Poll: Chick-fil-a owner admits to anti-gay views

[CrazyDave DC]

I'm guessing there aren't any Chick-fil-as in Canada, let alone Calgary, so it won't be much of a sacrifice for me to continue not buying food there. That being said, he has the right to express his intolerant opinions and consumers have the right to buy fast food somewhere else. If I was a regular customer in the past and just learned about this now, then I would immediately stop supporting this franchise.

 

[Zorpheus]

First amendment rights. Free speech.

 

[David Farnell]

I live in Japan, where we don't have Chick-fil-A. So...EASIEST BOYCOTT EVER! Whoo!

Of course, even when I'm visiting the US, I don't eat at Chick-fill-aye. Ate there once--yech. At the low end of the American Recycled-Cardboard-Tasting Fast Food school of cooking. So even if I were living in the US, it would be one of the easiest boycotts ever.

But even if it tasted good, I wouldn't eat at a place that calls itself f-ing "Chick-fil-A." WTF is with the fake-4-year-old spelling? Does anyone like that name? ANYONE? God, people used to make fun of names like that in near-future dystopian SF. Now it's not even funny anymore.

But even if it tasted good, was here in Japan, AND had a name that didn't make me seethe with rage, I would still boycott it for its owners' idiocy.

So yes, boycott.

 

[David Farnell]

Actually, it's not so much his public opinion; that was unsurprising.

It's that he's giving money to Exodus International that pisses me right the hell off. THAT'S what got me to be willing to never eat there.

And Exodus International has even admitted that their "pray away the gay" treatment does NOTHING to change sexual orientation. In other words, all that psychological damage they've inflicted on thousands of people over the years has been FOR NOTHING! Of course, most intelligent people already knew that, but it's amazing that they admit it now.

And yet, Mr. Cathy still gives them money.

 

[DugMachine]

Actually Chick Fil A actively screens it's employee's for homosexuality, asking about it on applications. Being publically homosexual is likely grounds for termination.

Okay I know this is a lot of posts in and people have already corrected you but i've applied at 2 different Chick Fil A's over the years and no where on the application does it ask you if you're gay. Not even trick questions, cause it's kinda, uh idk, illegal!

I don't like Chick Fil A either (foods good but I hate their Christian attitude) but you can't go saying stuff that's just not true.

 

[Bato]

It's his company, he can do whatever the hell he wants.
However, it's also my money and I am not going to spend it on them.
It's like "Hey guy. Here's money to fund hating half of me."

I would like to think it's silly to get so up in arms so much about it and just simply stop buying from them. But this is how cultural revolutions start and opinions begin to change overall so I am fine with it.

That said Chick-fil-A is the most delicious fucking Chicken Sammich I have ever had.

 

[D-tritus Debris]

I find it shocking how many escapists want to boycott a company for its owner's beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, he's free to believe whatever he wants, and say whatever he wants. What I don't agree with are the donations from the company's funds instead of his own. Sorry if this has been already said, but I don't feel like reading 15 pages just to find out whether I've been ninja'd or not.

 

[6_Qubed]

The main thing Chik-fil-a brings to mind is that former linetrap and current porn-star Bailey Jay has said that working at Chik-fil-a was more degrading than doing porn.

I work at Pizza Hut as a delivery driver, and I am inclined to believe this, seeing as my job sucks and there aren't even any religious anythings to the place except my coworker Greg who is a swell guy.

 

[ElPatron]

How would I be fighting against it? With big scary words that have no legal impact and don't even say that it should be a law?

"I'm gonna kill you" has no legal binding aspect that forces me to kill you, but it's still a death threat if I keep calling at night.

Democracy. You fight for what you believe with your words. No matter how dumb your ideas are, you just need to get enough people to believe them.

So pedophilia can't be wrong objectively? Is Rape wrong

Because all pedophilia is rape. We are now entering that part where I mention that a person of a certain age is not able to consent in a country (and there are probably legal systems that will trial that as statutory rape, I'm not sure because I am not a lawyer) but is able to consent in another.

So, the hot potato is back on your lap. Not only pedophilia does not imply "rape", if there are actually places that consider "not able to consent = rape" I just used your own argument against you:

By your logic, rape can't be objectively wrong.

So, cultural reasons have made us hunt down homosexuals. I think people should do the time if they commit a crime, and if the age of consent is 16 then he/she better be 16 or you're going to jail.

But if we are going to consider "18 good, 16 bad because my culture told me so" we will spend the rest of our lives arguing.

If you support the rights of someone to be a bigot, you are supporting bigotry, there isn't a distinction, they are literally exactly the same thing.

The "you're either with us or with them" mentality? If you want to take it to the extremes, do you defend the criminalization of bigots? Not only a massive violation of the freedom of speech, but also morally equivalent to hunting down any other group (race, gender, sexual orientation).

Do you defend vigilantism against them? Hit squads murdering people because of their beliefs, just to make sure they have no political voice?

See, I can take it to the extremes to. All I said is just as logically worthless as bringing it to the opposite extreme.

 

[ElPatron]

Yes, but just because I'm using my words to fight for something does not mean that you're right about what I'm fighting against. In the case of free speech or gun owning saying "You shouldn't do that" doesn't fight against your rights.

It does not infringe my rights, if that's what you are thinking. But if you disagree on a public forum (not just the internet meaning of "forum") you're taking a stance against my right of choosing.

 

[ElPatron]

No, I'm not that's bad logic. Someone doesn't need to either support your decision or be against your right to choose. People can be fine with your right to choose while decrying the actual choice you make as one that you shouldn't have.

Then I don't see the point of complaining if you don't want to change people's minds.