Chick-Fil-A, Standing Up Against a Liberal Agenda

It;s a refreshing change to see someone stand up for the silent majority that doesn't use high power lobbyists to force their agenda down the throats of the American public IE: gay marriage. The fact that the general public has spoken and maybe this will start a ground swell of standing up for what's right instead of being scared of voicing you opinion in favor of family values.

reply to post by torqpoc


For their right to exercise the 1st amendment....are you unable to grasp this concept? Not just one side of the fence gets to voice their opinion. You are the one that is trying to intimidate and bully others because they dont share your views...you are more of a problem than Cathy. People don't listen or respond to aggression, they get defensive. If you want others to be respectful of you, you should give respect as well. You won't pull me into an angry hateful debate. You are the only one spitting venom here, you are the nasty, mean oppressor. Keep it up, your inability to engage in a calm and mature debate is painfully obvious.

Ok, Ill admit i dont have time to read all the pages. I keep seeing people say Chik fil a donated and gave money to gay hate groups. Just what hate groups are these? Do we have a list?

reply to post by coop039


Example: fellowship of Christian athletes for one

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by coop039

 

Example: fellowship of Christian athletes for one

So, basically if its a Christian organization its a gay hate group?
Just because a group believes in the bible and god doesnt make them a hate group. (BTW Im an atheist)
What angers me is that some gays wont tolorate others beliefs, but expect everyone to tolorate theirs.

reply to post by coop039


That's exactly what this thread is about. Not just one side of this controversy has the right to voice their opinion. However, too often I see hypocrisy in this particular issue.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by fourthmeal

 

Monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

You know the bible never calls for that either, it suggest that a leader of a church should follow that, just as Adam and Eve.

BUT it never straight out says that its a requirement for all.

Find the verse that says it, ill wait...

Its a western thing, its why the Mormons thought Polygamy was okay.

latter day-saints have much more to say about polygamy than "it was okay," it's actually a commandment and the order of the here-after.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by torqpoc

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by torqpoc

 

I don't subscribe to any religion.

So you just support Chick-Fil-A's corporate views because you're for the right to be a bigot?

You do have a right to be a bigot though. I don't like many things personally. If I start a company and its found out I am disgusted at country music, should my business be officially governmentally banned because of my personal views?
Even if I take my profits and spend it on a "country music sucks" lobbying group that is trying to get the music banned, does that mean somehow my other business, the thing I do to get paid, should suffer based on my personal opinion?

How things are done in the west is..if someone has a crappy attitude (as this chick dude has), you simply don't eat there..you go to kfc or popeyes (better chicken there anyhow). You encourage your friends to go elsewhere also. You don't however have mayors and governors step in and ban restaurants based on the opinions of the owners. That is an actual 1st amendment issue and is governmental mind control

I think what he's trying to ask is "are you willing to admit that you're a bigot if you support this kind of thinking?" I don't see too many people acknowledging they are, in fact, bigots. It is neither disrespectful nor attacking for me to say this - it is a simple statement of fact. The behavior meets the definition.

If you're comfortable being a bigot that is your choice. If the term offends you, perhaps you need to reexamine your values. Either way you don't get to act like a bigot and not get called out on it. The freedom to speak does not offer you any protection or rights other than the freedom to speak. It does not absolve you from being called to task, within the law, for what you say.

In Massachusetts they are not being prevented from coming to the state. They have just been told in no uncertain terms that the state does not welcome them. I was quite proud of my state that this message was delivered. It is entirely appropriate to do so.

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by notionfreely

 

Really, name another restaurant, retail store, gas station, or really just about any other company that is sales oriented, that chooses to remain closed on Sunday, knowing that the demand for their product would undoubtedlly enhance their sales by over 15 percent if they were open on Sunday?

well, that misses the mark. to suggest any business which has been around more than fifty years is not sales-oriented is a mistake.

show me the study that suggests chick-fil-a's demand would increase fifteen percent by being open on sunday.

a great example would be the midwest regional grocery chain, Fareway. Sunday was actually their lowest traffic day, they made an announcement they would no longer operate (under the guise of a day of worship,) and saw increase in sales the day before and the day after.

that's hardly a moral decision, the same is true of Chick-fil-a.

still think a business is more interested in your values than capitalizing on them? give 'How Did you Do it, Mr. Truett?,' a read.

in a market climate typified by sameness (e.g., the fast food industry,) you gain market share by looking different. nothing else is going on here, and you've bought into the narrative hook-line and sinker.

reply to post by Labrynth2012


You are citing a specific sentence within a specific religious text. That is not a universal moral law, that is a sentence that appears in one book of questionable origin. You cannot take that sentence and use it as the basis for restricting the rights of another. That's not how we roll in the US.

What if my religion had a very old sentence in my very old book that said you are not allowed to lie down with a woman, you are only allowed to lie down with a man, and even provided valid reasons for why that should be. Why is your sentence more right than mine - because its yours?

Originally posted by lambs to lions
reply to post by grey580

 

That is a very interesting idea indeed.

Actually, the first time I've heard that mentioned.

this is why people hate activists. it's seldom about the most efficacious avenue for change.

