"Tolerance" bully at Chic-fil-A

From the Vante website where the tolerance bully was fired from his position as CFO:

We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

Absolutely perfect, I could not have said this better myself.

To the poster who said the tolerance bully did not personally attack the employee. Yes he did.

I don't know how you can work here and live with yourself.. Rachel you deserve better.

Yes this would be a direct and obnoxious personal attack against a nice young woman who was just trying her best to do her job and remain polite.

He gives new meaning to the word ********.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by crazydaysandnights

 

AGAIN, I'm not saying i'm 'putting a dent' in anything.

I'm merely giving an example of how this sort of behavior turns me away, when in reality, i should be an ally.

Focusing on this petty, petty non-issue is what is known as a 'distraction'. Much like the Right winging about out-of-context phrases about who built their business, this is meant to distract the population from real criticism of our politicians. And all the left have managed to do with this issue is make a mockery of themselves. Because every single person I know who is a 'liberal' has expressed nothing but contempt for the 'lefts' treatment of this issue.

This sort of behavior should turn anyone way, but this sort of behavior is merely an outlier. One jerk does not tarnish what the CFA boycott represents. And gay rights is NOT a non-issue. Now I don't know if that is what you were implying, but the "left" (and it ain't just leftists) are supporting gay rights. Gay rights is a human issue. As for people making a mockery of themselves, um, that would be the people singing God Bless America and coming together in support of how anti-gay they are. That is making a mockery of one's self. Let's be totally clear about that. And CFA's brand approval rating plummeting highlights that people agree that Chick-fil-A supporters are doing nothing more but embarrassing themselves and proving once again just how venomous and hateful homophobes are.

There are liberals who are acting out-of-bounds regarding this entire CFA fight, no question. But the focus should not be on individual idiots. It should be on why Chick-fil-A needs to be boycotted. And why all people who promote/support homophobia should be boycotted. This is about standing up for a rightful cause.

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by crazydaysandnights

 

AGAIN, I'm not saying i'm 'putting a dent' in anything.

I'm merely giving an example of how this sort of behavior turns me away, when in reality, i should be an ally.

Focusing on this petty, petty non-issue is what is known as a 'distraction'. Much like the Right winging about out-of-context phrases about who built their business, this is meant to distract the population from real criticism of our politicians. And all the left have managed to do with this issue is make a mockery of themselves. Because every single person I know who is a 'liberal' has expressed nothing but contempt for the 'lefts' treatment of this issue.

This sort of behavior should turn anyone way, but this sort of behavior is merely an outlier. One jerk does not tarnish what the CFA boycott represents.

No, i'm saying the entire 'boycott' is absurd and many 'liberals' i know agree.

And gay rights is NOT a non-issue

No, I'm saying this whole 'chic-fil-a-gate is a 'non-issue'.

Seriously, you have a hard time following a very simple point. I'll reiterate.

I am a person who supports gay marriage, and i dont eat at fast food AND YET, I have wanted to go out and buy some chic-fil-a in the past week or so based solely on my DISGUST at the way the 'left' have treated this stupid, stupid, stupid non-issue.

Clear?

Is it just me or does it seem the liberal deffinition of free speech only extends to things they agree with? I thought the whole ideal of being a liberal was freedom, it just seems like fascism with hipster shoes instead of a jackboot.

If I were gay, I would be so frustrated that of all the people to support my orientation, it had to be someone whose compliments would make me want to take a shower. Urgh.

All this because of an idle comment the president of the company-- a single man-- made about his personal beliefs.

Originally posted by Superhans
Is it just me or does it seem the liberal deffinition of free speech only extends to things they agree with? I thought the whole ideal of being a liberal was freedom, it just seems like fascism with hipster shoes instead of a jackboot.

Conversely, I recall several facebook groups popping up calling for boycotts of oreos after they ran a pro gay marriage ad.

