Chick Fil-A debate missing the point

Links234

This is a very good article on how this has been misrepresented. too many people seem to think the uproar is about the CEO's "opinions" and are oblivious to the kind of hate that the company is funding.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/chick-fil-a-debate-missing-the-point/

However, the real reason that those who support equality should avoid the chicken sandwich chain is who Chick Fil-A donates money to. Chick Fil-A donated at least $5 million to anti-gay groups between 2003 and 2010. In 2010 alone, Chick Fil-A, through its charitable arm, donated $1.9 million to anti-gay causes. These include organizations such as Exodus International and the Family Research Council that actively work to spread disinformation and prejudice about gays and lesbians.

Exodus International is a religious organization that, under the guise of therapy, promotes the idea that non-heterosexual orientations are disordered, perverse, diseased, and immoral. This organization operates by reinforcing societal prejudices in vulnerable individuals and claims that, through "reparative therapy" including therapy, prayer, and medical treatments, gays and lesbians can become heterosexual. However, this notion that sexual orientation can be altered has been thoroughly condemned by multiple medical and psychological organizations including the American Psychological Association, which condemns the practice as unethical, ineffective, and harmful. Exodus International also participated in a 2009 conference in Uganda discussing how to "wipe out" homosexuality in that country. That conference including appalling discussions of psychological and physical torture of gays and lesbians, and not long after, Uganda's Kill The Gays bill was introduced by a participant of that conference.

The Family Research Council has an anti-gay track record that is cringe-worthy. In fact, it has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its repeated heinous and inaccurate statements about LGBT Americans. Prominent members of the FRC often publicly make wildly prejudicial statements against LGBT Americans including, among other things, that being gay makes one more likely to be a pedophile, that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would lead to an increase of same-sex rape, and that homosexuality ought to be criminalized. Tony Perkins, president of FRC, wrote an ugle article in the Washington Post following public suicides of gay teens after intense bullying. In his article, he blames their suicide on their "sexual conduct," calling the teens mentally disordered for being gay. This group lobbies against any rights for LGBT Americans including non-discrimination laws, and any legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

Again, the point is not Cathy's words. He, like every American, has the constitutional right to make any such statements, regardless of how insulting they may be. And no, there shouldn't be a boycott over his statements, for if we boycotted a company every time their leaders said something insensitive or bigoted, there would hardly be a company for Americans to spend their money at.

The point is, as many media organizations seem to have conveniently forgotten, the donations to anti-gay groups that come from Chick Fil-A's profits.

So if you decide to eat at Chick Fil-A, do so with the knowledge that some portion of your profit goes to fund efforts to spread prejudice against gays and lesbians and deny them equal rights. Some of that money may go to a group that shames gay youths into thinking that they are disordered or perverts and in need of therapy. Or it may go to a hate group that goes on television and falsely claims that "pedophilia is a homosexual problem."

joseph brand

I'm not sure that everyone is missing the point.

I for one, knew about their support of hate groups. Sub-human scum.


Relevant:



I wonder did the family all sit down and talk about gays while eating their chicken breast, on buns, sucking on a bone and wiping gravy off their chin? :pac:

vibe666

regardless of that, a big point they seem to be missing is that the founders of the US went to great lengths to ensure the separation of church and state and for freedom and justice for all regardless of religion, race or anything else that might make them different from others.

obviously that's failed on several fronts, but the core point is, that no group, religious or otherwise has any right to infringe on the rights of any other group because of their own beliefs. people in the US have the right to marry regardless of what religion they are (or not) part of and christianity certainly does not have the sole rights to marriage of any kind.

there *may* be a case for them to have some say over whom in their own religion can and cannot marry (at least in their own chuches), but in a secular state they have no right to dictate the rules for the entire nation, whatever way you choose to slice it.

