My Problem With The "Kiss-In" Protest of Chic-Fil-A.

[RJ 17]

As most people have already heard, I'm sure, the CEO of Chic-Fil-A recently said in an interview that he doesn't agree/approve of homosexual marriages. In response to this, a number of liberal big-city mayors have declared they intend to block any attempt of Chic-Fil-A opening a store in their cities. Also, the homosexual community had organized a "kiss-in" protest of the restaurant, encouraging homosexuals to show up at Chic-Fil-A's and take pictures/videos of themselves openly displaying their affection for their partner with a kiss or a hug.

My problem is that this entire controversy seems absolutely pointless. I was reading an article about the protest on msn.ccm (looked for it to link, but couldn't find it, sorry), and they quoted one of the protest organizers for, I think, an area near LA as saying something along the lines of "This is about our desire to have the same rights as everyone else." Now right there is a statement I can agree with. Even as a conservative, I have absolutely no problem with gay marriage because it's really not any of my damn business who falls in love with who. I agree completely that they should have the right to get married. What I don't agree with is a protest being organized specifically because someone voiced their opinion on the matter. Some people wonder where the accusations of "The homosexuals are always trying to cram their agenda down our throats!" come from, well it comes from stuff like this.

To my knowledge, the CEO didn't come out and say "I disapprove of gay marriage. As such, from this day forward, Chic-Fil-A will no longer be serving homosexuals." Were that the case, then by all means: have a kiss-in protest against this new policy. But he didn't implement such a thing, he simply said he doesn't approve of gay marriage. So tell me........how is some guy - CEO or not - saying he disapproves a violation of homosexual rights? Do they not still have the right - same as everyone else - to walk into a Chic-Fil-A and buy a chicken sandwich?

Really I think this is a very large failing on the homosexual communities part. First off, I don't think you should care what some jackass thinks about gay marriage. But beyond that, the protest had the exact opposite effect of what was desired. Rather than giving Chic-Fil-A some bad press, they gave the company free advertising. A couple days ago, there was a Chic-Fil-A Appreciation Day in which the company had record breaking sales. The ONLY reason that happened is because the homosexual community and those various city mayors made such a big fuss about this. You want to know the way they SHOULD have protested if it really is that big of a deal to them? Simply NOT go there. Refuse to eat at the restaurant and hurt their fiscal bottom lines rather than making a mountain out of a mole-hill, drawing huge national attention to it, and ensuring that the company your protesting ends up making record profits.

So please, someone tell me why what the CEO said was such a big deal. Why is one person disapproving of homosexual marriage a violation of homosexual rights?

 

[J. Mazarin]

So please, someone tell me why what the CEO said was such a big deal. Why is one person disapproving of homosexual marriage a violation of homosexual rights?

There's nothing wrong with believing/voicing your belief that you think homosexual marriage is wrong.

There is something very wrong with actively donating money towards and supporting hate groups, which to my knowledge is more what the controversy is about.

 

[tippy2k2]

I 100% agree with you.

The protests have given Chic MUCH more publicity and money then just letting this go. There are plenty of people who think that Chic's views are not only reasonable but correct and these people have gone and given Chic a TON [http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/chick-fil-a-sets-sales-record-on-appreciation-day-amid-flap-over-execs-marriage-comments/2012/08/02/gJQA6qAySX_story.html] of business (that may have been a coincidence setting a sales record but I highly doubt it). Not only them but I imagine that there are plenty of people who disagree with what they said but agree with their right to say it who went on that principal as a counter to these protests.

Do I agree with what Chic's CEO said? Hell no. Do I believe they have the right to say whatever the hell comes to their mind? Yes. Does Chic's CEO have the right to donate to whatever groups they want? Yes. Do I believe that gay rights activists have the right to protest? I think it's silly but yes they do. Do I think that was a good idea? Nope.

 

[darlarosa]

Not everyone in the LGBT community agrees or participates in the protest so it's more a personal choice of the participants.

It isn't the LGBT community and its supporters that threw down the gauntlet but the CEO. He was acting as the representative of the company and was speaking for that company. I say that last part because of how he worded things. The reason people are protesting is because they find it unacceptable that their money goes to organizations that actively oppose gay marriage and Exodus style organizations. As a major American chain restaurant it is a show that people who support the LGBT community and are a part of it are no longer willing to simply sit back and allow a company to stifle the beliefs of their customers or their workers. It is a sign of their saying that these statements are not acceptable because how they impact this companies business practices.

