The Chick-Fil-A Controversy

[Katzndogz]

The left believes that people should be punished for the opinions they hold. If some Mayor said he would prohibit Ben 'n Jerry's ice cream from the city because they support same sex marriage rights and donated to same sex rights causes you know the left would be taking to the streets demanding the mayor be impeached.

The CEO if Chick Fil A did not say anything hateful, what he said was he supported traditional marriage. This, to the left, is a serious enough statement to warrant punishment. Gays are quickly becoming an American taliban.

 

[William Joyce]

I didn't used to head there first, but Chick-Fil-A is now my first choice.

Ate there Wednesday.

It was awesomely delicious.

Also, whole restaurant was JAMMED with good-looking whites: families with children, people were nicely dressed, nobody was even too fat, which is kind of unusual in any large group of whites.

 

[Ariux]

If a business was racist, and made public their opinions on how they disliked black people and thought they should be slaves, I wouldn't expect that company to have permission to move into a town or city, so the same goes for being homophobic.

Noomi, you're a shithead who dislikes whites, men, heterosexuals, Christians and you hate people who don't molest children. You suffer from decencyphobia.

 

[Navy1960]

Just a thought here, Chic-Fil-A is a privatly held company as far as I know and not a public one, and as such as long as they comply with local and state business laws can choose to set company policy as they so choose. In this case, from what I understand the company has for years made no secret of the fact they have had policies that are Christian "centric" if you will. In that they are closed on Sundays, Easter, Christmas for example. So it's no surprise that the CEO of this private company should then hold values that are based on the christian faith. It would seem to me that in matters of faith that Govt. be it state, local, and federal should keep away from these issues. Having said this the consumer is the one that has the ability to exercise their support or non-support with their wallets and leave matters of religion in Govt. to the people where it rightfully belongs and where the constitution seems to indicate it belongs as well.

 

[California Girl]

Just a thought here, Chic-Fil-A is a privatly held company as far as I know and not a public one, and as such as long as they comply with local and state business laws can choose to set company policy as they so choose. In this case, from what I understand the company has for years made no secret of the fact they have had policies that are Christian "centric" if you will. In that they are closed on Sundays, Eater, Christmas for example. So it's no surprise that the CEO of this private company should then hold values that are based on the christian faith. It would seem to me that in matters of faith that Govt. be it state, local, and federal should keep away from these issues. Having said this the consumer is the one that has the ability to exercise their support or non-support with their wallets and leave matters of religion in Govt. to the people where it rightfully belongs and where the constitution seems to indicate it belongs as well.

That's logical.

 

[Cowman]

Oh man, speaking of stupid food related things... I remember when conservatives wanted to legally change the name of french fries to freedom fries.

And they prohibited the naming of french fries, instead forcing them be called freedom fries in the house cafeterias. There wasn't even a vote.

Now that's some funny shit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just a thought here, Chic-Fil-A is a privatly held company as far as I know and not a public one, and as such as long as they comply with local and state business laws can choose to set company policy as they so choose. In this case, from what I understand the company has for years made no secret of the fact they have had policies that are Christian "centric" if you will. In that they are closed on Sundays, Easter, Christmas for example. So it's no surprise that the CEO of this private company should then hold values that are based on the christian faith. It would seem to me that in matters of faith that Govt. be it state, local, and federal should keep away from these issues. Having said this the consumer is the one that has the ability to exercise their support or non-support with their wallets and leave matters of religion in Govt. to the people where it rightfully belongs and where the constitution seems to indicate it belongs as well.

Well said. If people don't want to do business with people who are openly Christian, nobody forces them to go to Chick-fil-a. If people don't want to do business with people who are just as extremely 'progressive', nobody forces them to go to Ben and Jerry's. At the end of the day, most of us don't give a flying fig about the politics of the owners of the businesses we get our stuff from UNLESS the people are offensively in our face about it. I can safely say that I don't KNOW what the politics are of most of the owners of businesses where I shop.

But I do say that when a Mayor of a City presumes to suggest who is welcome in the city and who will be granted business licenses based on their religion or politics, how far away can the Gestapo be?

 

[Navy1960]

Just a thought here, Chic-Fil-A is a privatly held company as far as I know and not a public one, and as such as long as they comply with local and state business laws can choose to set company policy as they so choose. In this case, from what I understand the company has for years made no secret of the fact they have had policies that are Christian "centric" if you will. In that they are closed on Sundays, Easter, Christmas for example. So it's no surprise that the CEO of this private company should then hold values that are based on the christian faith. It would seem to me that in matters of faith that Govt. be it state, local, and federal should keep away from these issues. Having said this the consumer is the one that has the ability to exercise their support or non-support with their wallets and leave matters of religion in Govt. to the people where it rightfully belongs and where the constitution seems to indicate it belongs as well.