Icepick

vibe666 wrote: »

regardless of that, a big point they seem to be missing is that the founders of the US went to great lengths to ensure the separation of church and state and for freedom and justice for all regardless of religion, race or anything else that might make them different from others.

ever heard of slavery?

mikemac1

I was looking at those household names and wondering how exactly does a company become pro-gay
What do you do? Press releases? Money? Is it cynical marketing to win favour and capture the pink dollar? I didn't invent that word, it's on wikipedia

So a bit of googling found this pretty excellent summary of 10 companies and what exactly they do

http://www.queeried.com/10-pro-gay-companies-to-go-and-spend-all-your-money-with/

Benefits for employees sound great, Bill Gates won't mind


I have no idea what Referendum 71 or Proposition 8 are
But some of the companies seem to be handing money to lobby groups

And there will be other companies on the others side handing money to lobbyists

Corporations should stay out of all of this in my opinion, pro AND anti

The likes of Microsoft with tens of thousands of employees in Washington State and families and others who work with them, that's a huge amount of votes.
Company declares a position and you've just swung an election

philologos

Is it possible to have companies which are neither homophobic, nor applauding homosexuality?

I find it bizarre the idea of referring to companies as pro-gay or anti-gay to be honest with you.

dlofnep

philologos wrote: »

Is it possible to have companies which are neither homophobic, nor applauding homosexuality?

I find it bizarre the idea of referring to companies as pro-gay or anti-gay to be honest with you.

You find it bizarre because you're on their side. It should be bizarre that a company could ever be one or the other - but then again they actively donate millions of dollars to anti-gay organisations. That's the difference.

They are unequivocally anti-gay.

Image if the company was donating money to an organisation that actively opposed marriage between white women and black men? Would you say that they weren't against black people?

philologos

dlofnep wrote: »

You find it bizarre because you're on their side. It should be bizarre that a company could ever be one or the other - but then again they actively donate millions of dollars to anti-gay organisations. That's the difference.

They are unequivocally anti-gay.

Image if the company was donating money to an organisation that actively opposed marriage between white women and black men? Would you say that they weren't against black people?

On whose side?

I'm not talking about this particular firm, I'm talking in general. I find the idea of thinking of companies as anti-gay or pro-gay, a little weird to say the least. What makes you pro-gay as a firm? Is it the company that screams the loudest for same-sex marriage?
What makes you anti-gay as a firm? Not applauding or screaming for same-sex marriage? Or?

The race example as deeply flawed* but it is is useful for this discussion - I don't talk about firms as being pro-black or anti-black. I don't hear firms applauding how "pro-black" they are.

* There is no evidence that sexuality is biologically determined.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

What makes you anti-gay as a firm?

As has already been pointed out to you, giving money to anti-gay organisations.

MrP

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

As has already been pointed out to you, giving money to anti-gay organisations.

MrP

What do you mean by anti-gay? - I'll agree hands down that Exodus International could be anti-gay insofar as it encourages "therapy" on the issue. Or does it go beyond this to simply disagreeing with same-sex marriage?

Either way I think it's a bit silly to refer to companies as pro-gay or anti-gay. I'd actually prefer if companies weren't either, they'd probably be better run that way also.

vibe666

Icepick wrote: »

ever heard of slavery?

yeah, except that thing.

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

What do you mean by anti-gay? - I'll agree hands down that Exodus International could be anti-gay insofar as it encourages "therapy" on the issue. Or does it go beyond this to simply disagreeing with same-sex marriage?

Either way I think it's a bit silly to refer to companies as pro-gay or anti-gay. I'd actually prefer if companies weren't either, they'd probably be better run that way also.

If a company is funding groups that oppose equal rights for gay/lesbians, who support the idea that a homosexual can be fired purely based on their sexuality and that homosexual acts should be criminalised, then I don't think it's a huge leap to refer to said company as anti-gay.

philologos

koth wrote: »

If a company is funding groups that oppose equal rights for gay/lesbians, who support the idea that a homosexual can be fired purely based on their sexuality and that homosexual acts should be criminalised, then I don't think it's a huge leap to refer to said company as anti-gay.

I'm not defending the Chick Fil-A. Indeed it's curious to say the least as to why it's getting so much coverage on an Irish forum.

I was simply asking for a precise definition, and indeed probing into why it is necessary for companies to be either pro-gay or anti-gay.

Links234

philologos wrote: »

The race example as deeply flawed* but it is is useful for this discussion - I don't talk about firms as being pro-black or anti-black. I don't hear firms applauding how "pro-black" they are.

* There is no evidence that sexuality is biologically determined.