SO looks like idiots on either side are hypocrites.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by Superhans
Is it just me or does it seem the liberal deffinition of free speech only extends to things they agree with? I thought the whole ideal of being a liberal was freedom, it just seems like fascism with hipster shoes instead of a jackboot.

Conversely, I recall several facebook groups popping up calling for boycotts of oreos after they ran a pro gay marriage ad.

SO looks like idiots on either side are hypocrites.

I don't see how the other side are hypocrites they are not saying "freedom for all" and then telling people what they can't say by the very deffinition of liberalisim they are hypocrites.

dictionary.reference.com...
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

With the opposite of liberalisim being fascism, i don't see how you could call the otherside hypocrites. It just seems one is honest and one is not.

Originally posted by EllaMarina
If I were gay, I would be so frustrated that of all the people to support my orientation, it had to be someone whose compliments would make me want to take a shower. Urgh.

All this because of an idle comment the president of the company-- a single man-- made about his personal beliefs.

The backlash against Chick-fil-A is NOT about Dan Cathy's homophobic comments.

But yes, this man is a jerk. With that being said, conservatives should be embarrassed daily at how so many hateful rats keep coming out of the woodwork to take their shots at the gay community, but they are not.

reply to post by Superhans


interesting reasoning.

I'm just saying the hypocrisy is in calling for a boycott of oreos, but then condemning those who do the same for chicfila. Not that they are contradicting their political beliefs if they are, as you say, fascists.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No, i'm saying the entire 'boycott' is absurd and many 'liberals' i know agree.

Well, the boycott is not absurd, most liberals do agree with the boycott, many conservatives do, and CFA's brand rating is declining. So obviously, something is going right in regards to public perception of the boycott against CFA. There is nothing absurd about not financially supporting a company that uses that money to support groups that are actively anti-gay. Anyone who is truly liberal would recognize this.

No, I'm saying this whole 'chic-fil-a-gate is a 'non-issue'.

Seriously, you have a hard time following a very simple point. I'll reiterate.

I am a person who supports gay marriage, and i dont eat at fast food AND YET, I have wanted to go out and buy some chic-fil-a in the past week or so based solely on my DISGUST at the way the 'left' have treated this stupid, stupid, stupid non-issue.

Clear?

I knew what you were saying, I wanted to make my point clear as well. The left have treated this issue in a mostly appropriate manner, which is to boycott Chick-fil-A, state our reasons why, defend the gay community and actively condemn homophobia. It is the right who you should be castigating. But you disagree with both sides making this an issue. Well, here is the thing. This is an issue because Dan Cathy made it one by going out of his way to actively be anti-gay. So if you want to blame anyone, it's him.

reply to post by crazydaysandnights


did you ever even eat at chicfila prior to this?

Originally posted by stanguilles7
interesting reasoning.

I'm just saying the hypocrisy is in calling for a boycott of oreos, but then condemning those who do the same for chicfila. Not that they are contradicting their political beliefs if they are, as you say, fascists.

That is SO true. And here is the thing. Not one person in the gay community I know, associate with, talk to on forums, went out of their way to give any real damn about these right-wing groups boycotting Oreo's. Notice how there was little reaction after Oreo's came out in support of our rights in terms of a huge fight against the conservatives who attacked the Oreo's company. We're above that. We allowed social conservatives the ability to embarrass themselves.

But when we do the same thing they do, they cry victim and cry foul. And that is because they are self-entitled, and actually cannot comprehend people standing up to them. They've been indoctrinated into thinking their s**t is totally clean. They are fundamentally hypocritical.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
did you ever even eat at chicfila prior to this?

No, because I don't eat crap. Like I said, I'm more focused on issues such as DOMA, ENDA, and hate crimes. But this CFA debate, there is so much ignorance that needs to be checked. This is a social war and as a gay man I have an obligation to do my part to show why it is a noble thing to boycott CFA.

