Chick-fil-A controversy shines light on restaurant's Christian DNA

I hope I'm not being premature, but I think I'm beginning to get the first glimmer of understanding concerning this thread. From the thread's title, which makes it sound like a horrible surprise that Chick Fil A is a restaurant run by Christians, to Annee's comment that marriage is a government contract designed to protect the rights of the two parties, the issue seems to be getting clearer.
So, the issue is gay marriage. Not any of the other issues connected to homosexuality such as diseases, violence (committed by or against), or relationship stability.
I can think of two reasons to insist on gay marriage. It seems that Annee believes its a equal protection issue under government laws, and that marriage is a contract subject to those laws.
The second reason is that "marriage" provides an approval of a relationship and that homosexuals couples would like to have that approval.
Civil union laws would satisfy the first of the two reasons, but not the second. Also, Annee is facing some difficulty with her definition of marriage. I doubt that many Christians would accept that definition. I believe they would say that marriage is from God and the state only recognizes the marriage, they don't create it. It could be argued that Justice of the Peace weddings were the first attempt at civil unions, taking the church out of the picture.
Anyway, there's more to say, but I'd appreciate knowing if I'm on the right track.

Originally posted by Disillusioned_Youth
Seriously... What's the point of this thread?!

Y'all are the first to have a major melt-down every time freedom is suppressed in this country, as long as the freedom adheres to your worldview. F*cking hypocrites.

The only reason anyone should be upset about Chik-a-fila (or whatever it's called) is if the following happened:

1) Chik was the only restaurant left in the country.

But since I'm pretty sure it's not, people have the option of going to ANOTHER FOOD JOINT THAT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH THEIR BELIEFS.

The Restaurant owners have the right to support whatever cause they wish. And if it's a Christian establishment and your beliefs conflict with over 50% of Christianity, WHY ARE YOU EATING THERE, YOU IDIOT??

Not everyone supports the gay-lifestyle. Most people don't even CARE about "gay rights". It's the PC thing to do nowadays, but most people couldn't care less. And personally, I don't blame them. The only thing gay people can't do is marry the same sex, and *surprise* neither can a "straight" person. So really, Gay's aren't missing out on any "rights" - they have just as many rights as a heterosexual does (the state won't recognize a marriage between a hetero and someone of the same sex, either, so what's the issue?).

I will say homophobia is often taken to the extreme, which is regrettable. And if this restaurant was advocating violence towards gays, then by all means - put a stop to them!

Until then, they're simply exercising their right as a company, so instead of bashing them and making a big deal outta nothing, use this as an excuse to worship your beloved "freedoms".


Petty @$$holes...

While I agree the restaurant owners have the right to support whatever and whoever they want, consumers also have the right to complain, so I agree this whole thread is trivial.

Regarding the rest of your post though, do you realize how ignorant it sounds? Many, many people care about gay rights because they recognize it goes completely against the themes the country was founded upon, have learned from our past history of civil rights struggles and recognitions, and know that the government should not be denying equal rights to a minority because of select religious prejudices. If you have any ounce of compassion and reason, you would care about gay rights too.

And, please, before you go on about "gays aren't missing out on any rights" do your homework. Your logic in trying to justify that gay people are not missing any rights because straight people cannot marry the same sex either makes no sense whatsoever. Even with DADT repealed, they still lack the all the legal benefits of a marriage or civil union, they lack adoption rights, and they lack anti-discrimination laws.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Annee

 

Well I am sorry your life was hard. That is such a pitty that you suffered. Maybe somebody should do something about discrimination against women. Oh yeah they did. You can pull that particular chip off of your shoulder. You could also take time to read and comprehend what I was saying. I was saying that I wanted to make sure both sides were presented.

Come On! I'm stating facts and realities. That was a lifetime ago. A time that many on ATS (as many posters are quite young) don't understand - - because they did not live those times.

I am not being emotional and personal about it. Stop interpreting. I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

Religion is personal choice and belief. Religion should have no bearing on Equal Rights of every Citizen.

A God BELIEF - - - is not a legitimate reason to deny Equal Rights. Not in this day and age.

Any business that chooses to fund a political agenda - - - must deal with the consequences of public knowledge and response.

It is quite simple. If they are boycotted - - - it is because of their own actions.

Originally posted by charles1952
So, the issue is gay marriage. Not any of the other issues connected to homosexuality such as diseases, violence (committed by or against), or relationship stability.

Really?!?!?

Please - start your own thread on "other issues connected to homosexuality".

