Chick-fil-A appreciation day!!
- Thread starter drwfaulk
- Start date
HARDTRAILZ
Moderator
- Nov 18, 2011
- 49,665
OctaneRider03
Member
- Jul 31, 2012
- 430
HARDTRAILZ
Moderator
- Nov 18, 2011
- 49,665
drwfaulk said:
I support the freedom of speech, but not necessarily all the companies ideas/views....
Neither are many of us. I fully support the owner's 1st Amendment right to spout any sort of nonsense, so long as the company's hiring, promotion, and benefits conform to the law and are non-discriminatory. Will I spend any money there to advance the owner's agenda? No. I'll spend extra at Amazon to compensate.drwfaulk said:
jimmyjam
Member
- Nov 18, 2011
- 1,634
oh.. if we're ranking for their stance on societal issues then i'd put them below a food cart in china that serves dog
there are a couple in central florida now
My sister went to pharmacy school out by you in Buies Creek, I learned the joys of bojangles biscuits while visitingOctaneRider03 said:
there are a couple in central florida now
- Jan 5, 2012
- 144
@ Roadie I agree with what you said to the fullest.
My support was sparked because there were so many bad remarks about the company that IMHO it makes the company better to not go along with all the social B/S in the world today. I'm glad such a large company took a stand on what they believe in instead of just going along and switching sides when it benefits them.
My support was sparked because there were so many bad remarks about the company that IMHO it makes the company better to not go along with all the social B/S in the world today. I'm glad such a large company took a stand on what they believe in instead of just going along and switching sides when it benefits them.
Actually, a "company" is only a "person" in the legal sense in narrow ways. Unless the employees all took a vote, the controversy is coming from COO Dan Cathy, an individual, and he's the one taking a stand. It's an extremely polarizing issue, and runs right at the edge of subjects we normally allow on the forums. But in this case, the larger issue (IMHO) is not Dan Cathy's views on same-sex marriage, but on how far folks who don't agree with that personal ideology will go to deny building permits, etc. to his franchisees.drwfaulk said:
Carried to an extreme, unless a spirit of compromise is rediscovered, we WILL become a country of blue and red states/counties/cities/neighborhoods. Folks who didn't study history and missed out on the Partition of India in 1947 (Partition of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are being extremely short-sighted about the path our beloved country is on.
Lima Tango
Member
- Dec 4, 2011
- 242
Chik-Fil-A's business model:
1) Alienate half your potential customer base by pointlessly taking a stand on an extremely polarizing issue
2) ?????
3) PROFIT!
I agree with roadie that it's not the company, it's the CEO as an individual, who should be under fire here. That being said, since he was representating the company for that interview, his actions reflect on them same as something I do in uniform reflects on the Air Force, and he should have known better. Is this something any level of government has any right to get involved in, by denying permits or something? Absolutely not.
Either way, I will continue not eating there because I don't like their food. If I did eat there, I would stop, because I find the views of their CEO despicable. No government or individual has any right to tell someone else what to do, unless that person is somehow harming others. If so, then by all means, legislate. If what a person is doing isn't affecting anyone else negatively, then the government needs to stay the hell out of their business.
1) Alienate half your potential customer base by pointlessly taking a stand on an extremely polarizing issue
2) ?????
3) PROFIT!
I agree with roadie that it's not the company, it's the CEO as an individual, who should be under fire here. That being said, since he was representating the company for that interview, his actions reflect on them same as something I do in uniform reflects on the Air Force, and he should have known better. Is this something any level of government has any right to get involved in, by denying permits or something? Absolutely not.
Either way, I will continue not eating there because I don't like their food. If I did eat there, I would stop, because I find the views of their CEO despicable. No government or individual has any right to tell someone else what to do, unless that person is somehow harming others. If so, then by all means, legislate. If what a person is doing isn't affecting anyone else negatively, then the government needs to stay the hell out of their business.
the following picture is work safe, but it's not "good christian morals safe"
awwwwww yeah
awwwwww yeah
Attachments
Uncle Blazer
Member
- Dec 8, 2011
- 263
RedLabrador said:
there is nothing more Christian than those two Sunday School teachers outwardly expressing their love for God. Makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
AtlWrk
Member
- Dec 6, 2011
- 674
Sigh...I've tried to stay out of this one because I hate to associate GMTN with this issue but:
I whole heartedly disagree with that view in this case. His statement was in defense of his company's actions, namely donating millions of Chik-fil-A's profits to not just "pro-traditional-marriage" organizations, but to hostile anti-gay hate groups. This is not hyperbole; this is fact.
Despite their rallying cry, nobody is disagreeing with his right to say what he did, to have his beliefs or to direct his company based on those beliefs. Plenty of large companies are unapologetic in their religious roots, and rightfully so. However, this is not, nor was it ever about supporting freedom of speech or religion; it's about the ramifications of excercising those rights.
Standing behind your beliefs: worthy of support, heck, even if I disagreed.
Using those beliefs to justify spending millions to lobby for making homosexuality criminal (not just marriage) and for bills against the US condeming the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" law: protected speech but not worthy of one dime. Like your mother used to say: "it's not what you say, it's how you say it"
Let me ask: If you found out that CFA donated to groups supporting the KKK would you still support them?
