons, but we can't discuss anything serious there. So here we go!

For those who aren't aware of the controversy (what rock have you been living under!?), here's a good description:

http://en.wikipedia....ing_LGBT_issues

Read starting at the part that mentions July 2, 2012. Long story short, in an interview published in Biblical Recorder, the president of the company Dan Cathy said he's against gay marriage This set off a national debate leading to the mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco condemning the comments, going so far in some cases as to suggest that they would block the company from starting restaurants in their cities. The mayor of New York City said that while he supports gay marriage he would not attempt to stop them from doing business in his town. Of course gay rights groups called for boycotts of Chick-fil-A. Former Governor Mike Huckabee called for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day and suggested that on August first (which happens to be today) all evangelical Christians should eat at Chick-Fil-A to show their support for the company and its presidents view on gay marriage.

Now, I've never eaten at Chick-fil-A before, and probably never would regardless of all this. But I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed by the state of religious dialog in America at the moment. I don't think there's anything wrong with being morally opposed to gay marriage (mind you this is a separate issue from whether or not it should be legal). But usually when I hear pastors discuss homosexuality, the overall message is aimed at calling gays to repent of their sin and so forth. What we have here is someone making a statement specifically to incite anger in his adversaries. The boycott and anti-boycott I understand; after all it's every private citizen's right to spend his money where ever he wants. But calling for a ban on the restaurant because you disagree with the owner's politics!? What are we going to do, ban churches? People have already tried doing that with mosques, and I don't think banning Chick-fil-A's is much better. Politicians need to be careful to protect the rights of citizens, including the rights of CEOs to speak their minds (this is one case in which I won't call for the death of a CEO). As also indicated by the lies people spread about President Obama (e.g. socialist, Muslim, non-citizen, etc.), it would appear that civil discourse in America has ceased.

[Twinrova]

The problem with Chik-fil-A isn't their opinion on gay people. I don't like it, I think it's a shitty opinion, but whatever, it's their opinion. The PROBLEM is that Chik-fil-A donates a large chunk of its money ('large chunk' as in 'millions') to anti-gay organizations that are actively against gay marriage and other gay rights issues. Chik-fil-A will never get any of my money because I don't want to ever directly or indirectly donate to any of those ass-backwards organizations. I just wish more people would be willing to stand by their beliefs instead of succumbing to how good a stupid sandwich tastes (which, I might add, is easy to make at home), but it's their money and their decision.

[Kisseena]

What I don't understand is how are these organizations going to stop gay marriage...
Do they just spread how it's "bad" and stuff?

[LoreleiRaven]

I don't agree with Chik-fil-A's opinion... But what really bugged me is that when Jim Hensen pulled their creature shop toys from Chik-fil-A, they had to go and lie about it, saying the toys had been recalled for a safety issue.

Other than that... This is just one of those things. Someone is always going to disagree with someone else. There will always be opposing groups, and they will feel like the other group is somehow violating their rights.

Even if there were enough people out there who realize this, its not ever going to change until the people who are so full of hate change.

Edited by Echo, 01 August 2012 - 09:34 PM.

[LoreleiRaven]

Edit: Sorry for the double post... stupid lagginess

Edited by Echo, 01 August 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

The Jim Henson thing was originally my only problem. Since this started I have learned the company has donated some of that money to hate groups that advocate making homosexuality illegal or shipping homosexuals to other countries. They also donate to groups that claim homosexuality can be cured through prayer.

Should any ordinances be pased to keep these restaurants out of any particular location? No. That's a serious over reach. Let the people vote with their wallets in this case.

[Ikiosho]

I'd thought it was Chick-Fil-A that claimed the toys were pulled for safety reasons.

EDIT: It's spelled "Chick". Derp.

Edited by Ikiosho, 01 August 2012 - 10:45 PM.

[Egann]

Well, everyone who frequents Contro knows my opinion on the gay marriage issue; government shouldn't be involved in the matter, PERIOD. OK, that out of the way properly?

On topic, I like Chik Fil A well enough as a chain, even after all this nonsense. The damage a major chain can do with donations is a microscopic part of its total budget, but if it makes a business model out of peddling addicting and almost toxic food you can write off the chain's ENTIRE bottom line as destructive. The difference in this case? A factor of about 1,000. This falls somewhere between "non-issue" and "something you should pay attention to, but not worry about." It's basically an issue for one-topic activists or people with a very strong (and reasonably impractical) sense of moral purity.

