Chick Fil A and boycott (fast food, radical, gay people, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how will he know if a person that buys a meal from chick FIL A is gay or not. every gay person knows now what his believes are if i was gay i would not go there and give him my business. again America is a free market economy. businesses are started to make money nothing else. i don't expect a gay business man to give money to causes directly affecting them in adverse way! the gay man will take the money he makes from his costumers regardless of weather they are gay or not. and give to causes that are pro gay! no hypocrisy there non!
Yes, that's the entire point of the boycott. But the donations were only recently revealed...before that he was quite willing to accept the money and stay silent.
My point is that your assertion that he's somehow morally wonderful for allowing gay people to buy food just means he wants cash. It's not a moral stance that CFA does not discriminate who can buy their chicken. It's just business. It's like if a business owner took money from African Americans while donating to the KKK. I'm not exactly going to be starry eyed by how wonderful he is for allowing them to give money to the business.
People have as much choice in their sexual orientation as the young lady had in choosing her race.
If you believe otherwise, make a choice to be gay next week, and come back and report to us on how it went.
How can you compare ones sexuality with ones skin color? Ones a choice while the other is genatics.
Make a choice to be gay next week....I don't think so, I made my choice when I was 15. Tempted to be gay but chose to be straight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And how are you defining "morality"? As I said before, you can't blame it on "God" or anything because the bible doesn't say they shouldn't be allowed to get married or adopt children. Might say homosexuality is wrong. But it says the same about tattoos, and I don't see anyone trying to keep tattooed people from getting married or adopting. So the only logical conclusion is that you choose to oppose gay marriage and adoption because of you - not "God" or religion.
Now, how better to judge the morality of something than to determine whether that something is necessarily harmful or risky in and of itself, as compared to its necessity and benefit?
Heterosexuals have a choice in their sexual partners too. What's your point? If you mean to claim that homosexuals choose to be gay (that is, they choose to be attracted to people of the same sex), I'll have to see scientific proof of that as well.
Blame God, Lord forbid, I wouldn't blame God but you really should read the Bible before you make such claims.
Whare does it say tattoos? Perhaps the same area as shellfish and mixed linens? And what does a tattoo have to do with marriage? Marriage is between one man and one woman, husband and wife and yes God and the Bible says this repeatedly and show examples of those who did otherwise and their chastisment.
How better to judge? If you cannot see the damage physically, mentally, and spiritually then I cannot show you, I leave that in the Lords hands.
Choose to be attracted to people of the same sex? Not at all, we are all tempted in many ways and many forms, it is acting on said temptations and expecting others to respect your choices causes the problems. And I realize there is scientific proof for just about anything as well as against just about anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat
So your morals do not include freedom from religion? Interesting stance. But at least you are honest in saying you have an issue with people boycotting because of the reason they are boycotting, not because a boycott is somehow wrong in and of itself. For that I give you appreciation. I would feel that people boycotting a place that donated to pro-gay marriage group were being amoral as well.
You do know that their is no freedom from religion, every opinion, in its own way, is a form of religion. So when someone claims to have not religion, that is their religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
Pro-moral? What does that mean?
Same as anti-gay just a nicer way to say it, you know like pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-gay. Why does the opposition have to be anti-whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gysmo
why cant gay people keep their perverted abnormal behavior to themselves? there are not very many gay people. and they are welcome at the restaurants. he is not saying they cant go to his restaurents and spend money!
Exactly, and they find fault in that as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat
Of course he's not. Refusing to take money from people he believes to be amoral and unworthy of equal rights would take real principles. He's more than happy to take their money...quite a moral man, truly
At least he isn't asking them "gay or straight", he is treating them all equally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Not so. Gays are just people like anyone else, some nasty and some nice.
But they are fitter and more prosperous than most Chick-Fil-A customers. As such, their avoidance of the scrumptious fowl eatery will probably have a negligible effect on its bottom line, since I don't see them chowing down a lot on deep-fried chicken with fries while seated at plastic tables.
Now, if the restaurant in question were Le Coq au Vin avec Bon Pain, the rainbow tribe might have a little more throw weight in the boycott realm.
But no.
Rosie Odonnal and Barney Frank? More fit than most CFA customers? Really? I guess we should take a poll.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParallelJJCat
Many people who are for the CFA boycott are against what the Mayor is attempting to do. This may surprise you, but the mayor of Boston is not the gay spokesman of America. I know, shocking news.