Actually, in terms of firms speaking up on issues of race, a huge contributing factor to the ending of apartheid was pressure on firms to pull out from South Africa. This is a very analogous situation to LGBT civil rights and the struggle for equality in today's world. The fact that the thought of firms being "pro" or "anti" black probably doesn't even enter into your head right now, is a situation I think that most people would like to see in respects to LGBT issues, that we don't even entertain the idea any longer or the idea of a company being pro/anti LGBT is alien to us.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I was simply asking for a... probing

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

Actually, in terms of firms speaking up on issues of race, a huge contributing factor to the ending of apartheid was pressure on firms to pull out from South Africa. This is a very analogous situation to LGBT civil rights and the struggle for equality in today's world. The fact that the thought of firms being "pro" or "anti" black probably doesn't even enter into your head right now, is a situation I think that most people would like to see in respects to LGBT issues, that we don't even entertain the idea any longer or the idea of a company being pro/anti LGBT is alien to us.

The thought of "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" firms shouldn't enter into my mind either. Indeed, I'd rather that companies didn't use their profits to promote either and would spend differently if I found out a company was doing either.

Bannasidhe

Firstly :There was no way in hell I would give my money to a company that I know is going to use some of that money to advocate against equal rights.

Secondly : I am never going to give my money (and I loove fried chicken) to this company as I am so bloody sick of threads on them.

MrPudding

philologos wrote: »

I'm not defending the Chick Fil-A. Indeed it's curious to say the least as to why it's getting so much coverage on an Irish forum.

I was simply asking for a precise definition, and indeed probing into why it is necessary for companies to be either pro-gay or anti-gay.

What would you call a company that allows employees that are parents increased flexibility in their working hours to help them in their family life? What would you call a company that has policies that make it difficult for parents to work due to inflexibility in hours or such like?

What would you call a company that encouraged employees to be a member of a union? What would you call a company that actively discourages and makes it difficult for employees to join a union?

Companies are called pro and anti things all the time. To see it seems quite reasonable and simple. I am not sure I understand your difficult is grasping this rather elementary concept.

MrP

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

I'm not defending the Chick Fil-A. Indeed it's curious to say the least as to why it's getting so much coverage on an Irish forum.

I don't think it's that unusual at all. A lot of American news travels quickly across the globe. And I'd imagine that some people don't view equality as a local issue. If one of the countries that is viewed as a world leader can't treat a subset of its citizens as equals then it makes it all the harder to make things better for homosexuals in countries where their sexuality can get them killed.

Cienciano

Not sure if this should go in the funny side thread, the hazzards thread or here. Don't know whether to laugh, cry or facepalm either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF00qCIGe04

Delirium

As a counter-point to that video, Gay rights activists to hold kiss protests at Chick-fil-A restaurants

Gay rights activists are planning to hold on Friday a "national same-sex kiss day at Chick-fil-A," the restaurant chain whose president's opposition to same-sex marriage sparked a media frenzy.

"Let's show Chick-fil-A thanks for their support of Love, Equality, and the Real Definition of Marriage!" organizers posted on their Facebook page.

Same-sex couples are expected to arrive at restaurants across the country and kiss in protest, then post video or photos of the event on social media.

Links234

philologos wrote: »

The thought of "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" firms shouldn't enter into my mind either. Indeed, I'd rather that companies didn't use their profits to promote either.

I don't think it's a particularly accurate statement to say that are "promoting" either, it's not an equal debate and not like either side promoting coke rather than pepsi or vice verse, it's about basic human rights. A company stating that their employees would not and should not be fired because of their sexuality or gender identity, or making a public statement that they support laws that would mean that persons who are LGBT wouldn't be denied or evicted from accommodation, or are denied medical care, and so forth. Statements like that are expressing a wish that LGBT people should be on equal footing with the rest of society in terms of employment, housing, marriage and many other issues. That's not "promotion", that should be the default. You don't see companies making statements that LGBT people are better, or anything that would be the inverse of the claims the likes of chick fil-a sponsored groups are making. So you can see that companies who are on the pro-LGBT rights side are not "applauding homosexuality" as you said.

I think we are in agreement that the very idea of companies taking a stance on this issue should be unthinkable, because LGBT people shouldn't be at such a societal disadvantage in the first place. But sadly, they are.