But the same could be said about many things we make stinks over.



The real problem with American politics in general is that everyone makes everything political. You would think that the religious right would not immediately jump down the political action jugular because these people typically abhor politics and think the less government the better. The American culture as a whole is drunk with the thought of using politics to coerce people into doing things. Solve our marriages with political action, solve immigration, solve healthcare, solve my goddam smelly laundry with a subcommittee meeting on August 4th.

And, of course, the first step in solving this is to admit we have an addiction.

I'm not saying that these things aren't issues, but government action--particularly on the national scale--should be a very last resort. If you must solve via political action, do it locally, but if you can find an alternative, do so. The basic trouble is that government has the power to do almost anything people want, we interact with it regularly, and it can usually be controlled by the relatively intuitive means of adding money. The thought of using it to control Frank Next Door is almost reflexive. Agents of broader social change? Not that obvious and significantly more difficult to use or control.

[TheAvengerLever]

Ugh, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Why do I feel like this whole situation has been comically blown out of proportion?

[Masamune]

In the end, die-hard liberals will stop eating there (until they forget) if they even ate there to begin with and die-hard conservatives will start eating there (until they forget) even if they didn't before. If anything,their business may even improve.

[Twinrova]

I'd thought it was Chick-Fil-A that claimed the toys were pulled for safety reasons.

They were. I don't see where anyone is claiming otherwise..?

On topic, I like Chik Fil A well enough as a chain, even after all this nonsense. The damage a major chain can do with donations is a microscopic part of its total budget, but if it makes a business model out of peddling addicting and almost toxic food you can write off the chain's ENTIRE bottom line as destructive. The difference in this case? A factor of about 1,000. This falls somewhere between "non-issue" and "something you should pay attention to, but not worry about."

It doesn't matter (to me) whether or not the money CFA has donated isn't actually that much. ANY money donated to those organizations is too much (to me). It's not really your place to say people concerned with the issue of gay marriage shouldn't worry about it.

What I don't understand is how are these organizations going to stop gay marriage...
Do they just spread how it's "bad" and stuff?

Yes. These groups are known for comparing gay people to pedophiles, child (and adult) molesters, and zoophiles. They advocate that they shouldn't be given the same rights as "normal" people/couples (for example, saying that sexual orientation or gender identity shouldn't be protected under discrimination laws, even saying that criminal activity against homosexuals should be encouraged). Also saying bullshit like "gay behavior" should be against the law. They are hate groups.

It doesn't really matter (to me) if these types of organizations don't actually accomplish anything. I just don't want any of my money going to them at all for everything they say. It's like if I found out some of my money was being donated to the Westboro Baptist Church... they don't actually do anything (in terms of passing laws or whatever), other than be extremely offensive, and I still wouldn't want to support them in any way, shape, or form.

[Egann]

On topic, I like Chik Fil A well enough as a chain, even after all this nonsense. The damage a major chain can do with donations is a microscopic part of its total budget, but if it makes a business model out of peddling addicting and almost toxic food you can write off the chain's ENTIRE bottom line as destructive. The difference in this case? A factor of about 1,000. This falls somewhere between "non-issue" and "something you should pay attention to, but not worry about."

It doesn't matter (to me) whether or not the money CFA has donated isn't actually that much. ANY money donated to those organizations is too much (to me). It's not really your place to say people concerned with the issue of gay marriage shouldn't worry about it.

I know what you mean, but this is more a matter of being conscious of where the money causing guilt than actual danger. CFA has a bottom line of about 4 billion, and donated about 3 million to places like these, so that's about 0.1%. Now compare this with HP computers. Their last CEO lasted about a year, he drove the company into the ground, and his parachute was worth 13 million. Considering HP has about 9 billion of income, that's about the same 0.1% going DIRECTLY TO THAT CEO'S GOLDEN PARACHUTE.

You will go insane trying to control where every 0.1% of your money goes. It's just not enough to worry about.

Edited by Egann, 02 August 2012 - 12:43 PM.

[Steel Samurai]

Clearly, though, Egann, she's not worrying about where every .1% of her money goes. She's worrying about that specific .1%, and just because it won't have any real effect doesn't diminish the principle of the stand.

Frankly, I don't really care. I go to CFA about two-three times a year, and that's not going to change one way or the other because of this.