And I'm not speaking to whether or not he has to like his customers, I'm questioning the so-called morals of a man willing to take their money and use it to fund causes that directly affect them in an averse manner.
Not so. Gays are just people like anyone else, some nasty and some nice.
But they are fitter and more prosperous than most Chick-Fil-A customers. As such, their avoidance of the scrumptious fowl eatery will probably have a negligible effect on its bottom line, since I don't see them chowing down a lot on deep-fried chicken with fries while seated at plastic tables.
Now, if the restaurant in question were Le Coq au Vin avec Bon Pain, the rainbow tribe might have a little more throw weight in the boycott realm.
But no.
Coq au vin is great and if you haven't tried it then you should. It's just rooster stewed with wine, herbs, and root vegetables. It's a regional standard in Provence. BTW you can just say pain if you mean bread as bon pain just means good bread and I doubt anyone wants to buy bad bread.
how will he know if a person that buys a meal from chick FIL A is gay or not. every gay person knows now what his believes are if i was gay i would not go there and give him my business. again America is a free market economy. businesses are started to make money nothing else. i don't expect a gay business man to give money to causes directly affecting them in adverse way! the gay man will take the money he makes from his costumers regardless of weather they are gay or not. and give to causes that are pro gay! no hypocrisy there non!
Here's the nuance in your post that is the main point. A gay business person is most likely not donating to or supporting causes and organizations that are advocating for denying civil right to heterosexuals.
Yes, that's the entire point of the boycott. But the donations were only recently revealed...before that he was quite willing to accept the money and stay silent.
My point is that your assertion that he's somehow morally wonderful for allowing gay people to buy food just means he wants cash. It's not a moral stance that CFA does not discriminate who can buy their chicken. It's just business. It's like if a business owner took money from African Americans while donating to the KKK. I'm not exactly going to be starry eyed by how wonderful he is for allowing them to give money to the business.
i don't believe he was allowing gay people to eat at his restaurant he didn't care what kind of people walk in. as long as they pay. what he does with that money is his and only his business weather you think it moral or not that your opinion. and gay people were not giving money to chik fila. they payed for a meal just as any normal people would! business owner do not take money from people for no reason. business people take money from people for services rendered. its not like business people are asking for charity!
How can you compare ones sexuality with ones skin color? Ones a choice while the other is genatics.
Make a choice to be gay next week....I don't think so, I made my choice when I was 15. Tempted to be gay but chose to be straight.
You're bisexual. I guarantee you that most heterosexuals don't feel they could make the choice to be attracted to the same sex tomorrow.
I'm asexual and was born that way. I don't experience sexual attraction. I can't force myself to be attracted to anyone of either sex.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinD69
You do know that their is no freedom from religion, every opinion, in its own way, is a form of religion. So when someone claims to have not religion, that is their religion.
....no
Regardless, I'm referring to freedom from OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. Which your moral code doesn't allow for. You want to force others to obey and follow the tenets of your faith, which seems a rather unChristlike thing to do. I assume you'd be fine with it if I passed a law that forced you to obey mine? I'm still making it up as I go along, but all weddings will legally be required to be done in the nude and can only be between people of the same eye color. You're down with that, right?
Here's the nuance in your post that is the main point. A gay business person is most likely not donating to or supporting causes and organizations that are advocating for denying civil right to heterosexuals.
you know! pedophile will start fighting for civil right to molest kids as well. where will it stop! one word perversion!! the human race is being perverted!!
Coq au vin is great and if you haven't tried it then you should. It's just rooster stewed with wine, herbs, and root vegetables. It's a regional standard in Provence. BTW you can just say pain if you mean bread as bon pain just means good bread and I doubt anyone wants to buy bad bread.
Have you ever been to Provence? I have, and I love it. The air is scented with the perfume of lavender fields. The sky is deep, rich cobalt. The very weeds in the fields are often wildflowers and poppies. And table wine is often chilled Beaujolias, so accessibly drinkable and brimming with the essence of the gay gamay.
There are so many reasons not to eat crappy food. Here's another.
I think it's fine if Northern Mayors give their opinion about this. After all the owner gave his and it was pretty strong and not a mainstream opinion in the North, Mid West - or most of the country ot the world for that matter. It's a bible belt sentiment.
HOWEVER, let the open their store in whatever city. Vote by going elsewhere. Is greasy fast food chicken all that hard to find?
If people don't go there they will close down. Simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
