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

reply to post by Annee

It would help if you're comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The KKK? A racial and religious hate group?

That's not even close to folks who do not like or approve of homosexual behavior.

I'm not a christian and I completely support gay rights BUT as stated before, it is a private business. They can donate whatever they want to whoever they please just as I can do the same. Do I agree with their "agenda"? No. If you don't agree with them or any business for whatever reason then don't give them your money. Big companies like this don't care if you protest them or put up a million threads against them complaining about unfair practices or donations you don't agree with...in the end our only real power is to deny them our money. Besides they can't be THAT bad...they have waffle fries.......waffle fries.

reply to post by Annee


Really? The KKK? I'm surprised you didn't pick the Nazis. But then again with the upswing in pro-Iran anti-Jewish Holocaust belief, the Nazis are gaining reputation in certain circles.

Another example I can think of is if a business supports a eugenics organization, like Planned Parenthood, people should know about that also.

reply to post by Annee


The only way that you could do that would be to make it compulsory for every business to declare every single cause or organisation that they support, as somebody may take offence to just about any cause that a business may donate to.

I would say that the onus falls upon the customer to find out whether the business supports any organisation that the consumer may personally object to.

Besides, if businesses did declare where all their donations were going, I doubt that too many people would even take the time to find out.

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by Annee

 

It would help if you're comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The KKK? A racial and religious hate group?

That's not even close to folks who do not like or approve of homosexual behavior.

You don't think so?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I would say that the onus falls upon the customer to find out whether the business supports any organisation that the consumer may personally object to.

Besides, if businesses did declare where all their donations were going, I doubt that too many people would even take the time to find out.

But this post and discussion is here.

Someone did take notice.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
This all seems rather straight-forward to me:

Private businesses have the right to donate to any organisation or group that they wish to.

Customers have the right to not patronise any business that they may object to.

Sounds fair enough to me. Everybody's happy with the compromise, and neither business nor customer are forced to do anything that goes against their will or beliefs.

I don't see what's the problem here.

Exactly. You essentially make your vote in this capitalistic society with your dollar. Don't you see that most of the bones mainstream throws your way are nothing but distractions. While the sheep battle it out on inconsequential topics, politicians take your liberties away.

Reply to post by Annee

Have any examples of said businesses, or are you presenting a fallacy to debate with?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Annee
I think the public has a right to know - - and decide if they want to support that business or not. Especially if proceeds from that business are being used to promote the KKK belief?

That's fine. Then like this story, from now on, every time a company donates to pro-GLBT organizations, planned parenthood, or the NAACP, then I want a story coming from the MSM so everyone can be informed consumers.

Chick-fil-A is very much a Christian company, and they've never tried to hide it. Personally, I don't really care who they give their donations to. I mean, I don't agree with their choice, but they have a right to donate to whoever they want.

They are not just a private innocent ncompany serving chicken. They have entered the political arena.

This isn’t the first time the restaurant chain has been taken to task for its support of antigay groups. In 2009, Change.org reported Chick-fil-A had supported Focus on the Family.

That group, founded by the Reverend James Dobson, supports reparative therapy programs and has donated hundreds of thousand of dollars to passing antigay legislation.

www.advocate.com...

reply to post by Annee


And in 2009 Chick-fil-A had a record year.

Chick-fil-A passes $3B in annual sales

Reply to post by Annee

That is not entering the political arena.

Bob gave Billl some money. Bill Gabe some money to Judy. Judy gave some money to Lilian. Lilian used the money Judy Gabe her to go whopping at Walmart. Therefore, Bob went shopping at Walmart.

Am I right?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Annee

It's one thing to observe and note patterns... and quite another to "speak for you". You really don't need my help in that, as you are doing very well yourself.

So tell me, how do you propose we "fix" this terrible thing... regulate who people can give their money to? Take people's businesses away if they donate to the wrong charity?

What is your solution?

TheRedneck

Reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Gabe = gave

Whopping = shopping.

My spell check on my phone is dumb sometimes. Soory.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Again, why does it matter?
It is not your company to render down dictate to this company.
Who cares??
It is nice that we are at the point where someone or a group of someones can nit pick over such meaningless crap.
The fact that Chick-fil-A sent food to a group really doesn't matter.
It really doesn't directly affect anyone in this situation.

Any perceived problems with this private company donating to arguably disreputable organizations is only temporary. All the donations will cease once the company decides to expand. They will open their stock to the public market, and lose private control. Once that happens, the board and stockholders won't want to give money to any organization that isn't neutral, else risk losing customers and therefore profit.

I say let them do what they want to now. They will want to expand soon enough, then there won't be any issues with donations.

I don't understand what is not controversial about spending huge sums of money to support legislation that is anti-human rights? Just because other companies do it, doesn't make it right. That's not even a valid arguement....


Anti-human rights, and pro animal torture. A true christian establishment. I rest my case.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Great, here we go with the human rights, then add animal torture

Give me a brake.

I am insulted and offended that people in your position hate people like Chick fil a.
You just don't have any respect for their feelings and opinions.

If you are going to demand being tolerant, then you had better tolerate the intolerant.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Because it's a private business exercising it's right to donate money to a ( presumably ) legal organisation.

The morality or immorality of any organisation is subjective and irrelevant to the law.

If a customer believes that a group is anti-human rights, then they have the right to not patronise the business that donates to the group.


This really seems a straight-forward subject complicated by people shoehorning their own emotional views on a matter that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.