Well said. If people don't want to do business with people who are openly Christian, nobody forces them to go to Chick-fil-a. If people don't want to do business with people who are just as extremely 'progressive', nobody forces them to go to Ben and Jerry's. At the end of the day, most of us don't give a flying fig about the politics of the owners of the businesses we get our stuff from UNLESS the people are offensively in our face about it. I can safely say that I don't KNOW what the politics are of most of the owners of businesses where I shop.

But I do say that when a Mayor of a City presumes to suggest who is welcome in the city and who will be granted business licenses based on their religion or politics, how far away can the Gestapo be?

Here is a good example of this Fox, while many are in agreement that local Govt. can and does have the ability to legislate business for the good of the community, and as long as those businesses comply with that code the personal beliefs of that company should not make much difference in that company being allowed to operate. In my humble opinion when Governments begin to make regulations based on religious values that they may or may not agree with then they are violating the constitution. It is no different than say a local Govt. seeking to deny say a muslim based business simply because their values do not comply with those they happen to believe in. The fact is in a free society it is the consumer who chooses to spend money or not and by not doing so that is how they voice their displeasure and the business will suffer. If these businesses operate within the scope of the law there is no reason to deny them the ability to operate.

 

[Katzndogz]

Just a thought here, Chic-Fil-A is a privatly held company as far as I know and not a public one, and as such as long as they comply with local and state business laws can choose to set company policy as they so choose. In this case, from what I understand the company has for years made no secret of the fact they have had policies that are Christian "centric" if you will. In that they are closed on Sundays, Easter, Christmas for example. So it's no surprise that the CEO of this private company should then hold values that are based on the christian faith. It would seem to me that in matters of faith that Govt. be it state, local, and federal should keep away from these issues. Having said this the consumer is the one that has the ability to exercise their support or non-support with their wallets and leave matters of religion in Govt. to the people where it rightfully belongs and where the constitution seems to indicate it belongs as well.

Well said. If people don't want to do business with people who are openly Christian, nobody forces them to go to Chick-fil-a. If people don't want to do business with people who are just as extremely 'progressive', nobody forces them to go to Ben and Jerry's. At the end of the day, most of us don't give a flying fig about the politics of the owners of the businesses we get our stuff from UNLESS the people are offensively in our face about it. I can safely say that I don't KNOW what the politics are of most of the owners of businesses where I shop.

But I do say that when a Mayor of a City presumes to suggest who is welcome in the city and who will be granted business licenses based on their religion or politics, how far away can the Gestapo be?

The Gestapo is here.

 

[Annie]

I think the abuse of zoning laws has gotten out of hand. Many places use zoning laws to deny things like Mosques and gay bars. So if the right wants to have a shit fit over the laws they use to discriminate, and they remove trhem because of the chick fil a thing and allow legitimate places of worship or gay businesses to open because they remove the ability for the public to use these laws to discriminate I say go for it chick fil a, make zoning laws free of discrimination against legitimate things.

Chicago has plenty of mosques and gay bars. As has been pointed out numerous times, the mayor of Boston gave the ground for a mosque there. Your attempt at 'it's equivalent fails.

 

[Cowman]

Just a thought here, Chic-Fil-A is a privatly held company as far as I know and not a public one, and as such as long as they comply with local and state business laws can choose to set company policy as they so choose. In this case, from what I understand the company has for years made no secret of the fact they have had policies that are Christian "centric" if you will. In that they are closed on Sundays, Easter, Christmas for example. So it's no surprise that the CEO of this private company should then hold values that are based on the christian faith. It would seem to me that in matters of faith that Govt. be it state, local, and federal should keep away from these issues. Having said this the consumer is the one that has the ability to exercise their support or non-support with their wallets and leave matters of religion in Govt. to the people where it rightfully belongs and where the constitution seems to indicate it belongs as well.

Well said. If people don't want to do business with people who are openly Christian, nobody forces them to go to Chick-fil-a. If people don't want to do business with people who are just as extremely 'progressive', nobody forces them to go to Ben and Jerry's. At the end of the day, most of us don't give a flying fig about the politics of the owners of the businesses we get our stuff from UNLESS the people are offensively in our face about it. I can safely say that I don't KNOW what the politics are of most of the owners of businesses where I shop.