Come On! I'm stating facts and realities. That was a lifetime ago. A time that many on ATS (as many posters are quite young) don't understand - - because they did not live those times.

Great but it had nothing to do with what you were responding to. Again, I was saying that I had attempted to make sure both sides were fully presented. Your own links said that it was about one franchise supplying food. Then one said that there was a link between the company and some "anti-gay" groups. However, all they had was conjecture based on the activities of the owners. That is what I was addressing with the comment you chose to begin your women's rights rant about.

I am not being emotional and personal about it. Stop interpreting. I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

when you start bringing in your personal hardship storys, you make it personal. When it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and you try to lump your issue in with the issue at hand, you are making it personal. Chick Fil A and gay rights has nothing to do with your struggle. When you start throwing around exclamitory statements around saying that the issue is bigger than the issue and includes all inequalities you show that you are bringing personal prejudices and hardships in to the subject. No interperting beyond what they teach in English Comp 111 and 112 in most colleges.

Religion is personal choice and belief. Religion should have no bearing on Equal Rights of every Citizen.

I allready addressed this. I actually agreed with you. So, what does it have to do with anything we are now discussing?

Any business that chooses to fund a political agenda - - - must deal with the consequences of public knowledge and response.

I still don't understand why you keep calling it a political agenda. Even the charitable foundation has not supported political actions. They have made a decision not to let gay couples stay at their resort. That is not a political action.

The owners have given time and money to politically active causes. Now you can blame them but the company and the charitable foundation have not supported anything political.

I do agree with you though that their "anti-gay" bent should be public knowledge. Customers deserve the right to know if a company is involved in things they are uncomfortable with.



reply to post by Annee

Dear Annee,

Please don't think I was attacking you. I am simply trying to find out where the center of this thread is. It seemed to me that your desire to boycott Chick - Fil - A comes from their wish to support "non-gay" families. There's nothing wrong with your boycott idea, but it doesn't seem to come from any other objection to their company. (Sure, there's the factory farming issue, but then why single out Chick-Fil-A?)

I'm only asking (suggesting) if I'm on the right track with the reason for the boycott and my two tentative reasons for wanting gay marriages.

I just had me some Chick-Fil-A today. They make a tasty chicken club sandwich, thats for sure.

Annee, so passionate and against a company's choice of business practices, I'm sure theres a McDonalds near by.

Something SO petty as who a fast food restaurant provides lunches to draws a deep line in the sand.

I'm no scientist, doctor or professor. In fact I am a rare essential to the economy. A blue collar, white male with deep Christian, family loving, God fearing values. You know what I do when I hear about a local cafe's business to business biddings having anything to do with supporting a morally backwards pandemic known as homosexuality? I weigh in on if I really need to eat there or if should take my business elsewhere. Most cases, I'll just take my business elsewhere and not even bicker about it.

Heres to you guys.

reply to post by Byteman


So, according to you anyone that supports marriage between a man and woman to Anti-Gay? So if Chick-Fil-A provided food for a Wedding between a Man and a Woman it is an Anti-Gay Event? haha too funny

And By the Way, The Art of Marriage Conference has NOTHING to do with anything Gay, its a conference for couples who want to better their marriage within the Christian Faith....has Nothing to do with being gay, they probably don't even talk about gay issues

MMM...Chick-Fil-A Delicious, i'm going to go get some

maybe walmart or anyother store donated cups to a group whose president is a female and is married to a man...are you going to boycott them too? I bet those of you who want to boycott Chick-Fil-A still shop at Target

Originally posted by MikeNice81
Your own links said that it was about one franchise supplying food. Then one said that there was a link between the company and some "anti-gay" groups. However, all they had was conjecture based on the activities of the owners. That is what I was addressing with the comment you chose to begin your women's rights rant about.

I did not start this thread. Someone asked for more information and links.

Personal experiences from - like 50 years ago - only indicates I've experienced inequality. If I'm still holding on to that after all this time - - yeah - - I'd say I have issues. I don't.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Just more inflammatory pro gay bs. If they serve food to a pro marriage thing, so what? It's a sad statement that they should be boycotted for this. Then again, from what I've seen anything not bubbling with enthusiasm to promote alternative lifestyles is just plain evil to some, makes no damn sense.

You know there is more to this then just providing a dinner to a specific group.

It is political and politics affects everyone.

I don't see it as any different then soup kitchens in New York threatening to close their doors if they are forced to feed gays.