I'm getting sick of this.
I can't speak to the rest of America, but long, long ago (about 40 something years up until the whole "Act Up" thing got started) in South Texas, people weren't considered homosexual or not- they were just people. Your supervisor, your neighbor, the person working here or there, your teachers, your classmates, your friends. They weren't "in the closet". At all. I don't know how many people pursued it to the point of thinking about what it "meant" to be homosexual, but it wasn't a secret- to varying degrees of obviousness. I do know that it would have been considered *very* bad manners to point it out or mistreat someone for that reason (actually, for *any* reason). In hindsight, it's amazing how many gay people I've known in my life because even though I was aware of it, I just didn't even think about it until it until pretty recently. I'm sure there are still people "missing as gay".

It's my opinion that this whole thing is a manipulation- a set up; to intentionally create a controversy where there was none before, to try & make political hay. It exploits anyone who is self conscious & pushing back is a natural response any time a person feels their boundaries (& especially, their children's boundaries) are being pushed too far.

I don't like the term "tolerance". It is demeaning & condescending because it implies that the object of "tolerance" has some "fault" or "flaw" or "shortcoming" that needs to be overlooked or compensated for. I have been less than 4 degrees of separation from someone who was gay since I was pretty young. Except for 3 neighbors way down the street, whom I did not personally know, none of those people warranted "tolerance". They were successful, smart, funny, honest, real people. All of them were liked, loved, admired, &/ or respected by quite a few people who were not gay.

In my not-so-humble opinion, people need to quit being tools by buying into all this. Maybe the left needs to practice what they preach. EVERYONE is supposed to have rights in America. Even traditionalists, Christians, "white" people, & heterosexuals (or whatever).
Maybe we should go back to being whole people again instead of picking out some trait (sexual preference, ethnicity, financial or social standing, etc) as our "identity".

Originally posted by Superhans
I don't see how the other side are hypocrites they are not saying "freedom for all" and then telling people what they can't say by the very deffinition of liberalisim they are hypocrites.

dictionary.reference.com...
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

With the opposite of liberalisim being fascism, i don't see how you could call the otherside hypocrites. It just seems one is honest and one is not.

Liberals are pro-freedom and social conservatives are anti-freedom on this issue. It is SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES who are actively discriminating against the gay community, and not liberals.

Originally posted by DogsDogsDogs
I'm getting sick of this.
I can't speak to the rest of America, but long, long ago (about 40 something years up until the whole "Act Up" thing got started) in South Texas, people weren't considered homosexual or not- they were just people. Your supervisor, your neighbor, the person working here or there, your teachers, your classmates, your friends. They weren't "in the closet". At all. I don't know how many people pursued it to the point of thinking about what it "meant" to be homosexual, but it wasn't a secret- to varying degrees of obviousness. I do know that it would have been considered *very* bad manners to point it out or mistreat someone for that reason (actually, for *any* reason). In hindsight, it's amazing how many gay people I've known in my life because even though I was aware of it, I just didn't even think about it until it until pretty recently. I'm sure there are still people "missing as gay".

Being gay 40 years ago was hell. People weren't considered gay because gay people were closeted, and there was absolutely zero gay culture outside of NYC and San Francisco. That's the reality. And yes, they were closeted, or as you put it, had no idea what being gay meant, and therefore were basically people who were floating and didn't really know what they were and had no outlet to figure things out. Just because people weren't outwardly anti-gay did not mean society wasn't anti-gay; it was, but times were different then in that common courtesy was expected. So people who were perceived as gay were condemned in private.

It's my opinion that this whole thing is a manipulation- a set up; to intentionally create a controversy where there was none before, to try & make political hay. It exploits anyone who is self conscious & pushing back is a natural response any time a person feels their boundaries (& especially, their children's boundaries) are being pushed too far.

I wouldn't necessarily call it manipulation but I definitely agree the media's hands are all over this Chick-fil-A story and milking it for all it's worth. They like social division because it means drama. And media feeds off of drama.