But I do say that when a Mayor of a City presumes to suggest who is welcome in the city and who will be granted business licenses based on their religion or politics, how far away can the Gestapo be?

The Gestapo is here.

Thank you for trivializing what the Gestapo actually was.

You're a fucking disgusting twat.

 

[GWV5903]

NYC mayor: Chick-fil-A flap not govt's business | Fox News

Mayors of three cities--Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco--are on record that Chick-Fil-A franchises are not welcome in their cities because of Chick-Fil-A's support of traditional marriage and opposition to same sex marriage. Mayor Bloomberg of NYC is a strong advocate of same sex marriage but opposes restrictions on free enterprise based on political views.

The ACLU has gotten involved and though they too are strong advocates of same sex marriage, they oppose denying franchise privileges to Chick-Fil-A based on this issue. As they point out, if you can deny a business the right to do business based on their anti-gay marriage position, then there is nothing to deny a business the right to do business if it is pro same sex marriage.

Discuss and please try to keep it civil and on topic.

This is NOT about the pros and cons of same sex marriage, but rather the concept of denying a business ability to do business based purely on its social or political views.

Great sandwich, their drive thru's are packed all day, one of the most successful fast food chains of all time...

Is it any surprise this group of mayors would take this position?

Success and growth are not part of their value system unless BIG GOV establishes all of the rules...

 

[Moonglow]

ACLU believes in backing those that have had their civil rights violated.
They are not red or blue, they are neutral.

 

[Foxfyre]

ACLU believes in backing those that have had their civil rights violated.
They are not red or blue, they are neutral.

Sorry, but I've had too many negative dealings with the ACLU to believe they are neutral. But even a clock that is stopped is right twice a day, and the ACLU every now and then does choose the correct stance to protect and preserve our freedoms and liberties. And in this case, they chose the right side.

 

[Luissa]

I had to answer 'other', as we do not have Chick-fil-A's out west. I could get jazzed about the contoversy if say, Inn-N'-Out Burger was involved.

I miss the In N Out burgers...Give me a double double.

You don't like the Double Whammy at Dick's??

This reminds me, I haven't been to Dick's in awhile.

 

[Meister]

I had to answer 'other', as we do not have Chick-fil-A's out west. I could get jazzed about the contoversy if say, Inn-N'-Out Burger was involved.

I miss the In N Out burgers...Give me a double double.

You don't like the Double Whammy at Dick's??

This reminds me, I haven't been to Dick's in awhile.

Where is Dick's?

 

[Meister]

If a business was racist, and made public their opinions on how they disliked black people and thought they should be slaves, I wouldn't expect that company to have permission to move into a town or city, so the same goes for being homophobic.

Huh? I really haven't seen too many businesses talk about how Black's should be slaves in the last 45 years...maybe down under has that going on.
But, for a person to say that he believes in a traditional marriage is being homophobic.....that's just rediculous. And, top it off with he shouldn't be able to set up shop in a town or city...that's just like, WOW!!!!!!!!

Your thought process really has it going on, Noomi.

 

[hortysir]

I had to answer 'other', as we do not have Chick-fil-A's out west. I could get jazzed about the contoversy if say, Inn-N'-Out Burger was involved.

I miss the In N Out burgers...Give me a double double.

Had the chance to check 'em out on most recent vacation!



LOVE the simplicity of their menu.
None of the extra-curricular BS of McD's




I'm sure there a lot of companies that have a set belief system of some kind or another.
Ckic-fil-A just chose to vocalize theirs louder than the others.

 

[WillowTree]

Oh man, speaking of stupid food related things... I remember when conservatives wanted to legally change the name of french fries to freedom fries.

And they prohibited the naming of french fries, instead forcing them be called freedom fries in the house cafeterias. There wasn't even a vote.

Now that's some funny shit.

You remember no such damn thing. It's just another liberal dumb assed talking point.

 

[Foxfyre]

If a business was racist, and made public their opinions on how they disliked black people and thought they should be slaves, I wouldn't expect that company to have permission to move into a town or city, so the same goes for being homophobic.

Huh? I really haven't seen too many businesses talk about how Black's should be slaves in the last 45 years...maybe down under has that going on.
But, for a person to say that he believes in a traditional marriage is being homophobic.....that's just rediculous. And, top it off with he shouldn't be able to set up shop in a town or city...that's just like, WOW!!!!!!!!

Your thought process really has it going on, Noomi.

I'm not sure Noomi meant that quite the way it came out, but you are right that seeing the benefits of and supporting traditional marriage is NOT the same thing as being homophobic or suggesting that rights should be denied anybody.