Chick-fil-A University of Maryland petition wants restaurant off campus (College Park: house, legal)

[JD984]

From what I can tell, the two most coveted fast-food chains among local HS and college students are Chik-Fil-A and Chipotle. Either one in the U. Md. student union or near the campus likely is a cash cow.

If Chik-Fil-A were discriminating against the GLBT community in its restaurants (in terms of hiring or service), then they'd have a major problem on their hands, and the Maryland students undoubtedly would support this petition in large numbers, pgtitans' literal interpretations of the Bible notwithstanding (wondering, though, if he follows all of the dietary instructions in Leviticus to the letter). But my understanding is that it doesn't; what is at issue is simply the beliefs of the Chik-Fil-A owners and the notion that profits from the restaurant may be spent by owners or shareholders to contribute to groups that oppose gay marriage (either explicitly or implicitly through their pointed support for "traditional marriage"). It seems to me that, if that bothers you, you should just go spend your money elsewhere. I'm sure this petition will get a lot of signatures, but College Park is a big place and I doubt most students want to impose the petitioners' brand of political orthodoxy everywhere on campus.

[brooklynborndad]

some of the issues people have with the family research council go beyond the simple fact that they oppose the legalization of gay marriage

Family Research Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see a person deciding to simply boycott CFA. I can also see a student deciding to go beyond that and protest. Those who either agree with FRC, or consider CFA's donations too small an issue to warrant excluding them from campus, can counter protest/counter petition.

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

If I tell you I'm a Christian, why would you expect me NOT to live by what the Bible states? The fact that I am sitting here and having a conversation with you without condemning you for what you believe or telling you that you should think like me should let you know that I am open-minded. Open-minded doesn't mean I'm going to change what I believe though. People who are close-minded wouldn't even have a conversation about what you believe, I have just been expressing what I believe to be the truth, whether you agree with it or not. I let you know from the jump what I was about, just like Dan Cathy did to everyone else, but you think that people should think like you? Makes no sense. You want people who are Christians not to use the Bible as a guide for their life? Who are you to tell me or anyone else how I should live my life? I never told anyone on here how they should live. If you support gay marriage, that's your prerogative but don't expect me to just because you think it's okay. We have different beliefs, different experiences and different views of what the truth is. To be honest, I think the only reason why you came on here was to find something wrong with what I stated, which is why I believe your first response was so strange, off-topic and minimal to the main point. If you are struggling with atheism or what you believe, then I think deep down inside, you know the real truth and that's the real reason why you challenged literally everything I wrote in this thread. I mean why would you question the meaning in the Bible if you don't believe in it, unless you have insecurity about what you believe? That's like me trying to tell a Muslim what's in the Koran and telling them what it really says. If you are sure about what you believe, you don't need to prove me wrong for those things to be true to you, do you?

I never said I didn't believe in the Bible, I just said I was more open minded in interpreting what is said in it. I'm secure in my religious beliefs and don't need to hide anything. If anything, it's the atheists and agnostics that need help with their lack of understanding that God is real. If somehow being more open minded and interpreting the Bible how I see fit is wrong, then send me to hell ASAP.

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by Khemistry

Atheists are "idiots" ... people who are free-willed; not brainwashed into believing in something insanely ridiculous and tantamount to believing in Santa Claus; people who aren't bound to the words of some phantom book of holy scriptures about some phantom mythical being in the sky that no one since the beginning of time has been able to prove the existence of; free-thinkers who are capable of thinking for themselves and deciding what makes sense based on common logic and common sense; people who don't use a religious pretense to cast hate, judgment, ridicule, and oppression on others ... THOSE people are the idiots??? Hmmm, that's really good to know lol. I guess I had it wrong for so long. Interesting that the smartest human beings ever known to walk this Earth, were all atheists. I guess Judge Judy has it wrong when she constantly states, "If it doesn't make sense, it isn't true." Thanks for the clarification.

No one has been able to prove that he doesn't exist as well. Listen, why is it so hard to except that God is real and that he created the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago? Why can't you understand that?

Why must you act as if you are somehow better than us who choose to believe in him? You must be one of those free-thinking Liberal Democrats who wants to make this country ultra-PC.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

some of the issues people have with the family research council go beyond the simple fact that they oppose the legalization of gay marriage

Family Research Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can see a person deciding to simply boycott CFA. I can also see a student deciding to go beyond that and protest. Those who either agree with FRC, or consider CFA's donations too small an issue to warrant excluding them from campus, can counter protest/counter petition.

This almost reads as if you think that, once someone decides to protest, the burden then shifts to others to counter-protest if they do not want the university to accede to the wishes of the original protesters. I'm not sure it works that way or should work that way.

