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.
Yeah, some of us aren't convinced that the leopard can change his shorts. Since I mostly avoid fast food anyway, and there's so many options for the rare times like road trips where it's harder to avoid, I still don't patronize them. But neither am I throwing a fit when work sometimes brings in CFA for breakfast.
Right because they're Christian and they did it once before. But what did they do again? Spread religion in Africa?
I’m aware of his context....but Isn’t that what we are doing here? Discussing public opinion?
For sure. It's just disheartening to see things like earlier in the thread about shunning them, or how their business shouldn't exist. Like, yeah, they're being bigoted. But the people being affected by that bigotry are being at worst inconvenienced, as by far most venues are perfectly happy to host them. So is that really worth somebody losing their livelihood? With the impact of that bigotry so low these days, isn't the long game, soft sell to change hearts and minds a better approach?
Plus, any time these tolerance/intolerance topics come up, I think of https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/3...-the-outgroup/, and my past actions of shunning all conservatives and how that was counterproductive in pushing for progressive change.
For sure. It's just disheartening to see things like earlier in the thread about shunning them, or how their business shouldn't exist. Like, yeah, they're being bigoted. But the people being affected by that bigotry are being at worst inconvenienced, as by far most venues are perfectly happy to host them. So is that really worth somebody losing their livelihood? With the impact of that bigotry so low these days, isn't the long game, soft sell to change hearts and minds a better approach?
Plus, any time these tolerance/intolerance topics come up, I think of https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/3...-the-outgroup/, and my past actions of shunning all conservatives and how that was counterproductive in pushing for progressive change.
Admittedly I jumped in around page 5 or so, engaging hey_guy specifically, so if there was shunning/business shouldn't exist prior to, I didn't go back that far. As I said in response to twingles, there are limits to the "protest" and that certainly doesn't include bodily harm to the owners. If their bottom line is impacted by this story in so much as more people are driven away than drive to their service offering....welp, that's how the Free Market works. No one is entitled to a successful, thriving business because the doors are open.
Who's to say it's an inappropriate reaction? Just because you believe it is doesn't mean that it actually is.
Also, tread carefully. Personal attacks are frowned upon on CD.
Not going to split hairs here. I was not attempting to classify this situation as an inappropriate reaction, I was simply indicating my understanding of what it means to exercise emotional intelligence.
So I am gay, I do not eat at Chic Fila (sp?). How is that being obsessed? They discriminate me and I do not eat there. In fact I do not eat fast food period. But if, with a gun to my head, I were forced to choose between this fast food and say Popeyes, I'd probably choose Popeyes. Even though I have no knowledge of Popeyes except they came up with some chicken sandwich that broke the internet.
So tell me how is that a lack of emotional intelligence? I do not have any social media accounts, so I do not influence other people to do anything. How could you realistically look at my situation and think what I am doing is a cancel culture? I as an individual person making this decision. Why don't you look at them and say your approach is canceling or erasing gays? So how am I the biggest hypocrite here?
Your decision to not patronize Chick-Fil-A is definitely your right, for whatever reason you choose, and you do not have to explain that reason to anyone if you choose not to. Furthermore no one has the right to chastise you for exercising your rights because they disagree with it. It's the same as with this venue for choosing not to marry the gay couple. Would you feel OK if people boycotted you or made death threats against you for choosing not to eat at Chick-fil-A, which is perfectly within your rights? It's their right and it's not illegal. I do not see either of these situations as a display of the lack of emotional intelligence.
The focus of my comments is towards those who choose to take actions (i.e. boycotting, making death threats, etc.) in situations, that honestly, have nothing to do with them, because they feel compelled to act through some sort of righteous indignation. This is where I feel like a lack of emotional intelligence is on display.
A mature, emotionally intelligent person will realize that this situation really has nothing to do with them, has no reflection on them as a person simply because they have the same beliefs or lifestyle, is not a personal attack on them, and therefore they will not react with boycotting, making death threats, or anything remotely similar to those reactions. It's those people who choose to take every little thing as some sort of personal attack on them who tend to create the most drama when any sort of event like this happens.
