I'll be damned, I didn't know today was Chick-Fil-A appreciation day.

[TechBoyJK]

Free speech? I think not. Religious bigotry now is approaching the same levels of our history in the 1600's. Bring on the stakes!

How is it not free speech?

 

[unokitty]

The other side just wants their deserved rights

Unfortunately for you, you have neither the legal nor the moral right to force everyone else to think the same way that you do.

Just because someone expressed a view of marriage that isn't congruent with your own, doesn't make you a victim. And it doesn't make them a criminal. Thinking differently than you is not a crime.

You have a right to your opinion. If you want, you have the right to hate people whose views differ from your own.

You however do not have a legal or a moral right to force other people to think the same way that you do...

All the best,
Uno

 

[sourceninja]

You are a very large part of what is wrong with this country and I wish you would dig a big hole and climb into it.

You have no dog in this fight since it is a Christian viewpoint, so please leave.

I have a dog in this fight. The christian viewpoint is obtuse and it's effects can change the course of the planet that I live on. I believe in the ideals of freedom and the need to defend freedom.

I have no problems with CF saying they don't like gay marriage, what I do have a problem with is people actively trying to keep others from having the right to do the same things everyone else can do.

So either marriage for everyone, or marriage for no one. That is my stance. Personally, I think marriage is a pointless tradition and should be removed. I think that almost every christian in the USA is really not a christian if you get down to it and most marriages are not done in a biblical sense. If we are to protect the christian moral view point on marriage, we need to a lot more than keep gays from getting married. We need to criminalize adultery.

 

[sourceninja]

Unfortunately for you, you have neither the legal nor the moral right to force everyone else to think the same way that you do.

Just because someone expressed a view of marriage that isn't congruent with your own, doesn't make you a victim. And it doesn't make them a criminal. Thinking differently than you is not a crime.

You have a right to your opinion. If you want, you have the right to hate people whose views differ from your own.

You however do not have a legal or a moral right to force other people to think the same way that you do...

All the best,
Uno

You forgot to add "unless you are in power". Apparently the religious right DOES have the power to force other people to accept their views.

 

[skagen5555]

I'm not saying black people are sub human. I'm saying the bible says that I can own slaves and that the black people are cursed to be slaves. I respect them in every other way, it's just a difference in religion.

The NIV Study Bible notes,6 “Noah’s curse cannot be used to justify the enslavement of blacks, since most of Ham’s descendants are known to be Caucasian, as the Canaanites certainly were (as shown by ancient paintings of the Canaanites discovered in Egypt).” We conclude that Genesis provides no biblical basis, either ethically or prophetically, to justify black slavery.

Furthermore.. read my post above about context.. not just for passages, but for books and the Bible overall.

 

[Platypus]

I can't believe people are still thinking this is a free speech issue. People aren't upset that Dan Cathy opened his stupid fucking mouth and vomited up a bunch of religious tripe. People are upset that people are contributing money directly to an organization that takes money and gives it to people who support restricting fellow Americans' freedom. Point blank, that's it. If people are upset about what local governments decide to do with approving restaurants, take that up with the ACLU, that is an understandable issue... but those decisions didn't stem from a free speech issue, they stemmed from those places seeing blatant unAmerican behavior and saying they don't want any part of it. For people to use this circular logic of, oh you're intolerant of my religion or my free speech as the basis of supporting people who are actively participating in behavior that represents the OPPOSITE of what this country was founded on is fucking stupid. If you want to call me intolerant for being intolerant to intolerance, fine, I have no problem with that. I stand up for what this country is based on, you don't.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Good for CFA for having a "record-setting day" yesterday.

Too bad their stance is going to lose them far more money that than in the long run.

They aren't 100% driven by profits. The fact that they close on sunday is a pretty obvious sign they'll ride this out and be happy with decrease in profits if it means they stuck to their beliefs.

It's pretty admirable, imho. I might not agree with their beliefs, but they stick to theirs.

 

[crownjules]

404 bashing gay people not found.

Just because someone is against gay marriage, that doesn't mean they are against gay people and their lifestyle.

Yes it does. You can not be accepting of someone's lifestyle and deny them the same rights you enjoy. It's not openly bashing no, but you're not treating them as an equal.