The appreciation day thing as well as the CEOs comments have unfortunately put many LGBT employees of Chik-fil-a in a difficult place. An article I read had a number of employees who now were forced into encounters with people "thanking them" for being against homosexuality, not realizing that the employee was trans or homosexual. The Appreciation day thing is a move on the socially conservative part of the isle, it represents a rather nasty idea. Instead of carrying on as normal they send the signal that they are proud to deny the rights of other human beings. It comes across as there boasting of being a contribute to anti-LGBT organizations.

The Kiss in is...I dunno I find public over affection between anyone kinda awkward and weird. I don't mind hand holding or that kinda thing but kissing is weird.

 

[burningdragoon]

He he also specifically said we (the US/everyone) are asking for God's judgment for allowing homosexual activity. (paraphrasing, but the phrase God's judgment was used). He's not just for a "traditional marriage/family" he's "gays are evil" with an only slightly positive "but I won't turn them from my business".

So please, someone tell me why what the CEO said was such a big deal. Why is one person disapproving of homosexual marriage a violation of homosexual rights?

There's nothing wrong with believing/voicing your belief that you think homosexual marriage is wrong.

There is something very wrong with actively donating money towards and supporting hate groups, which to my knowledge is more what the controversy is about.

Yeah that's the real issue and based on absolutely no evidence, I'd say at least about... 50-60% of the people showing up for the Chik-fil-a day on Wednesday weren't aware of just how anti-gay they were acting.

I don't like the idea of a public/government entity blocking business on these grounds, but that's a partially different thing. And there may be some hate group-related holes in that, but I dunno.

Back more on topic: The gay community (or whatever you want to call it) is in a lose-lose situation when it comes to getting the "shoving it in our faces" argument. The Kiss-in thing would be a little radical if it wasn't counter to the pro-Chik-fil-A day and there are probably more productive ways to protest, but I'd say it's... apt idea I guess.

 

[theLadyBugg]

http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288
The link above sums up really eloquently why:
1) This isn't about one man's opinions, it's about corporate money supporting organizations that actively seek to persecute homosexuals
2) This is not a 'marriage' issue, it's a civil rights problem (there is more at stake for LGBT citizens than the right to marry if these organizations succeed)
and 3)Standing by and doing nothing is sending the message that what they're doing is okay.

I don't know that the kiss-ins were the most effective way to take a stance on this, but it's saying something. Dan Cathy can think whatever he wants about me or anybody else. He can state his opinions as such. But if he or anybody else wants to contribute millions of dollars toward civil injustices, then you can be damned sure I'm not contributing to that fund by patronizing his business, and I'll encourage everyone I know to act similarly.


captcha: thick and thin

 

[RJ 17]

So please, someone tell me why what the CEO said was such a big deal. Why is one person disapproving of homosexual marriage a violation of homosexual rights?

There is something very wrong with actively donating money towards and supporting hate groups, which to my knowledge is more what the controversy is about.

Thank you, I hadn't heard about this detail of the story. Could you provide some examples of these hate groups?

 

[GistoftheFist]

For someone who was bothered enough to make a thread about this topic, you sure didn't bother making a lot of effort to learn what it was supposed to be about. All the bumbling morons who comment on Yahoo's news stories all parrot that the "gay community is shoving their agenda in our face" and "trying to force their opinions on others" don't even know that money the CEO is earning is donated to actively supporing hate groups.

 

[omicron1]

So please, someone tell me why what the CEO said was such a big deal. Why is one person disapproving of homosexual marriage a violation of homosexual rights?

There is something very wrong with actively donating money towards and supporting hate groups, which to my knowledge is more what the controversy is about.

Thank you, I hadn't heard about this detail of the story. Could you provide some examples of these hate groups?

The groups to which he refers, bar one, are simply organizations that oppose gay marriage. In other words, not hate groups. Just political organizations that are working contra the Left.
The "one" is Family Research Council, a group which wanted to alter the wording of a resolution on Uganda's gay-killing policies. (a resolution, from the UN,basically saying "stop that")
Quote via Breitbart: [http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/02/No-Chickfila-Did-Not-Support-Legislation-To-Kill-The-Gays]
"The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it ? rather to change the language it contained and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.

FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill.

FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct."

So yeah. That's the "hate" groups.