Well heck, where are all the gays crying foul when corporations donate to politicians who promote gay issues? Equal rights? Give me a break. This isn't equal rights. If it were, you and everyone else would have no problem with whom Chik-fil-A decides to donate to. Kudos to them for doing what everyone else is doing with their money (which is exactly what they WANT to do with it)...THAT'S equal rights. They have the RIGHT to give their money to whomever they want. There is no sign on their door that says, "we don't serve your kind here, so gays get lost". That would be a violation of equal rights, but that isn't happening. I reject your sentiment that you feel you have the right to tell other people what they can and can't do with their own hard earned money, simply because it does not fit into your scope of vision.

Tell you what....let's turn the tables here for a minute, Annie. Did you watch the Super Bowl yesterday? Did you happen to notice all the Doritos commercials? Or better yet, go onto youtube and watch all the Doritos commercials that DIDN'T make the cut. It's very obvious that they were pandering to the gay male stereotype. Gross, if you ask me, but hey....equal rights, right? What people do in their private time is their right....I don't want to have to see it on my TV when I'm watching a supposed family-friendly event. Are you going to complain about that? They're not including the vast Christian majority....gasp....where are the equal rights??? I can tell ya....they can keep their nasty, distasteful ads as far as I'm concerned. I'm not going to throw a fit because they didn't include the rest of us.

Take a lesson. If you don't like what their business stands for, good on ya. Don't eat there. Plain and simple. Go buy some Doritos. Fair enough?

Originally posted by Gseven
If you don't like what their business stands for, good on ya. Don't eat there. Plain and simple. Go buy some Doritos. Fair enough?

Oh - you mean I can boycott them - - and go somewhere else?

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I noticed how you completely glossed over the fact that you lied three times.

Dude really? Get over yourself. I'm not a Christian nor am I gay. I wonder why when you disagree with anyuthing from the gay agenda idiot trolls automatically pull the supressed feelings card.

Get over myself?
What is this even supposed to mean?
Do you even know how to apply this term?
Why don't you explain how my analysis is rooted in ego?
I can sure as heck explain how your lies that benefit anti-gays are rooted in ego.

You weren't just "disagreeing" with the "gay agenda" as you put it, you were outright lying about the contents of the article.

Someone who lies and then tries to disassociate themselves from the act has no business trying to childishly call people "idiot trolls". I can only wonder what causes you to lie about articles that show gays standing up for themselves. My current theory is that you have internal anger against homosexuality. I mean, why else would you lie so much?

I think it's just a ploy to try and get attention.

Trying to get attention is lying your eyes out about the contents of an article, and then crying wolf when you get called out for it.

As I predicted, another pro gay anti anyone who disagrees thread, guess we have to have one every week

Reading a topic title and taking a guess at it's contents isn't predicting, that's called inductive reasoning. We can all do it, you aren't special that way.

This forum is about discussing ALL SIDES of a presented issue, if you can't deal with people disagreeing with you, then you might as well cancel your membership here immediately.

have a nice day.

Yes, you are actually leaving because you cannot address the fact that you lied. You go ahead and have a nice day too, side-stepper.

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Annee,

Please don't think I was attacking you. I am simply trying to find out where the center of this thread is. It seemed to me that your desire to boycott Chick - Fil - A comes from their wish to support "non-gay" families. There's nothing wrong with your boycott idea, but it doesn't seem to come from any other objection to their company. (Sure, there's the factory farming issue, but then why single out Chick-Fil-A?)

I'm only asking (suggesting) if I'm on the right track with the reason for the boycott and my two tentative reasons for wanting gay marriages.

No Prob.

There are posters trying to go all over the place - - bringing in all sorts of personal issues and beliefs. I am trying to stay focused.

Simplicity. I am staying focused. If any corporation funds any sort of discrimination - - - they set themselves up - - - by their own actions.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by something wicked
. . . but almost every charity is in danger of being seen as being in some way against one group or another - that was my point. It's their money - if it was to a pro gay group and pissed off other people I'm guessing you would be laughing about that though.

I am only talking about US minority equality rights. I mean - should we go into caste systems in India? No - I don't think so.

We have religious freedom in this country. By law you are free to believe whatever you want.

I'm not sure about laws on donating to political agendas.

I support they can not hide those donations. That it is up for public review and opinion.

When a corporations is financially supporting discrimination - - - - it should be made public and subject to boycott by those in opposition.