 

[IAteYourMother]

I can't believe people are still thinking this is a free speech issue. People aren't upset that Dan Cathy opened his stupid fucking mouth and vomited up a bunch of religious tripe. People are upset that people are contributing money directly to an organization that takes money and gives it to people who support restricting fellow Americans' freedom. Point blank, that's it. If people are upset about what local governments decide to do with approving restaurants, take that up with the ACLU, that is an understandable issue... but those decisions didn't stem from a free speech issue, they stemmed from those places seeing blatant unAmerican behavior and saying they don't want any part of it. For people to use this circular logic of, oh you're intolerant of my religion or my free speech as the basis of supporting people who are actively participating in behavior that represents the OPPOSITE of what this country was founded on is fucking stupid. If you want to call me intolerant for being intolerant to intolerance, fine, I have no problem with that. I stand up for what this country is based on, you don't.

What a patriot. Amurrricaaa

 

[cubby1223]

What if I liked raping babies and actively provided my profit to pedophile groups, that's okay too right? It's free speech.

You'd be arrested and thrown in jail.

And yet if you provided your profit to anti-pedophile groups, people would support you whole-heartily, no one would ever protest you.

It's free speech, right?

 

[slayer202]

Unfortunately for you, you have neither the legal nor the moral right to force everyone else to think the same way that you do.

Just because someone expressed a view of marriage that isn't congruent with your own, doesn't make you a victim. And it doesn't make them a criminal. Thinking differently than you is not a crime.

You have a right to your opinion. If you want, you have the right to hate people whose views differ from your own.

You however do not have a legal or a moral right to force other people to think the same way that you do...

All the best,
Uno

This is willful ignorance. And stupidity.

The only thing people are asking for is EQUALITY. This should be the default.

But one side of bigots want to forcefully decrease the rights of others. It has nothing to do with beliefs, but actions. This is a very simple concept

 

[AMDZen]

This is willful ignorance. And stupidity.

The only thing people are asking for is EQUALITY. This should be the default.

But one side of bigots want to forcefully decrease the rights of others. It has nothing to do with beliefs, but actions. This is a very simple concept

Luckily, even though people like 'uno' are complete morons and don't get that - its only a matter of time before it happens.

Just like with woman's right to vote. Just like with Black's rights all across the board.

Its only a matter of time before more and more states pass gays right to marry and it eventually becomes national.

It might take even longer in places like Alabama, where its still on the books that a black boy can't marry a white girl - but fuck Alabama any way.

 

[cubby1223]

This is willful ignorance. And stupidity.

The only thing people are asking for is EQUALITY. This should be the default.

But one side of bigots want to forcefully decrease the rights of others. It has nothing to do with beliefs, but actions. This is a very simple concept

There will NEVER be complete equality, that would be physically IMPOSSIBLE.

A man and a woman together can create a baby.

Two gay men together cannot create a baby. To lesbian women together cannot create a baby.

Are you going to refute the inequality there? Does it piss you off if I recognize there is a difference there? If the mere action of pointing that out pisses you off, that is YOUR problem, and no one else's.

 

[DrPizza]

BRILLIANT marketing plan! 5% of the population eats your food. 40% of the population are bigots. Do something to appeal to the bigots, knowing that 60% of the population will give you grief for it. Realize that the 60% of that 5% customers really won't give a shit what you said a couple of weeks later. Realize that after getting grief, you can organize a "show support for bigoted statements" day and get a significant chunk of that 40% to show up at your store, at least quadrupling sales.

Short term: profit
Long term: no one will give a shit. Everyone who said they would stop eating there will simply let it go & continue eating there.

 

[Platypus]

There will NEVER be complete equality, that would be physically IMPOSSIBLE.

A man and a woman together can create a baby.

Two gay men together cannot create a baby. To lesbian women together cannot create a baby.

Are you going to refute the inequality there? Does it piss you off if I recognize there is a difference there? If the mere action of pointing that out pisses you off, that is YOUR problem, and no one else's.

I swear these are like grade school arguments. Are you suggesting that a sterile man shouldn't be able to marry a fertile woman? Is the basis for getting married based solely on reproduction? It's like comical almost reading some of these comments.

 

[Platypus]

BRILLIANT marketing plan! 5% of the population eats your food. 40% of the population are bigots. Do something to appeal to the bigots, knowing that 60% of the population will give you grief for it. Realize that the 60% of that 5% customers really won't give a shit what you said a couple of weeks later. Realize that after getting grief, you can organize a "show support for bigoted statements" day and get a significant chunk of that 40% to show up at your store, at least quadrupling sales.

Short term: profit
Long term: no one will give a shit. Everyone who said they would stop eating there will simply let it go & continue eating there.

Err.. more like short term profit, long term decrease in popularity and a much larger awareness for the issue they set out to squash to begin with. This backfired in a huge way for them, their approval ratings are down 40% nationwide.

