Is Chic-Fil-A getting a raw deal?

1. 60

   IDONOposted 11 years ago

   Is Chic-Fil-A getting a raw deal?
   
   In reading other answers to this issue, I say yes. The remarks are ridiculous. Chic-Fil-A never said they hate gays. Never said they wouldn't hire or serve a gay person. They just don't believe in same sex marriage. Now people want to boycott and Chicago refuses new openings. Can Chicago actually afford that in tax revenue and denying numerous new jobs?
        What bothers me the most is that these anti Chic-Fil-A people exaggerate the story and then feel they can be so arrogant as to punish Chic-Fil-A because their beliefs differ from theirs. Who do you think you are?
        Santa? Look out Coke!

   replyreport
2. 86

   Ms Deeposted 11 years ago

   I, too, say yes. The gay rights activists seem to just be picking a fight. Activists stir up things and when they cannot find a legitimate transgressor of rights to get into a fight with, they manufacture one. They end up transgressing the rights of others, and so become guilty of the very thing they falsly accuse others of, intolerance of the right to have your own beliefs.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Ms Deeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      peeples, the 5th paragraph of that Huffington Post article mentions several attacks but then implies just one was an attack for being gay--the last one. I don't see statistics for orgs like Focus on the Family carrying out hate activities.

      replyreport
3. 0

   JThomp42posted 11 years ago

   All they need is a small hint of a reason. What if the press said they didn't approve of Indian Americans, African Americans, etc. Everything would blow over. In this day of "Political Correctness" the gays think they should have special rights. "Gay Rights"? NO!! Rights that all American citizens have under the law? YES!! No one has special rights. Just my opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No one has special rights? That's a good position. Can we expect you, then, to sacrifice your right to freely marry whom you choose? Or do you not mind special rights when they belong to you?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If you notice I said "Under the Law". It is illegal for two men or women to marry.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is not illegal everywhere

      replyreport
   4. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In most states it is.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And they gave money to ensure that even people who don't follow their religion or any religion don't get to choose who they want to marry. The US should not be a theocracy

      replyreport
   6. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No comment.

      replyreport
   7. 78

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Fundamental human rights are supposed to be above the law. In the case of marriage, the law has been used to take away those rights from specific classes, thereby turning marriage into a special right it isn't meant to be.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Junkseller that is an opinion. Not a fact.

      replyreport
   9. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How do you expect laws, religious beliefs, moral beliefs, public beliefs and opinions that have been here for a couple hundred years to change overnight? Have you ever heard of patience and tolerance? This takes time. Maybe generations.

      replyreport
   10. 78

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The first same-sex marriage was attempted 40 years ago. What is the acceptable timeframe for discriminating against human beings? Plus, it isn't like intolerance is something we haven't seen before. Equality is a no-brainer.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Now it is. Because the liberals control the media.

       replyreport
   12. 78

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       The problem isn't that the media is liberal, it is that conservatives call anything to the left of them, including centrists, liberals. Some media is SLIGHTLY left of center. That's it. Either way, that has nothing to do with equality.

       replyreport
4. 78

   junksellerposted 11 years ago

   I for the most part disagree with you. It isn't arrogance to punish them, nor is it necessarily punishment. It is simply choosing to consume elsewhere. people do that sort of thing all the time, and increasingly do it for social considerations (i.e. the way companies treat the world, people, and animals). Exerting pressures on corporations to be mindful of these issues I think is actually pretty important. And in a free market, we have every right to do so. That isn't arrogance.
   
   The comments made by Cathy are no different than if he had come out and said Woman shouldn't be allowed to work or Blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote (but *wink, wink* we still like them as much as anyone else). These positions are equally backwards and equally ridiculous and some of us are just plain tired of having to listen to them. It is well past time to purge these neanderthal ideas from public discourse. Part of punishment is deterring others from doing similar things. If tarring and feathering a corporation or two is what it takes to keep other idiots from making similarly stupid public comments than so be it.
   