Originally posted by Augustine62

Delicious food... and met a new shooting buddy who was wearing a Molon Labe hat!

I don't know that chicken bred to be mostly breast ought to be described as 'food.'

Originally posted by coop039
Ok, Ill admit i dont have time to read all the pages. I keep seeing people say Chik fil a donated and gave money to gay hate groups. Just what hate groups are these? Do we have a list?

Here you go: Its not your local food bank.

NOM - - National Organization for Marriage.
FRC - - Family Research Council
AFA - - American Family Association

Also a Reparative Therapy Organization which I can't remember by name at the moment.

Southern Poverty Law Center Adds NOM, FRC, & AFA to List of Hate Groups;

The Republicans have joined an online petition protesting the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC recently added the Family Research Council (FRC), the American Family Association (AFA) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to the same list of hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam and the Aryan Nations for their opposition to gay rights. www.gospelaccordingtohate.com...

reply to post by lambs to lions


I totally agree.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Your preaching to the choir. There is nowhere in this thread that I have told anyone else to "not address" me nor have I attempted to silence speech in anyway. Why you chose to ignore that in order to pontificate as if you're lecturing me are motives only you can know. The level of honesty behind that pontification is less than impressive.

reply to post by afeent1

And right there is a perfect definition of the problem at hand. The government has no business issuing licenses to marry. It's amazing that only we libertarians can see the big picture

They see that big picture, they want nothing to do with it. The pontificators know full well that I have long argued that no one needs a license to be married. They ignore this so the can keep pretending that I am not for "equal rights". They see that big picture but this is not what they mean by "equal rights". For them "equal rights" is a big ass machete they use to reduce you to something less than them.

reply to post by nixie_nox

The difference between my agenda and Chick fil a agenda is that I don't have any influence over anybody.

You're selling yourself short, my friend, and I don't believe you completely believe that anyway. Certainly you will have your moments where you come to believe this, but you're smart enough to figure out that Dan Cathy experiences the same doubt. In the end, you continue to post in this site and I suspect that you have experienced members reaching out to you by U2U thanking you for your efforts. Those that do are only just the tip of the iceberg and there are many, many more reading these "message boards" who are influenced by your words.

If I didn't believe what I just wrote, I wouldn't even bother to respond to you. I wouldn't be nearly as hard on you as I can be. You most assuredly have influence.

reply to post by torqpoc

So ideally what a true freedom state would be is one where people are allowed their beliefs and opinions as long as there is no "evil" associated to them, wouldn't you say?

If you are going to insist on using words like "allowed their beliefs and opinions" to describe a "true" state of freedom, I respectfully disagree.

Beliefs and opinions that are "allowed" belong to a different state, as benign as it may be, than freedom.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by coop039
Ok, Ill admit i dont have time to read all the pages. I keep seeing people say Chik fil a donated and gave money to gay hate groups. Just what hate groups are these? Do we have a list?

Here you go: Its not your local food bank.

NOM - - National Organization for Marriage.
FRC - - Family Research Council
AFA - - American Family Association

Also a Reparative Therapy Organization which I can't remember by name at the moment.

Southern Poverty Law Center Adds NOM, FRC, & AFA to List of Hate Groups;

The Republicans have joined an online petition protesting the claims of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC recently added the Family Research Council (FRC), the American Family Association (AFA) and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to the same list of hate groups as the Ku Klux Klan, the Nation of Islam and the Aryan Nations for their opposition to gay rights. www.gospelaccordingtohate.com...

edit on 3-8-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

I was just going to post some of these links as well - here's some other information:

List of the Anti-Gay Companies Chik Fil A Supports

Some of the Family Foundation programs that Chik Fil A is financing:

The Family Foundation seeks to promote and defend the traditional marriage unit as the foundation to a stable society.

What we are doing:

Opposing Domestic Partner Benefits | Homosexual advocates have worked to diminish the status of marriage by providing marriage benefits to any relationship. Already, private companies in Virginia can do so. Despite a marriage amendment that prohibits this, efforts are underway to expand this to state and local government.

Opposing Homosexual Behavior as a Protected Class | Every year there are efforts in Virginia to add homosexuality to the list of protected classes in non-discrimination laws. This is not only unnecessary, as no evidence of discrimination exists, but has potential negative ramifications on religious liberty.

Link to the Family Foundation

I really love that they say "no discrimination exists" while they are doing the actual discriminating.

This is not just about the right to speak. There is an injustice that is being allowed to happen in this country and it is being perpetuated by people like Mr. Cathy. If you choose to turn a blind eye to that and focus on "the right to speak" then you are culpable in that injustice. After all it is not the words that matter so much as the actions that go along with them. For example:

For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!

Nothing wrong with that quote on the surface. Until you realize it was spoken by Adolph Hitler.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I see what you're saying for what it's worth. Requiring a license to be married, in a way, makes no sense. It's an interesting viewpoint that I hadn't before considered and while I'm not fully with you, it is worth exploring.

I don't quite understand this statement though - can you elaborate on what you mean and who "them" is?

For them "equal rights" is a big ass machete they use to reduce you to something less than them.