I do wonder, though, whether corporate donations in general are all that ethical. If they board of directors or shareholders really want to support a cause that badly, could they not give the money themselves instead of taking it out of corporate coffers? It seems overall as though that's just taking money away from the smaller stockholders who don't have any real say over the corporation's donations one way or another.

[arunma]

The problem with Chik-fil-A isn't their opinion on gay people. I don't like it, I think it's a shitty opinion, but whatever, it's their opinion. The PROBLEM is that Chik-fil-A donates a large chunk of its money ('large chunk' as in 'millions') to anti-gay organizations that are actively against gay marriage and other gay rights issues. Chik-fil-A will never get any of my money because I don't want to ever directly or indirectly donate to any of those ass-backwards organizations. I just wish more people would be willing to stand by their beliefs instead of succumbing to how good a stupid sandwich tastes (which, I might add, is easy to make at home), but it's their money and their decision.

Yeah, you're probably thinking about how they donate money to the Family Reseach Council. Really, it's unfortunate that anyone was surprised by Dan Cathy's comments or why he bothered to phrase them in a way that he knew would offend people. I mean, it's always been an openly evangelical Christian business. They even close on Sundays. It was always obvious what the owners thought about gay marriage, so I don't see how this guy's comments came as any sort of shock to the nation. Like you said, if you don't like their opinions then don't eat there.

And more importantly, if you're in favor of gay marriage then vote for politicians who support it. Remember that at the end of the day these donations do only one thing: they pay for more TV ads. If people actually read a voter's guide and voted for who they thought was the best candidate then this wouldn't be an issue. Sadly politics is a popularity contest, and swing voters vote for the guy whose TV ads they see more often.

What I don't understand is how are these organizations going to stop gay marriage...
Do they just spread how it's "bad" and stuff?

Yeah, they say a lot of stuff about gays, as Rova described. But like I said above, the only thing they can actually do is engage in political action. Really I think the moral dilemma for most gay and ally types is that if they eat at Chick-fil-A, their money is going to a cause that they strongly disapprove of. And that pisses them off, sort of like how if I found out that my money was going to a layoff-happy CEO (wait...I pay taxes). But ultimately the only thing they can do is influence people. Americans seem to have lost sight of the fact that through voting, they have real power over the government.

[Oberon Storm]

I think I have changed my mind about local governments barring CFA from building restaurants. The alderman of Chicago has said his effort to do this has nothing to do with the company's stance on gays and gay marriage. They have face lawsuits n the past due to supposed discrimination. They are currently facing a lawsuit from a woman claiming she was fired so she can stay home with the kids. They have failed to provide written antidiscrimination policies which are required by law. I think I agree with the alderman.

[Ikiosho]

I'd thought it was Chick-Fil-A that claimed the toys were pulled for safety reasons.

They were. I don't see where anyone is claiming otherwise..?

I misred a response. My apologies.

[Egann]

Clearly, though, Egann, she's not worrying about where every .1% of her money goes. She's worrying about that specific .1%, and just because it won't have any real effect doesn't diminish the principle of the stand.

Except that when you start worrying about selective 0.1%'s, you open yourself up to manipulation. People are only aware of the CFA donations because it was reported and people reacted. Now imagine if the reporter had a political agenda (as most of them do). In the sea of thousands of possible stories like this, the story facts can be exaggerated in scope and contrasting facts can be completely ignored.

When given the chance, all reporters will make a story sound like the end of the world, and an article along these guidelines could be leveled at practically anything. A slight omission no one will notice turns genererally good intentions into misplaced anger. Controlled misplaced anger. This is very nearly the perfect political weapon.

[Sir Deimos]

I don't see how this is going over your head, Egann. She supports gay rights. So she wants ABSOLUTELY NONE of her money going to anti-gay causes. ABSOLUTELY NONE. Never mind that .1% is a small percentage. Ignore what this "could" mean. What it, straight and fucking simple, means is that we KNOW their money goes to support things Rova, and I, and many others DON'T support.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

What do you mean, what rock have I been living under?

If you hadn't made a big song and dance about it in the Commons, I would have never known. And quite frankly, I'd completely forgotten what the controversy was even about until you brought it back up again. I don't think it made the news over here in the UK.

EDIT: Oh wait, I'm wrong. It made it into the news... yesterday.

Edited by Wolf O'Donnell, 03 August 2012 - 02:16 PM.