Oh and would you mind telling us if you would have rathered firms had not taken a stance on the apartheid issue also?

philologos

philologos wrote: »

The thought of "pro-gay" or "anti-gay" firms shouldn't enter into my mind either. Indeed, I'd rather that companies didn't use their profits to promote either and would spend differently if I found out a company was doing either.

As it has been pointed out the "pro-gay" side is simply promoting equal rights. The anti-gay side is promoting bigotry and institutionalised discrimination.

I doubt you would have any issue with any company supporting any civil rights group such as the NAACP, or being "pro-coloured". And I'm sure you'll be repulsed by any company that claims that marriage is only between a man and a woman of the same colour and supports known hate groups with it's profit.

This situation is no different regardless of the language you and others try to use to obscure it with.

pH

Links234 wrote: »

So you can see that companies who are on the pro-LGBT rights side are not "applauding homosexuality" as you said.

I think we are in agreement that the very idea of companies taking a stance on this issue should be unthinkable, because LGBT people shouldn't be at such a societal disadvantage in the first place. But sadly, they are.

Just to reiterate - it's become the norm for those who want to couch their dislike for homosexuality in "acceptable" terms to produce this massive strawman and rail against it.

There really isn't a "pro-gay" agenda out there - no one is spending money encouraging heterosexual red-blooded god-fearin' Christians to "have a go at the gay" - money is being spend on "anti-discrimination".

phil et al shake their heads and ask "why do you need to promote either a pro or anti gay agenda" - why can't you just stfu? Well obviously that suits those who dislike the equalities already hard won - and would rather (at the very least) that no more equality was achieved, however we all know it's not a matter of being "pro" or "anti" gay it's a matter of being "pro" or "anti" gay discrimination.

Liamario

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfiAK1zNznw

ShooterSF

Wow I got about a minute into that video and to see a black (assuming here) American argue against equality shocked me. Short memories eh!

strobe

'Pro-gay' is a weird ass term though. 'Pro-equality' is surely better and more accurate. 'Pro-gay' makes it sound like a company is 'promoting homosexuality' to paraphrase Philo. Which'd just be as odd and unwelcome as 'anti-gay' companies ehh, unpromoting(?) homosexuality.

strobe

strobe wrote: »

'Pro-gay' is a weird ass term though. 'Pro-equality' is surely better and more accurate. 'Pro-gay' makes it sound like a company is 'promoting homosexuality' to paraphrase Philo. Which'd just be as odd and unwelcome as 'anti-gay' companies ehh, unpromoting(?) homosexuality.

Well it's a lot like the "well you can't prove God doesn't exist" line of argument.
By pretending that "pro gay" means promoting a gay lifestyle or whatever, people can pretend that the debate is between equals instead of between people promoting equality and people wanting to excuse bigotry and discrimination.

It think it's done intentionally but also unintentionally by people experiencing the cognitive dissonance of their "loving religion" telling them to discriminate.

Dades

On topic - I also think the term pro-gay is open to (deliberate) misinterpretation. Anti-gay company policies obviously exist with companies like Chick Fil-A, but the opposite would be better described as pro-equality, imo.

Otacon

IMO companies, like people, are 'issue-neutral' until they actually take a side.

In the case of this company, giving money to anti-gay organisations shows what side they have taken.

vibe666

more nails being hit squarely on the head (via facebook)

Bannasidhe

One important aspect of this whole chick a gate (couldn't resist) debate is many commentators are complaining that the mayor of Chicago had no right to condemn the company for their anti-Gay marriage stance.

So, I would like to ask those people how they view this comment by the Governor of Mississippi:

Governor condemns Mississippi church's refusal to allow black couple to marry
Friday, August 03, 2012 - 08:22 AM

Mississippi's governor has described the refusal by a predominantly white church to allow a black couple to get married there as "unfortunate".

Phil Bryant said the state should encourage the union of any couple - as long as they were a man and a woman.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/governor-condemns-mississippi-churchs-refusal-to-allow-black-couple-to-marry-561685.html

Dades

In case anyone's wondering - there's been a PURGE!

All the off-topic replies to philologos' point have been moved on-topic to here.

This thread is for corporate policies and whatnot... the other thread for gay marriage rights stuff... got it?

