The chicken sandwich-buying public doesn't believe CFA is a hate-group or that they discriminate against anyone.
And now Dan Cathy has conveniently made it clear that they do, so the chicken sandwich-buying public can make its decision accordingly.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
That should be:
To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise then go on to the franchiser is pretty naive and foolish.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
@bass(insert brainless onanistic toy pun that I've been ignoring for days now)
It is just after all a word, but if it is that important, civil unions should be significant as long as their rights are protected.
Just a word, so call it marriage and everyone's happy.
That depends on your point of view.
Progress to give everyone equal rights is sometimes bad? As long as you have yours, you're OK, and those that don't are just "whining." This is just who you are and what you believe, I guess. Hope no one (especially the big bad mean old Obama government) ever tries to abridge your rights, because by your own stated viewpoints, you'll just have to shut up and accept it until your opposition deems it the right time to address the issue that they've already made up their mind about.
The Black and most of the Hispanic community are hardly Conservative, they vote usually liberal and are mostly liberal except when it comes to gay issues.
And they do so largely out of fear and ignorance, until they actually take a moment to think about how some of the actual people in their lives are homosexual--then it's not so scary, after all.
And for the billionth time, each store is independently owned and independently operated.
To believe that none of the dollars that go into an independently owned and operated franchise is pretty naive and foolish.
I agree and that includes Gays, you will always have bigotry in this world
So your plan is to simply ignore the bigotry? When did you give up on the world? And there's the idea again that homosexuals want something above and beyond, not equality.
which at this point and time with all the crap that is going on in America, this is an issue that can wait,
And there's the patronizing "this isn't important right now" argument. I'm Martin Luther King would've been happy to simply wait until the bigots lynching black people were ready to hear him out.
If that were the case, but they are NOT discriminating against Gays.
They give the money that customers (some of which at least might have been homosexual) give them to groups that work to make homosexuals lesser in the eyes of the law. I fully understand why you continually misrepresent this to be the idea that they won't sell to homosexuals--red herrings are important when you don't have an argument.
The chain shouldn't have to suffer because of one CEO's opinion.
Why? Again, he exercised his freedom of speech, and that has consequences, both for him and the company of which he's the CEO. Time will tell-- a few days' worth of increased sales versus a plummeting brand image. Which will win out over time?
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
The CFA restaurants aren't in the donating business.
The bottom line is that the money "anyone" gives CFA at the restaurant level ultimately makes for more money to donate to groups that want certain groups to have fewer rights than everyone else. And once again, no one ever suggested that CFA was somehow refusing to serve homosexuals.
You're not boycotting the actual groups that allegedly encourage unequal treatment.
First, there's not much "alleged" about these groups encouraging unequal treatment. Second, if CFA wants to throw its lot in with them, fine. Other large corporations such as Ford and JC Penney have embraced the LGBT community and reaped the rewards. Those such as CFA that choose to publicly align themselves against it will take their chances, as is their right. And before anyone cries about "bullying," it's not--simply people making decisions.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
As long as men and women, gay or straight are treated equally under the law and constitution, the wording should not matter at all.
The word becomes important when someone has always denied it to you.
or the rights of the people of all races, religion, creed or color be protected? You can't have it all.
You don't think this is possible or even desirable? Sad.
Liberals can flip flop on gay issues and they are NEVER held accountable
Well, when the conservative word on the matter is ALWAYS to marginalize and consider homosexuality disgusting and repugnant, it's hard to "flip-flop." If anything, so-called liberals like Obama are forced to pretend to toe the line artificially to placate the pretend-Christianity of the right.
But that is not the case, stating your opinion, DOES NOT IMPLY ANYTHING.
For the billionth time, the issue is not that he stated his opinion. The issue is that his company gives money to groups that encourage a group of Americans to be treated unequally.
Progress is a good thing depending on your point of view, it may not be the best thing for everyone,
Yes, the people who have been accustomed to treating some people unequally might have a hard time adjusting. I don't feel particularly bad for them.
a same sex couple is going to different just due to the biology involved (no pesky who left the toilet seat up issues) and on a real serious note, other dynamics that will never just never appear in a male / female marriage relationship.