[Twinrova]

I don't see how this is going over your head, Egann. She supports gay rights. So she wants ABSOLUTELY NONE of her money going to anti-gay causes. ABSOLUTELY NONE. Never mind that .1% is a small percentage. Ignore what this "could" mean. What it, straight and fucking simple, means is that we KNOW their money goes to support things Rova, and I, and many others DON'T support.

<3

[Selena]

"Don't worry about where your money goes." Until we start talking about taxes, that is...



In any case, I really don't care too much about the situation, and it's become too much of a media circus, but if a company is donating funds to causes you aren't okay with, you're well within your sensible right not to give them your money. You can't force them to change their stance, but you can boycott. Or use this as fuel in a "prevent corporations from donating to anything" crusade.

Until then, you don't like gays...?

Well...

....


...uh.


....WELL, I'M ALLERGIC TO ALL YOUR FOOD, SO THERE.

[Showsni]

I don't see how this is going over your head, Egann. She supports gay rights. So she wants ABSOLUTELY NONE of her money going to anti-gay causes. ABSOLUTELY NONE. Never mind that .1% is a small percentage. Ignore what this "could" mean. What it, straight and fucking simple, means is that we KNOW their money goes to support things Rova, and I, and many others DON'T support.

Problem is you can't police where all of your money is going. Maybe you buy a sandwich and the store pays an employee his salary with the money and he uses it to buy a gun and shoot up a school. You can at least not buy things where you know the money is going somewhere you disapprove of, though. But there are levels even then; would you buy a sandwich from a shop if you knew that just one of the employees was an anti gay rights activist, knowing that part of what you pay could fund his paycheck?

[Twinrova]

Of course I can't KNOW where every single bit of my money is going. But in the case with Chick-Fil-A, I DO know it's going towards anti-gay donations, and I know I don't want it to. Just because I can't know where every single bit of my money is going doesn't mean I shouldn't stand up for what I do know about.


Why is that so hard to understand

[wisp]

I don't understand why everyone has to argue about this. I think it's really stupid for people to be screaming and insulting each other over this. If you choose to keep eating there, then fine. Enjoy your food! But if we want to ensure our money is not in that tenth of a percent of their profits, that's our choice and I don't see why we can't just agree to disagree. It might be a tenth of a percent of their profits, but with the kind of profits a chain restaurant like that makes, a tenth of a percent equates to a lot of money. It might not be a big deal to you, but it's a big enough deal to us that we would rather eat something else.

Ugh, and I was really hoping we would get away with NOT having one of these threads here.

[Toan]

"Don't worry about where your money goes." Until we start talking about taxes, that is...

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Of course I can't KNOW where every single bit of my money is going. But in the case with Chick-Fil-A, I DO know it's going towards anti-gay donations, and I know I don't want it to. Just because I can't know where every single bit of my money is going doesn't mean I shouldn't stand up for what I do know about.


Why is that so hard to understand

Because you're on the other end of the political spectrum.

[Green Goblin]

Yeah, I can understand not wanting to support that kind of thing, indirectly with one's money. So I'm not gonna go to Chic Fil A anymore either (not a big sacrifice. Before this, I only went there maybe 5 times a year).

[arunma]

Ugh, and I was really hoping we would get away with NOT having one of these threads here.

It's your guys' fault for letting crazies like me on LA.

I think I have changed my mind about local governments barring CFA from building restaurants. The alderman of Chicago has said his effort to do this has nothing to do with the company's stance on gays and gay marriage. They have face lawsuits n the past due to supposed discrimination. They are currently facing a lawsuit from a woman claiming she was fired so she can stay home with the kids. They have failed to provide written antidiscrimination policies which are required by law. I think I agree with the alderman.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with banning a business that genuinely practices discrimination (I doubt anyone will give Chick-fil-A workers a ministerial exemption). I'm just not OK with banning a business because it's president expresses offensive opinions. In addition to being an infringement of free speech, you're punishing a lot of workers who have nothing to do with the larger political controversy.

So given what you've said above, if they're going to ban these guys, then they should do it for these reasons. Also now wouldn't be a good time, since it would be a shame if we gave anyone the impression that your business can be closed down because of the opinions you express.

[Sir Deimos]

He should be able to say whatever hate speak he wants to. I agree. He should NOT be able to funnel corporate profits to anti-human organizations.

Just like that asshole has the right to say what he wants, the groups he persecutes have the right to be treated like regular, ordinary citizens.

Wanting a dick in your ass does not make you subhuman.

[TheAvengerLever]

Technically, if he owns the company, he has every right to put his business's money wherever he wants.