I don't like the term "tolerance". It is demeaning & condescending because it implies that the object of "tolerance" has some "fault" or "flaw" or "shortcoming" that needs to be overlooked or compensated for. I have been less than 4 degrees of separation from someone who was gay since I was pretty young. Except for 3 neighbors way down the street, whom I did not personally know, none of those people warranted "tolerance". They were successful, smart, funny, honest, real people. All of them were liked, loved, admired, &/ or respected by quite a few people who were not gay.

Beautiful.

In my not-so-humble opinion, people need to quit being tools by buying into all this. Maybe the left needs to practice what they preach. EVERYONE is supposed to have rights in America. Even traditionalists, Christians, "white" people, & heterosexuals (or whatever).

The left are not actively seeking to take rights away from conservatives, unlike how conservatives are actively seeking to discriminate against the gay community.

Maybe we should go back to being whole people again instead of picking out some trait (sexual preference, ethnicity, financial or social standing, etc) as our "identity".

We are people at the end of the day, but we're also more than that. And that should not and cannot be ignored. We are people and who we are as people is inherently connected to what we are as people.

What we need to do is accept everyone for who they are and respect everyone for who they are (within reason of course). Until that happens, not a single thing is going to change.

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights

Originally posted by stanguilles7
did you ever even eat at chicfila prior to this?

No, because I don't eat crap.

So then your 'boycott' means nothing, right?

right.

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights
..., and CFA's brand rating is declining. So obviously, something is going right in regards to public perception of the boycott against CFA.

What exactly do you mean by brand rating declining? They have probably their most successful day and week in their history and you make it sound like they are going to be going out of business?

That's the problem with the progressive side, you actually believe your own rhetoric. You'd think after Wisconsin you'd have gotten enough dose of reality, but I guess not. You think you are the vast majority, when you plainly aren't. I guess we will have to wait for November for it to really set in.

Do you think this whole controversy is hurting Chick-Fil-A??? How many people who never had heard of this company now know about it. If I didn't know better I would bet the Mayors of Boston and Chicago have stakes in the company. You couldn't ask for better PR then they are getting right now.

You keep on believing though......

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by crazydaysandnights

Originally posted by stanguilles7
did you ever even eat at chicfila prior to this?

No, because I don't eat crap.

So then your 'boycott' means nothing, right?

right.

Mine personally doesn't at all. But what I am standing for definitely does.

Originally posted by pavil
What exactly do you mean by brand rating declining? They have probably their most successful day and week in their history and you make it sound like they are going to be going out of business?

Right. Because we all know an unsustainable few weeks of bump is like, totally representative of Chick-fil-A's popularity. I mean, that makes so much sense.

Look on the web and check their brand index scores. And then you'll see what I'm saying in numbers.

That's the problem with the progressive side, you actually believe your own rhetoric. You'd think after Wisconsin you'd have gotten enough dose of reality, but I guess not. You think you are the vast majority, when you plainly aren't. I guess we will have to wait for November for it to really set in.

Funny how you think this is a clear progressive vs conservative situation. Not hardly. There are some progressives who are pro-CFA. There are many conservatives anti-CFA.

Also, there are more independents in this country than progressives OR conservatives. Wisconsin, BTW, is a horrible defense. You do know Obama won over Romney in preliminary exit polls by 8 points the same day Walker was retained. Barrett was a horrible candidate and many Dems stayed home because they simply couldn't support him. Many Dems supported Walker, many independents supported Walker, because they are anti-recall, and not because they are pro-Walker. But hey, a man/woman can dream, I guess.

Do you think this whole controversy is hurting Chick-Fil-A??? How many people who never had heard of this company now know about it. If I didn't know better I would bet the Mayors of Boston and Chicago have stakes in the company. You couldn't ask for better PR then they are getting right now.

You're of the all publicity is good publicity camp. That's not how it works for companies who rely on what society at large think of them. CFA has rallied their base in the South, they've rallied social conservatives, but they've killed any shot they had at being a national company on a grand scale. So on that ALONE, this has cost the company billions. You're completely blind if you don't see that.