If you don't worry about the "toilet seat issues" and "other dynamics" of an Adam/Eve marriage relationship, why do you care about the same in an Adam/Steve marriage relationship, enough so that the law has to somehow be involved?
Why bother with using the terms heterosexual and homosexual I mean it is nothing more than euphemism right?
Because those are not euphemisms, they're the terms themselves.
What is wrong with protecting someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"?
Because it comes at the expense of another group's rights.
Some homosexuals I know get up in arms about people using the word "gay" to mean stupid or dumb, to them the word "gay" means homosexual and should only mean homosexual, are they wrong to try and protect their precious concept of the term "gay"?
Because if you use the term that they use to describe themselves in a pejorative sense meaning "stupid or dumb," it's a bit of an obvious insult regarding who they are, wouldn't you say?
-3 ( +1 / -4 )
They do accept that different language must be used to describe what others already have.
No, they want "marriage." Do often refer to "different-sex marriage"?
A view that really is quite at odds with all cultures throughout the world and in recorded human history.
Well, slavery was once considered completely normal and "fundamental," and the idea of man flying through the sky was crazy talk. Progress is a good thing.
I would imagine those who are barred from marrying don't much care whether it's government or religion bestowing some kind of ultimate authority over the institution. They simply want access to it, and I imagine it's equally frustrating that their attempts to obtain it are met with "this is the way it's always been, therefore it can't be changed."
Look me and my family are Catholic in these matters look toward the mother church.
Not sure how I can respond to that, other than to remind you that you are in fact allowed to actually think for yourself; you don't need to cede all your thinking to some other entity.
-6 ( +2 / -8 )
As for calling them gays, what else should I call them, how should they be addressed? Hetero-challenged?
Hetero-challenged--that's just it. You clearly believe that they're "less than," and it shows in how you refer to them.
So, why do you need the word marriage if it doesn't make a difference?
Because that's what it is--why should they accept something less than what it is, with a secondary term for the same thing? Why is that so important to the people who aren't involved in their marriages?
That's because you can't spin your way out of that one. Even Obama can't. He was all his life against it and now he has an epiphany and a change of heart? Now, this year? Oh, wait, we have an election in November.
Right, he's a politician looking for political advantage; business as usual. Not sure why it's relevant.
Giving money individually is NOT forcing an Agenda on anyone, it is that individuals personal belief as to how and what they believe.
And pointing out that the giving of money to certain groups is not forcing an agenda on anyone--they can make their decisions accordingly. Put it this way--if I was totally indifferent, but then decided I wanted some Chick-fil-a, only to find a three-hour wait because thousands of people were "supporting" them, I'd feel like something was definitely being forced upon me, as opposed to people simply not going there.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
What is wrong with civil unions? I said, I agree, they should have the same rights, but my argument is why the word "marriage" what is the difference?
Right--if it's the same thing as marriage, why bother with the euphemism? To protect someone else's precious conception of the term "marriage"? Why should they have to accept even different language to describe what others have? That in itself is insulting and demeaning. What's the difference, indeed?
but in my opinion the WORD marriage should be defined under the law as a man and woman.
Why? What would be different other than your delicate sensibilities being catered to?
As a minority, they have to fall in with the majority.
Very egalitarian thinking here--everyone be the same, or at least have the smarts not to complain.
they should talk to their city council and work within their community to slowly try to come to an agreement or find ways to educate people,
Why, when they'll only be told to fall in with the majority? How can you educate people who have no interest in even considering something that isn't "traditional"?
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
They can live anyway they want. I'm originally from California, Gay capitol of the world, Gays have a lot of power, they work in all fields of almost every kind of occupation, Most people don't have a problem with them. They can live anywhere and be who they want to be as they want to be.
If they'd like to enjoy the benefits of being legally married, obviously they cannot live anyway they want. The fact that you continue to refer to them as "The Gays" is pretty telling, by the way.
people that are tired of having or being forced to accept something they may not want.