   Also, this isn't just a corporation with a CEO that says stupid things. They also donate millions to organizations which actively oppose same-sex marriage such as the Family Research Council.

   replyreport
   1. 39

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A well reasoned comment and I agree.  Part of freedom is being able to choose - or not, to support an establishment.  It is the very essence of the free market system many of these same people complaining about the boycott claim to support.

      replyreport
5. 80

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   The way I look at it, if people on the Christian right can call for a boycott of JC Penney just because Ellen Degeneris was a spokesperson then I don't see why the other side can't call for this boycott. Many people said they would not shop at JC Penney again...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But, They didn't make this big of a deal out of it.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Uninvited Writerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Some of them certainly did...

      replyreport
   3. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "SOME" Is the keyword.

      replyreport
   4. 78

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'd say at least half of the 'big deal' being made about Chick-Fil-A is conservatives complaining about 'gay activists' rather than gay rights advocates complaining about Chick-Fil-A.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Could be junkseller.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      IDONOposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think J.C. Penney's would have been denied opening two new stores in any city considering the jobs and revenue it would create? Would the Christians have cost innocent people jobs for their own selfish cause? Your example is very weak.

      replyreport
6. 94

   peeplesposted 11 years ago

   Chic-fil-a is donating money to anti gay groups that use the money to fight gay marriage. I simply will not keep giving my money to fund something like that. I think many would feel much different about this topic if Chic-fil-a was donating to the KKK. Hate is hate and no matter who it is supporting that hate I will not be part of it! I don't need to hold a sign or walk the streets. I just want be funding their hate agenda by eating there.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Ms Deeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, I'd not heard this before. Where have you seen info on them donating to anti-gay groups? I'd be interested to go read it.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/conor-gau … 11566.html  5th paragraph. It is also everywhere on the internet and was admitted by Chic-fil-a. 5 million so far donated to groups that discriminate against the LGBT community.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      They give a lot of money to the WinShape Foundation, who in turn provides money to groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family. http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005#2

      replyreport
   4. 39

      ChristinSposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very well said Peeples and I totally agree.  I would never support a company that knowingly supports hate groups.

      replyreport
   5. 93

      jbosh1972posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hate groups?? Really?  First of all opposing gay marriage and promoting traditional family values does not make one a hater.  Secondly, I am tired of homosexuals being treated like a race or ethnicity.  It is a lifestyle and a chosen one at that!

      replyreport
   6. 94

      peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      jbosh  Explain your OPINION that it's a chosen lifestyle to all the gay children of the world.  Oh yeah and telling someone that they have to do what you want them to do because of YOUR OPINION is hate Same thing hapened with interracial couples.

      replyreport
   7. 86

      Ms Deeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ohh, you think of Family Research Council &Focus on the Family as hate groups. If not believing gay marriage is right & promoting traditional family values are thought of as hate, this does not make sense to me. Seems a different definitions

      replyreport
   8. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      AMEN Ms Dee!!!!!!!

      replyreport
   9. 94

      peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Promoting traditional families is fine, holding back rights of those who aren't going the traditional route because you have a problem with it is hate. It's disliking (synonym for hate) someone's ability to do something different than what you want.

      replyreport
   10. 86

       Ms Deeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       peeples, Appreciate your dialoguing on this. Holding back rights is disliking is hate--OK. If Chic-Fil-A promoting traditional marriage is fine, how are they holding  back gay rights?

       replyreport
   11. 94

       peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Because their money goes directly toward fighting against gay marriage. If they simply wanted to promote traditional marriage then they should donate to things that help the horrible divorce rate or similar instead of fighting to hold back gay rights

       replyreport
   12. 86

       Ms Deeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       OK, fair enough. I see better now where you are coming from. It still seems to me that the $5M went to Christian orgs, but simply because they are Christian, gays call giving to such orgs anti-gay hate.

       replyreport
   13. 94

       peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       My personal opinion is all the money going against gay marriage could be used in so many better ways. Seems like a lot of effort toward the wrong thing. Just my opinion Ms. Dee.

       replyreport
   14. 78

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No one minds them "simply" being Christian. They mind them being specifically anti-gay. There are Christian organizations which are pro-gay (e.g. Believe Out Loud). You won't, however, find them on Chick-Fil-A's donor list. This is not by accident.

       replyreport
7. 84

   prettynutjob30posted 11 years ago

   I think in some ways they asked for all the chaos they have received I understand that everyone has the right to believe in what they choose but they have to know not only straight Christians eat at their restaurant.I mean gays eat chicken too chicken is not just a straight people thing.We all have the right to our own opinions but we can't expect everyone to agree with them and we should have a little common courtesy and respect for other people as well.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Apostle Jackposted 11 years ago