So no, I will not "appreciate" a company's hate under the guise of 1st Amendment rights.
All that being said, I do strongly disagree with the mayors who have threatened to keep him out of their cities. That's just unconstituational and hypocritical grandstanding at its worst.
I don't mean to inflame, only educate. Now, back to the technical sections...
the roadie said:
I whole heartedly disagree with that view in this case. His statement was in defense of his company's actions, namely donating millions of Chik-fil-A's profits to not just "pro-traditional-marriage" organizations, but to hostile anti-gay hate groups. This is not hyperbole; this is fact.
Despite their rallying cry, nobody is disagreeing with his right to say what he did, to have his beliefs or to direct his company based on those beliefs. Plenty of large companies are unapologetic in their religious roots, and rightfully so. However, this is not, nor was it ever about supporting freedom of speech or religion; it's about the ramifications of excercising those rights.
Standing behind your beliefs: worthy of support, heck, even if I disagreed.
Using those beliefs to justify spending millions to lobby for making homosexuality criminal (not just marriage) and for bills against the US condeming the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" law: protected speech but not worthy of one dime. Like your mother used to say: "it's not what you say, it's how you say it"
Let me ask: If you found out that CFA donated to groups supporting the KKK would you still support them?
So no, I will not "appreciate" a company's hate under the guise of 1st Amendment rights.
All that being said, I do strongly disagree with the mayors who have threatened to keep him out of their cities. That's just unconstituational and hypocritical grandstanding at its worst.
I don't mean to inflame, only educate. Now, back to the technical sections...
Bartonmd
Member
- Nov 20, 2011
- 545
The really funny thing about all of this is, this is not news. They've been giving money to that stuff for years, and except for a couple LGBT groups, nobody's cared. I read the interview. The stuff in the interview was really, really not offensive. He obviously went out of his way, in the interview, to not be offensive. This is not news.
What I wonder is, what's going on in the world that "they" want the proles to be up in arms about this, instead of being up in arms about what "they" are trying to distract everyone from? IMO, nobody in the government cares who sticks what in where, or who gets married to who; but the argument is a great distraction from the other stuff that's really wrong, and it's a great way to divide the people, so that we can be more easily conquered. Welcome to being a pawn.
Mike
What I wonder is, what's going on in the world that "they" want the proles to be up in arms about this, instead of being up in arms about what "they" are trying to distract everyone from? IMO, nobody in the government cares who sticks what in where, or who gets married to who; but the argument is a great distraction from the other stuff that's really wrong, and it's a great way to divide the people, so that we can be more easily conquered. Welcome to being a pawn.
Mike
Sparky
Member
- Dec 4, 2011
- 12,927
You really can't compare their stance on same-sex marriage to being anywhere close to the KKK or any of that. The CEO simply stated their position and they aren't doing anything different than they have been doing in the past.
I think it is more despicable how the pro-gay movement is acting towards them than the other way around. Some of them are going out of their way to be as offensive as they can toward Chick-fil-A. Don't agree with their stance? Fine. Don't eat there if it bothers you so much. But shoving your views in their faces and/or trying to force it down their throats isn't going to do any good at all.
I agree with Mike though, it is a rather convenient thing to throw sand and dirt in the air to distract. Although I think it has a chance of backfiring on them.
I think it is more despicable how the pro-gay movement is acting towards them than the other way around. Some of them are going out of their way to be as offensive as they can toward Chick-fil-A. Don't agree with their stance? Fine. Don't eat there if it bothers you so much. But shoving your views in their faces and/or trying to force it down their throats isn't going to do any good at all.
I agree with Mike though, it is a rather convenient thing to throw sand and dirt in the air to distract. Although I think it has a chance of backfiring on them.
- Jan 5, 2012
- 144
This is a good video.( at the bottom of the page) http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/08/0...tired-of-hypocrisy-bigotry-toward-christians/
Those who bash a (91?) Year old man for his religious views, let me help you pack your bags so you can move to a muslum part of the world they will stone you to death JUST for stating YOUR opinion. 
I think most people are missing the point here. This wasn't about gay/anti-gay opinions, that's just a bait and switch. As was stated by others, this was going on for a while but it was not the catalyst for the protests. I don't feel the protest was in support of the owner of Chick fil a's opinions. This is about the abuse of power of some elected officials who feel they can do whatever they want based on their own opinions. Wanting to deny permits based on the opinions of the owners is political correctivness run amok. It seems from the executive branch on down, politicians are picking and choosing which laws to enforce and to create their own to suit their own needs. Stifling businesses (and the jobs they create) is dangerous. What's next??? You can't open a business if you're an NRA member??? What if you can't open a business if you own a carbon spewing, global warming inducing, SUV. Before you think I'm off the wall here, remember, Bloomberg in NYC now wants to regulate breast-feeding in hospitals. What happens if the right-wing gets control and starts applying their own litmus tests for businesses. Is the left going to complain that it's unconstitutional now??? I think people are finally realizing what's going on and want a return to the checks and balances that made our system work. OK rant over.