That's just it--granting homosexuals the right to marry affects those who aren't homosexuals not a single bit. "Something they may not want"--why? What difference would it make to their lives?
Even Obama is (but flip flopped, we know why)
Insert standard Obama rant here.
want to force you into believing something that the majority of the people don't believe in
They just want to have the same rights and could care less what you believe. Asking for equality in the land of supposed equality is not forcing anyone to believe in things they don't want to. Giving money to organizations that seek to deny people equality or change them is trying to impose your values on others.
-4 ( +3 / -7 )
and they sell tasty chicken
Well-reasoned. Never was a first amendment issue--you just want it to be. And, besides, tasty chicken, right?
So what are you? You protest too much I think.
Another classic of sound reasoning. Ask my wife. Tasty chicken!
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
They have the same rights as everyone else. The exact same rights that any single person has.
Except the right to marry the people they choose--incredible that that fact has seemingly sailed right past you.
they are asking to be above and beyond extra granted privileges that are currently withheld from any straight single people
These put-upon straight singles you speak of have the option of marrying; they simply choose not to exercise it. Homosexuals would like the right to make that choice, too.
undeniable fact and it puts this entire issue into the proper focus.
I agree--simply making things up seems to be the order of the day, and you're doing a fantastic job.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
If you oppose gay people in any way, you are a homophobe.
Opposing their right to live in the same fashion as anyone else is hardly the same as living and letting live because the way they choose to live doesn't affect you in the least--what else could you call it?
It's the same diatribe with Obama, you don't agree with him, you are a racist, or if you are afraid to get on a plane and you sit next to a person that looks arab you are anti-muslim.
Who are the people making these kinds of arguments? That's right--stupid people. No one takes these "arguments" seriously because they aren't serious arguments.
You cannot say, just because a person believes in traditional marriage that he/she is against gay marriage or opposes it or wants less rights for gays, you cannot say that.
I can, because it's true. The whole point of the phrase "traditional marriage" is to distinguish it from the types of marriage that its proponents don't like, and the organizations in question take action to ensure that no one else can engage in marriage outside what they consider "traditional."
but the gay lifestyle will never become mainstream If everyone or the majority people would be gay or a vast segment of the population, how would we have children?
Here's where we get to the heart of the matter--fear of the idea that "the Gays" not only want to have the same rights as everyone else, but that they're on a mission to convert EVERYONE else and force them to be gay, too. An idea rooted in fear and ignorance, but fear is a powerful motivator. And the tired old saw that "there won't be any more babies" is also pure idiocy, mainly because of its assumption that no heterosexuals will exist if you grant homosexuals the right to marry, and heaven forbid, raise a child in a loving home. As far as "mainstream" meaning "accepted," homosexuals would be glad to take that much. They're not looking to be "mainstream" in the sense that they outnumber heterosexual couples--again, an idea based on fear and ignorance.
No one is saying that but you, who now is paranoid?
When you think denying a group of people the same rights as you is OK, and that when they stand up to reject that idea, that they're "blah blah blah whining" or even trying to impose their beliefs on you when they're not, that is exactly what you (tacitly) say.
It's people like you that seem to want to limit peoples rights, beliefs and opinions.
I would like to limit people's rights to deny others theirs, yes--fact indeed.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
And you're boycotting the wrong organization. Chick-Fil-A sells chichen sandwiches. To EVERYONE who wants one.
By refusing to buy chicken (carefully note the spelling) sandwiches from Chick-fil-a, the hate organizations have fewer dollars. Again, simple. If a company was donating money to the KKK, I wouldn't buy its products, either. And the "to everyone who wants one" argument has been refuted time and time again here--no one is suggesting they won't sell chicken (note the spelling) sandwiches to certain people; it's what that money goes to fund.
The CFA resturants and employees ARE NOT A HATE GROUP. Claiming that they are, when it's very obvious that they are not, is why this boycott has failed.