   I think so very much. Its only right to up hold what is right.But a little bit of something good is better than all the bad in the world. The world always as a trade mark put God on the back burner when making their decisions.

   replyreport
   1. 93

      jbosh1972posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      All true, because the world is in sin and the road to perdition is wide and well paved.  I just wish that the gay community would be more honest with the public and not try to mislead them into believing that homosexuality is a race or ethnicity.

      replyreport
9. 92

   Cre8torposted 11 years ago

   Raw deals, P.O.'ed activists, bigots, crybabies...the song remains the same. What really gets me is that the gay community thinks they're being slick by boycotting the food joint. Isn't this kind of like suspending a kid from school for acting up...giving them what they want. If the gay community wanted to get to Chic-Fil-A, they would be eating there for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Ordering nothing more than a Coke and dining in therefore not feeding their pocketbooks greatly, running off all of the straight bigot chicken eaters and running their bottom line straight into the ground. Is it me or is it comical to watch special interest groups play into the hands of their nemesis regardless of the issues? It's like watching L.A. burn itself to the ground over the beating of it's own citizen. That'll show 'em!
   
   I'm not "against" being gay or straight, black or white, man or woman...I'm against moronic ideas!

   replyreport
10. 69

    connorjposted 11 years ago

    Perhaps they are; yet it is of little matter, because I believe they are standing up for what they believe (that is, since it is privately owned, the ownership is...). Please read carefully, I did not say it is what I believe... Now I know this may perhaps be an unpopular stand especially within Hubpages and it may negatively affect their bottom line.
    I do apoloigize, do not think I hate gay people. I do not; I do think what they are doing is counter to what they should be doing though. If Chic Fil-A wants to stand up for this and they have the will to do it, then they should and I believe they have the right to do it (especially since they are privately owned). If it affects their bottom line in a negative way and they change their stance then they indeed have made a mistake. On the other-hand if they stand up for what they believe in no matter what the cost then they perhaps have made a stance for their belief and may perhaps be rewarded (by a higher source in His time) or they will come to know the truth about what God thinks in His time...

    replyreport
11. 60

    IDONOposted 11 years ago

    Too many comments to respond to. Thank you.
         Since when does disagree equate to hate? If gay people want to boycott Chic-Fil_A, then do so. But now since gays don't want to eat Chic-Fil-A, no one gets to. Sounds like I'll take my toy and go home if I,m mad. I don't like rap music and a lot of the disrespect of women and authority displayed in a lot of it. But I don't demand for a city to cancel a concert, take rap off the shelves or ban it from the radio. I simply don't listen to it.
         I personally would like to see Chic-Fil-A file a massive lawsuit against the City of Chicago for violation of the civil rights of Chic-Fil-A. Gays have that option if they are discriminated against because they are gay. Chic- Fil-A should have that same right because they are straight. Discrimination is discrimination.
         It bothers me a bit that none of the anti- Chic have addressed in any length about the restaurants not being allowed to open. Only boycott. Well what are you going to do now. There won't be anyone there to boycott unless you drive to another city to NOT eat. Are you not addressing it because all the people there would have liked having one there? Would have liked to have a job there? Would have liked to have a nice new building in the neighborhood that didn't serve alcohol?
         Face it, activists went too far this time. They not only deprived Chic-Fil-A a couple new openings, but denied people that could care less whether you are gay or not, something they may have enjoyed. They all say," Thank You"
         The gay marriage issue happens to be this one. But before any group or cause takes action or runs there mouth, they need to quit putting their own selfish needs ahead of their common sense. I'm willing to sacrifice some of my needs for the good of all.
         So, now if I discriminate against a gay person in any way, can I call it a boycott and get away with it? Seems like it. Ridiculous? I'm not so sure.
         By the way; I bought cigarettes today and I donated to the American Cancer Society. What does that make me?

    replyreport
    1. 94

       peeplesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I am against Chicfila on this one but I do disagree with keeping them from opening new stores. I won't be donating my money to them but if others choose to it should be an option to make it an even playing field. We can't lose more jobs over this.

       replyreport
    2. 78

       junksellerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with you about the blocking new stores, but I see that as just politicians doing stupid things (kind of like Palin tweeting a photo from Chik-Fil-A). I don't think it is fair to connect  them to legitimate actions of gay rights supporters.

       replyreport