And that is where we are at. These donations by Chick-Fil-A - - - are being made public - - as they should be.

you keep mentioning law as if it matters to you.
You never seem to want to address your mischaracterizations and falsehhods as you try and sensationalize everything.
But can you at least address this law thing you seem to want to use?
What do you say about the 1'st amendment to the constitution?
Does that matter to you?

reply to post by Annee


This is pretty silly. I fully support gay rights, right? does that mean I think that every business run by a person who doesn't agree should be run under with boycotts and smear campaigns? If chikfillet were burning gays at the stake, we'd have a juicy thread on our hands, but the fact is they "support" (which in this case simply means 'do business with') groups who support and advance ideas and practices which you do no agree with, so you think that they should suffer. Where does it end? any group that doesn't openly declare support for the gays goes to prison? anyone who thinks for themselves or believes in scriptures should be shot? just don't shop there. start a website and put crosshairs on all of the groups and businesses that don't support your agenda, but please, don't come to my wonderful conspiracy site and preach to us about the evil chicken shack and their KKK/Nazi agenda. it's tawdry and a waste of time. DANGIT! now is just spent five minutes responding to this troll bait!

reply to post by Goradd

So, according to you anyone that supports marriage between a man and woman to Anti-Gay?

I never said that, you are taking my words out of context. I said THIS particular group which refuses to support gay marriage got a donation from a corporation. Nothing about 'anyone that supports marriage" like you just tried to lie about.

Will this be your whole post?
Taking my words out of context and adding garbage I never said?
Are these worthless tactics all you have?

LMAO

So if Chick-Fil-A provided food for a Wedding between a Man and a Woman it is an Anti-Gay Event?

They provided food for an "anti-gay wedding group", an organization that opposes gay marriage, not a wedding itself.

Next time I suggest actually reading what is linked and posted, instead of just lashing out against people with incorrect knowledge.

haha too funny

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about the level of ignorance you are displaying concerning the subject. You didn't even know where the food was really going.

haha too funny

And By the Way, The Art of Marriage Conference has NOTHING to do with anything Gay, its a conference for couples who want to better their marriage within the Christian Faith....has Nothing to do with being gay, they probably don't even talk about gay issues

Art of Marriage conferences are run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which has a record of being anti-gay.

Probably don't talk about gay issues? Oh I see, your pretend expertise on the Art of Marriage conferences are really just assumptions and guesses on your part. Like your failed assumption that the food was going to an actual wedding.

I'll just chalk it up to you not really knowing what is happening, and spouting nonsense to defend Chick-a-doola for whatever reason.

Did they give you a free coupon or something?

MMM...Chick-Fil-A Delicious, i'm going to go get some

As I stated before, their chickens are factory farmed.

Enjoy eating a chicken raised on a diet of mostly anti-biotics. Enjoy eating a chicken that is forced to eat gizzard pebbles covered with the feces of other chickens.

Or, as I suggested. You could just scrape up some bird-crap covered moss from a rock and skip the whole paying them step. You'd be eating virtually the same thing.

reply to post by Goradd


Again, you were taking my words out of context.

Why don't you grow up, then feel free to try again.

Thanks, Annee.

How are you using the word "discrimination?" There's a very broad form which says every choice is discrimination because some actions were chosen and some were not. The ones not chosen could be said to be discriminated against. But I don't think that's what you're saying.

From the little I've seen, it doesn't appear that Chick-Fil-A is discriminating in a legal sense, in it's restaurant operations.

I'm really curious and not trying to step on toes here, but are you saying that Chick-Fil-A's "sin" or "error" is that it gave food to a group that doesn't agree with the goal of gay marriage? Of course, people can boycott over anything they like, sensible or not, but I hope this whole thread hasn't been based just on "I don't approve of X, so I'm going to boycott." I assume that there is a deep, heartfelt problem with their action, and that is what I wanted to explore.

There's no value to a discussion that goes "I'm going to boycott." "Go right ahead." The company is bad by donating." No they're not." At least, not after having been repeated several times. (And I apologize for the over-simplification.) The same discussion could be had by some people who desire to boycott Home Depot because of their support for gay causes and events

I'm trying to learn, not prove anything.

reply to post by Annee


I really can't get a handle on what you're saying, annnnneee. should chikfillet be forced to also support gay rights organizations and events? or should they be forced NOT to support anti-gay rights orgs and events? cos it sounds like you'd like them to be forced to do something or stop doing something either way? It seems like they've offended you personally and you'd like to make them pay. Which is not how it works in America. If somebody offends your personal beliefs, then you have every right in the world to F*** OFF. Also, remind me again why they are not allowed to provide food for or donate to any organization of their choosing? If they had donated to a pro gay rights group, would you be upset? or is that okay because it's the "right" thing to do?