To proclaim either the boycott or its show of support a failure is foolish after not even one week has passed. Signs in fact point to Chick-fil-a's brand being harmed mightily. They have every right to take an ideological stand--and they'll accept the consequences, whatever they may be.
-6 ( +0 / -6 )
That is your opinion, but the MAJORITY of Americans support traditional marriage, no one said about them having less rights or wanting them to have less rights. If they don't believe in same sex marriage, they are entitled to believe in that.
"Supporting traditional marriage" is just a way of saying "banning gay marriage" that makes its adherents feel better about themselves. Those who staunchly opposed interracial marriage said the exact same thing--they just supported "traditional marriage." If you don't want homosexuals to have the right to marry, then by definition you feel they should have fewer rights. Just own it! If you have to come up with euphemisms that soften it, perhaps you should reconsider what you believe in.
Same sex marriage is about 2 people of the same sex wanting to marry is against the fundamental laws of nature. So will people get used to it, slowly, but very, very slowly. Will we see a gay President? it won't be in our life time no time soon.
If it's "against the fundamental laws of nature" and at the same time "people get used to it, slowly, but very, very slowly," you should perhaps reconsider what you think of as a "fundamental law."
That kind of paranoia (that gay and gay supporters buy into) is just as bad as homophobia
No, the idea that homosexuals should just simply "shut up and accept" that they're second-class, and that furthermore, if they attempt to assert their rights, they're somehow either "paranoid" or "bullying" the poor majority, is classic absurdity. The facts are that organizations (the ones Dan Cathy supports) clearly are attempting to limit their rights. That's not paranoia, just simple fact.
-4 ( +2 / -6 )
My decision is......Well done and classy, impressed by Chick-fil-A management and employees, so called “Tolerant” liberals can learn a lot them.
Perhaps Dan Cathy should be encouraged to have a nice talk with his employees, and then it wouldn't be so important to him to fund intolerance for a particular group of people.
you can do as you please, if you don't want to patron their restaurants, that is your right, but don't tell me I am wrong for supporting the company.
Not telling you you're "wrong" for supporting them, just that in doing so, you are giving money to people who support the idea that some people should have fewer rights than you.
Then you should take issue with the majority of Americans, because they feel the way he feels.
Even if you could somehow know this, you're on the wrong side of history. More and more people have realized that there's no sensible reason to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Plenty of people still thought it was wrong to free the slaves when it was done, but they'll get there. It just takes some people longer to think things over.
I fully support free speech.
Me too. Not sure why you still think this is the issue. Everybody can say whatever they want, and take the consequences of having said it.
Support for traditional marriage does not mean you hate gay people.
Right--it just means you want gay people to have fewer rights.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
They're saying that Chick-Fil-A is a "hate group",
If the company gives money to further the cause of a group that wants to make them less than equal, it's obviously not that far of a stretch. And please don't forget their right to say that--freedom of speech, you know. You're free to disagree.
The CFA resturants [sic] make and sell chicken sandwiches. To anyone.
Exactly--and once again, if homosexuals give them money, they'd be supporting groups that hate them, therefore, a boycott. Simple. They choose not to patronize restaurants (carefully note the spelling) that ultimately want to make them second-class citizens. Third-party observers will make their own decisions accordingly.
It would be difficult to tell them that we don't eat it anymore because of their religious views. The kids only want a tasty sandwich.
So, by this line of thinking, Chick-fil-a is the sole purveyor of tasty chicken sandwiches, and thus have us all over a barrel? Come on. There are so many more choices.
-5 ( +1 / -6 )
when does the head of a company lose his/her freedom of speech? First speech restrictions start with the few and end up with the entire population.
All the hand-wringing over the poor CEO's right to free speech. You know how much free speech the rank and file employees have? Zero. As in all corporate structures, and in this case, the ones who have to feel the heat of any boycott on the ground, they are officially banned from speaking their mind. And even if one of them does speak out because he or she might not agree with the CEO, how much longer do you think they'd have a job at Chick-fil-a if they expressed an opinion that differs from the corporate line?