Kthxbye.

doctoremma

Dades wrote: »

In case anyone's wondering - there's been a PURGE!

All the off-topic replies to philologos' point have been moved on-topic to here.

This thread is for corporate policies and whatnot... the other thread for gay marriage rights stuff... got it?

Kthxbye.

Ta very much, have dinner on me:

Dades

I just had an enormous chicken lunch and that is pushing me over the edge. :pac:

vibe666

Dades wrote: »

I just had an enormous chicken lunch and that is pushing me over the edge. :pac:

i've often wondered what would happen to my heart and arteries if i ordered a bargain bucket all to myself. :pac:

or got one of the mega family buckets and just ate all the skin off everything. :eek:

i wonder how KFC feel about teh gays (to stay on topic)?

i want some chicken now too

doctoremma

vibe666 wrote: »

i wonder how KFC feel about teh gays (to stay on topic)?

According to a viral video, they love 'em:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kfc-loves-gays-john-goodman-colonel-sanders-new-funny-die-video-aimed-chick-fil-a-article-1.1127382

Would anyone actively seek to buy from a company that has declared support for gay rights? Or is it largely just avoiding those who advocate hate and discrimination?

Dades

I hate the chips in KFC so no matter who they profess to embrace I'd rather not eat there.

Corkfeen

I haven't gone to KFC since that video of them playing chicken football(slaughter) came out.

MrPudding

Corkfeen wrote: »

I haven't gone to KFC since that video of them playing chicken football(slaughter) came out.

But it tastes so goood, when it touches your lips...

MrP

Galvasean

Liamario wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfiAK1zNznw

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow I got about a minute into that video and to see a black (assuming here) American argue against equality shocked me. Short memories eh!

He is actually asked about that later and says it's a disgrace that the gays are hijacking the equality movement. Quite sad really.

joseph brand

Dades wrote: »

I hate the chips in KFC so no matter who they profess to embrace I'd rather not eat there.

KFC is the dirtiest fast food restaurant I've ever been in. McDonalds is like Buckingham Palace in comparison. Plus, their gravy ain't what it used to be.

Tip: If you lament over the way gravy used to taste from Pat Grace's chicken, there's a chipper in Dundrum, San Marino and they have the old style gravy. Nom Nom!!

Delirium

via boingboing.net

Report: Long before CEO's douchey gay marriage comments, Chick-Fil-A were jerks to workers

In Salon, an article about series of lawsuits against Chick-Fil-A by former employees who claim managers "have wielded their authority over workers in ways that break the law: firing a Muslim for refusing to pray to Jesus; firing a manager so that she’d become a stay at home mom; and punishing workers for objecting to sexual harassment." In one incident, a supervisor is alleged to have phoned immigration authorities to have immigrant workers deported as punishment for complaining about sexual harassment. Kiss 'em goodbye today.

Links234

In a very good post on the debate here: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288 there's an extremely poigniant quote

This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t.

vibe666

this guy gets it! http://i.imgur.com/vJcsx.png

jaydoxx

vibe666 wrote: »

this guy gets it! http://i.imgur.com/vJcsx.png

Didn't know fried chicken constituted a national past-time:rolleyes:

Should I chance putting down "potato" as a hobby/interest on my C.V?:p

vibe666

jaydoxx wrote: »

Didn't know fried chicken constituted a national past-time:rolleyes:

Should I chance putting down "potato" as a hobby/interest on my C.V?:p

only if you take it seriously and give it the respect it deserves.

respect teh spud! :P

jank

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow I got about a minute into that video and to see a black (assuming here) American argue against equality shocked me. Short memories eh!

You know that is a racist statement but you probably don't know it!:rolleyes:

Sonics2k

jank wrote: »

You know that is a racist statement but you probably don't know it!:rolleyes:

No it's not.

It's pointing out the irony of a group of people that were previously heavily oppressed in society, but now have the freedoms they deserve, arguing about another group of people being denied the freedoms they deserve.

Corkfeen

jank wrote: »

You know that is a racist statement but you probably don't know it!:rolleyes:

Pointing out the sad reality of when a man can't even recognise how he's condemning a group of people's right as his own race was previously is pointing out the obvious to be honest (You'd be pushing it to claim racism).

Edit: Sonic got there first..