 

[skagen5555]

I swear these are like grade school arguments. Are you suggesting that a sterile man shouldn't be able to marry a fertile woman? Is the basis for getting married based solely on reproduction? It's like comical almost reading some of these comments.

I don't think he mentioned marriage in that statement....

 

[DrPizza]

Err.. more like short term profit, long term decrease in popularity and a much larger awareness for the issue they set out to squash to begin with. This backfired in a huge way for them, their approval ratings are down 40% nationwide.

Good, we agree on short term profit. Clearly these long lines confirm it.

However, these things almost NEVER have long term consequences. People forget and move on. Or, people re-evaluate their position and realize "I really don't give a shit what their CEO said - I like their chicken, it's convenient, so I'll continue eating it." Very very few people in this country stick to their guns long term. Also, short term, they may have gained new customers who will say, "hey, this is pretty good" and will continue to eat there. Long term, it's very possible that it'll also benefit them.


Disagree? Give me examples of where a little bad publicity hurt a company long term. Nike sneakers! Child labor! OMGNOoooes! No one gives a shit any more. Etc.

 

[rcpratt]

They aren't 100% driven by profits. The fact that they close on sunday is a pretty obvious sign they'll ride this out and be happy with decrease in profits if it means they stuck to their beliefs.

It's pretty admirable, imho. I might not agree with their beliefs, but they stick to theirs.

Sure, it's admirable to stick to your beliefs. It's not admirable to have discriminatory beliefs, though.

 

[AMDZen]

Good, we agree on short term profit. Clearly these long lines confirm it.

However, these things almost NEVER have long term consequences. People forget and move on. Or, people re-evaluate their position and realize "I really don't give a shit what their CEO said - I like their chicken, it's convenient, so I'll continue eating it." Very very few people in this country stick to their guns long term. Also, short term, they may have gained new customers who will say, "hey, this is pretty good" and will continue to eat there. Long term, it's very possible that it'll also benefit them.

Thats why I asked the OP where he lives.

There were no long lines at the Chick-fil-a down here on the way to my work - I looked both on the way to and the way home.

Chances are that Chick-fil-a lines are longer in the south where this kind of thinking is the norm.

I haven't seen anything that shows there are long lines accept a couple people who responded who both live in the south and then one article out of Atlanta.

There are several areas on the east coast that will never allow a chick-fil-a to even be built because of their stance. Boston's mayor already took such action. Seems like a large area of business that they are missing out on

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Err.. more like short term profit, long term decrease in popularity and a much larger awareness for the issue they set out to squash to begin with. This backfired in a huge way for them, their approval ratings are down 40% nationwide.

The ones here in town were absolutely swamped with people yesterday, that doesn't sound like a drop in approval.

There are several areas on the east coast that will never allow a chick-fil-a to even be built because of their stance. Boston's mayor already took such action. Seems like a large area of business that they are missing out on

No matter if you agree with Chick Fil A or not that shouldn't be acceptable. I'm sure the people supporting Boston's Mayor would be outraged if a city in the South banned a Muslim business from operating.

 

[Platypus]

The ones here in town were absolutely swamped with people yesterday, that doesn't sound like a drop in approval.

These are just facts, disagree if you want to.. http://blogs.phillymag.com/gphilly/...ctor-Recent-Fast-Food-Eaters-Index-scores.jpg Like has been said, short term profits != success/approval in the long run.

 

[DrPizza]

There are several areas on the east coast that will never allow a chick-fil-a to even be built because of their stance. Boston's mayor already took such action. Seems like a large area of business that they are missing out on

Rhetoric from politicians. If Chick-Fil-A wanted to open a restaurant & the area was zoned appropriately, there's nothing they could do to prevent it. You don't get to say "okay, McD's, you can open a restaurant, but Chick-Fil-A, you can't."

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Rhetoric from politicians. If Chick-Fil-A wanted to open a restaurant & the area was zoned appropriately, there's nothing they could do to prevent it. You don't get to say "okay, McD's, you can open a restaurant, but Chick-Fil-A, you can't."

Yup, Chicago's mayor already went back on his claim to keep them out.

 

[Platypus]

Yup, Chicago's mayor already went back on his claim to keep them out.

Rahm never said they were banned, he simply agreed with ONE alderman in ONE ward's decision. I don't understand how that vow of support turned into Rahm banning Chick-Fil-A entirely from Chicago. It makes a better story I guess, but that doesn't make it true.