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
there sure was a crowd there today! I had to wait for 30 minutes to make an order and receive the food. So this is day 3 and the more fuss the gay groups make, the longer it will last.
You of course realize that today was designated as the "Kiss-in" day, and you were likely assumed to be on the opposite side of the argument...this amuses me. To say nothing of the fact that you waited in line for a half hour for fast food, regardless of your true feelings on this issue.
-6 ( +1 / -7 )
The people behind the boycott are saying that Chik-Fil-A is a "hate group" in order to justify their phoney boycott. There is nothing to indicate that CFA is a "hate group" but that fact doesn't seem to matter to the bullies calling for the boycott.
No one has claimed Chick-fil-a is a hate group--just that it donates money to hate groups. The inability to make this distinction speaks volumes about your argument, such as it is.
The CFA resturants aren't preventing anyone from getting married.
Right--they just throw money at organizations that want to prevent certain people from getting married. Fairly simple stuff, here.
this boycott is an absolute failure.
I guess that remains to be seen over the course of time, just as it would be foolish to think that whatever one-day uptick in sales from the people in support of Chick-fil-a is somehow going to double or triple its profitability.
-5 ( +2 / -7 )
I'm not even really talking about the mayors. The story of the various mayors pretending to have the authority to somehow stop Chick-fil-a expansion in their respective cities is a separate issue, and yes, they're flat-out wrong. And yes, the CEO is free to donate the money and even tell everyone that's what he's doing. And the people who find that to be a hateful act are free to call it that, refuse to patronize the business, and encourage others to do the same.
Even if the mayors could somehow prevent Chick-fil-a's expansion, the idea that innocents will suffer because of the loss of a potential job is disingenuous at best. There are plenty of places that wouldn't mind at all, and there are approximately zero places where they'd love to start building a Chick-fil-a but can't because of the mean old mayor not letting them (despite what these mayors would have you believe). However, the idea that Mr. Cathy would love to see some people be treated as less than equal can in fact be construed as harming innocents.
that kind of thinking like these idiots and PETA, Sea Shepherd and other groups that believe a certain way and force people to believe as they do.
You're right--forcing people to believe as they do. Which is what Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-a are spending money to attempt to do.
If you have a problem with what the CEO said, take it up with him directly! Send a letter, leave a message, create a Facebook page, but get out of my way, don't get in my face!
Once again, it's not that people have a problem with what he said or that he said it; their beef is with what he does. If anything, the fact that he said he's doing it helps the LGBT crowd, because now they know for sure. He could have quietly donated forever, but chose to embrace it, as is his right--and those opposed have the right to say what they think about it, too, and act accordingly. And yes, people can do all those things, but that doesn't mean you are somehow being forced to believe it because of a Facebook page.
that is some tasty chicken
I've always been indifferent to their particular blend of chicken. It's just a filet with two pickles on it. I hate KFC because ordering exactly what you want is like doing an algebra equation, but taste-wise, if you're going to eat some fast food chicken, you may as well enjoy it at its greasy height.
-4 ( +1 / -5 )
If I don't believe in it and find it revolting (the Gay lifestyle), but I want their rights protected as everyone else and if they wish to have civil unions, does that make me a homophobe?
It does put you at odds with Chick-fil-a's CEO--you know, the guy pouring money into organizations that don't want homosexuals to have the rights you'd theoretically like to see protected. But to answer your question: it makes you someone who's comfortable with some people having some rights, and others not so much.
nor is he forcing anyone to share in his personal feelings.
That's exactly what he's spending his company's profits in an attempt to do. But feel free to continue to pretend that the boycott is about what he says about the issue, and not what he actually does (and admits to doing) about the issue.
-2 ( +3 / -5 )
The smugness of so many posters here is appalling (but then again, that's what keeps us coming back). To all those who think this is some kind of free speech issue, I encourage you to think about it just a little more.