That gay couple has probably moved on with their lives, not given a second thought to what happened, and have probably already found a venue that gladly accepts them, while some people on the internet (not connected to this situation in any way) choose to continue to fight the fight on their behalf. Why? Because those people who are continuing the drama are inserting themselves into the picture, taking this personally, and hence, exercising low emotional intelligence.
Last edited by uncchgrad; 04-14-2021 at 08:45 PM..
No. Emotional intelligence means being able to deal with your emotions responsibly and not getting triggered in such a way that you react inappropriately to a given situation.
Your response to my post is a prime example of low emotional intelligence.
So in addition to setting up false equivalencies, I see you also have ad hominem attacks in your repertoire. Safe to assume you were not a member of the Dialectic or Philanthropic Societies during your time in Chapel Hill?
Good lord, you are an old fart aren't you? You do not have to self-deprecate all the time to be liked. You are who you are. We all do not have to fit into a box... not all gays like cocktails or dresses. We are all people... different and same. I am pretty sure there are lots of murderous mothertrucker psychopaths among us too.
I don't consider characterizing anyone as kind or gentle as deprecation.
I was trying to be informative about those of us who are the world's most hated minority.
it's ironic that many people try to associate gays with all sorts of sexual predation, deviation and pedophilia since a whole they are gentle and compassionate folks aren't a threat to anyone, and these reprehensible acts are overwhelmingly committed by straight men.
And the comment referring to women's fashion was just to remind people of the huge contributions and influence gays have in everyday American life that goes unacknowledged.
You are correct in that being born/oriented gay occurs across all types of personalities, but in general, gays aren't out committing the majority of violent crimes in the world. It's just not their our disposition.
But thanks for supporting me with your insults. It provide hints about other aspects of who you are.
I'm all for people gay or straight getting married wherever they want to, but I respect people's views. At least as much as I can. This is a private business that evidently has a religious owner. I think the owner has a right to say no I don't want to participate. I know its 2021 and I wish it wasn't so, but its a waste of time trying to deal with people's views. At least the response offered other suggestions for the couple. The best thing is to find a location where businesses Religious views don't come into play. Now if this type of refusal on religious grounds was going on everywhere the couple inquired. That would be an entirely different matter. That would be a random business not wanting to participate, to regional discrimination of gay people. Then believe me I would have an entirely different opinion on this. I would be filing one complaint after the other.
I kinda agree with the religious freedom aspect and recommend taking thy business elsewhere.
But I'd also like to remind those refusing to do business with gays that they should be refusing service to anyone who is divorced, and all the other ridiculous views from the same book they're obiding by like men having the right to multiple wives and treating them as property... slave ownership, the sins of eating certain foods or wearing clothes made from certain materials.
They should be asked why every other un-enlightened view was allowed to evolve except the issue of a small percentage of humans who are same sex oriented which obviously was happening during biblical times and likely at the same percentage as now and forever, it's genetic.
As far as Chic Fil A goes, the Cathay family were good people and well-intentioned and have done good things through the success of the restaurant.
They were of the intelligence level of interpreting some of the Bible literally despite most of its lessons and stories meant as a parable. That's their unfortunate take away which is misguided, but they still are good people and well intentioned.
Now I do take issue with people like Ted Cruz, (never introduced any legislation to solve a problem) who is too lazy to try to put himself in someone else's shoes or understand the consensus on the realities of the human condition even after attending Harvard.
He was against any rights or protections for gay Americans year after year, not to mention getting disaster aid for Texas repeatedly and then voting against relief for NY NJ after Sandy.
I grew up when it was ok to attack gay people in the 80s and we've made an enormous amount of progress and all of this doubt will be relegated to the history books soon enough.
I would be outside his house picketing all the time if he was ever president.
As far as the unpleasant topic of gender and all that stuff for children, every adult who decides to produce children, has a duty/responsibility to understand and think about this stuff because every new life has a chance of being born intersex with both reproductive components and then a doctor and his scalpel make the call whether it will grow up as a male or female.
Is it legal to turn away other minorities? African American, Latino, Asian?
Race is a protected class. Sexual orientation/identity is not (at the Federal level, some states do have laws protecting it however)
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.