But maybe that's not your point. Maybe you're just standing up for the rights of different students to express themselves in a range of presumably non-violent ways. Kind of hard to tell.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by InvaderBryce

I never said I didn't believe in the Bible, I just said I was more open minded in interpreting what is said in it. I'm secure in my religious beliefs and don't need to hide anything. If anything, it's the atheists and agnostics that need help with their lack of understanding that God is real. If somehow being more open minded and interpreting the Bible how I see fit is wrong, then send me to hell ASAP.

Okay, well I guess we can agree to disagree about how we view what is written.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

This almost reads as if you think that, once someone decides to protest, the burden then shifts to others to counter-protest if they do not want the university to accede to the wishes of the original protesters. I'm not sure it works that way or should work that way.

But maybe that's not your point. Maybe you're just standing up for the rights of different students to express themselves in a range of presumably non-violent ways. Kind of hard to tell.

if the initial protests are small, its quite possible the Univ will ignore them, even absent any counter protests. Thats within the Universitys rights, and thats a chance you take when you decide to protest.

However I think that protesting is not merely a right of students - I think ACTIVELY expressing ones beliefs to try to create change is a positive good. And that it need not be limited to a personal boycott but can and should involve petitions, marches, protests etc. I believe in an activist approach to democracy, in general. I would RATHER see protest and counter protest, than see a quiet boycott and the Univ making a decision based purely on revenues. I think thats better, if the protests remain not only nonviolent, but issue focused, and rational in their arguments.

But of course there is no obligation on anyone to protest or counter protest, and no obligation on the part of the Univ to make decisions based on the presence or absence of protests. I do think that protests of a significant magnitude (not sure how strong they will become at UMd-CP) can influence a Universitys image, and the Univ MIGHT choose to take those into account in deciding what businesses to include at the food court. IF they do so, than anyone who disagrees and has NOT engaged in a counterprotest and then complains about the Univs decision, is being unreasonable, I think. Of course in the USA we have the right to complain unreasonably.

[brooklynborndad]

"It seems to me that, if that bothers you, you should just go spend your money elsewhere. I'm sure this petition will get a lot of signatures, but College Park is a big place and I doubt most students want to impose the petitioners' brand of political orthodoxy everywhere on campus."

I mean this sounds like you think its wrong of the petitioners to go beyond a personal boycott to a petition, and that for the Univ to decide to act in response to the petition would be some kind of imposition of political orthodoxy on other people, and wrong of the Univ, and somehow beyond the rights of the Univ - as if the Univ has an affirmative action to look at nothing but sales volume in determining what restaurants to include in their food court. If you do believe that, Im not sure if you beleive it because UMd is a public Univ, or if you would feel the same way wrt a private univ.

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

if the initial protests are small, its quite possible the Univ will ignore them, even absent any counter protests. Thats within the Universitys rights, and thats a chance you take when you decide to protest.

However I think that protesting is not merely a right of students - I think ACTIVELY expressing ones beliefs to try to create change is a positive good. And that it need not be limited to a personal boycott but can and should involve petitions, marches, protests etc. I believe in an activist approach to democracy, in general. I would RATHER see protest and counter protest, than see a quiet boycott and the Univ making a decision based purely on revenues. I think thats better, if the protests remain not only nonviolent, but issue focused, and rational in their arguments.

But of course there is no obligation on anyone to protest or counter protest, and no obligation on the part of the Univ to make decisions based on the presence or absence of protests. I do think that protests of a significant magnitude (not sure how strong they will become at UMd-CP) can influence a Universitys image, and the Univ MIGHT choose to take those into account in deciding what businesses to include at the food court. IF they do so, than anyone who disagrees and has NOT engaged in a counterprotest and then complains about the Univs decision, is being unreasonable, I think. Of course in the USA we have the right to complain unreasonably.

If this was a policy on campus or even a political leader who is passing a law that many disagree with, I can see the value in these methods, but for a business this doesn't make a lot of sense. Although I don't agree with their view, my issue here is they could be doing things in a much more productive manner. If they truly want to make their stance effective, instead of getting people to sign a petition to get this business kicked off campus (which is highly unlikely already) they could just get people to sign a pledge to not support this business and encourage others not to do so. The whole ideas of petitions and Kiss-ins seem nothing more than attempt to get attention rather than getting something productive done. When you get groups together like this, kind of like the Occupy protesting, your message is diluted because you don't make a clear stance. Instead of telling people to kick Chick Fil-A off campus, why not say you should not support this organization and here's why...does that not make sense?

[InvaderBryce]

Originally Posted by pgtitans

Okay, well I guess we can agree to disagree about how we view what is written.

Of course. No hard feelings.