No one is protesting the CEO's right to say anything; the LBGT community is opposing his company's donation of money to groups that are actively trying to deny those people the same rights that everyone else enjoys. The aim of these groups is to bring about legislation that will codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, if not outright criminals (as is the case in many countries in the world to this day). It makes perfect sense that the LGBT community would oppose this. If it helps you, exchange "gay and lesbian" with "black," or "blonde-haired," or "Jewish," or whatever group you happen to slot into. So, a major corporation that's still glad to take your money then turns around and gives said money to a group that aims to eventually label you a criminal. How have your feelings changed?
If the LGBT community truly had their way, they'd be free to live their lives, including the choice to eat at Chick-fil-a or not, as they see fit, which is hardly "forcing their views" on anyone else. If the CEO of Chick-fil-a and the groups he gives money to truly had their way, the LGBT community would be second-class citizens with fewer rights than others, at best, which very clearly is forcing their views upon others.
And yet, thousands of people go out of their way to support a company that itself goes out of its way to force people to live their lives the way they see fit, and furthermore, those supporters claim to be the poor victims of bullying. Absurd.
-3 ( +4 / -7 )
He's had a great career arc, both in Japan and in the U.S., and there's nothing left to prove. There's no shame in accepting the end and calling it a career. It just gets to be a sad spectacle when a player can't accept the inevitable (Jamie Moyer, for instance).
1 ( +1 / -0 )
We live in a world not unlike the crazy movies Hollywood churns out. It seems that movies have become more and more insane in their themes.
Do people honestly believe this? Shakespeare's tragedies are absolutely rife with bloody murder and rape, and they're undeniable classics. So, to answer your question, no. Maniacs are maniacs by definition, and if their actions could be explained in some pat fashion, I guess they would cease to be maniacs.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Step one would be to have the government divest itself of its 50% stake in Japan Tobacco. Any antismoking efforts from an entity that has such an obvious conflict of interest are pretty disingenuous at best.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Comic-book movies are the new Westerns--a genre the studios mine endlessly as a matter of course. Some will be good, most will be average or bad, but they'l keep grinding them out. And with the inexhaustible continuity these characters nearly all possess, you may as well consider them reboots every time out. I'm kind of glad we're done with the Tobey Maguire Spidey, myself. Hope this one is better, but you can count on Spiderman being a character that has multiple iterations, like James Bond or Batman, until the money runs out.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
P.S. 12,632 deliberate gun homicides in 2000 in the US, Id be surprised if that wasnt spread over everday.
Of course you could spread those out among a population of 300 million so that there's at least one a day. And? The fact that they were spread out over the course of a year is actually better than if perhaps half of them occurred on a single very bad day. This idea that you insist on hammering away at has no significance.
At any rate, another day has dawned in the gun-pocked horror that is the United States, so I suppose I'd better get my Kevlar on and prepare to return fire.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
@Thomas Michael Lewis
i was addressing the gentlemen who said he was shot three times within this week.
Hilariously enough, you've somehow still failed to grasp that I, dear old TenguLeavings, was the gentleman who made that claim, both for facetious effect and to point out the absurdity of statements such as the following:
I never claimed it happened everyday, but Ill bet its not far off to be honest.
Game, set, and match. As for constitutional monarchies, I'll stand by my claim that any form of government is subject to corruption and greed, and even the most basic understanding of history will support that.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
people will argue with me, but if you are really worried about an overly powerful government install a Constitutional Monarch, hereditary, then they are in it as a Duty to the country and not for money. When the entire ruling elite are in it for money you are bound for corruption, when one vital balancing power is there for duty and money makes no diffference, when their whole life depends on the peoples approval, then you have good check balance on government
Yeah, I guess I'm kind of compelled to argue with the idea that a system featuring a dictatorial single ruler is somehow incorruptible. That was the system that the idea of the separation of powers was supposed to counter. A better way to put it might be that any form of government that lacks accountability is bound to produce corruption in the name of enriching those who find themselves in positions of power. So you're seriously suggesting there's no corruption in the British or Japanese governments by definition?
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Posted in: Tokyo reports 3,621 coronavirus cases