Homophobic USA Fast Food Chain Chick-Fil-A

JupiterKid

Some of you may be aware of the ongoing protests by LGBT rights groups outside a number of Chick-Fil-A outlets in the USA, where the CEO has recently made many homophobic statements opposing same sex unions and donates substantial sums of money to anti-gay groups. Former US Republican vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has voiced her support of Chick-Fil-A.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/boston-mayor-blocks-chick-fil-a-franchise-from-city-over-homophobic-attitude/

There is also a discussion thread on After Hours (yes, I know!!:pac:) about this Chick Fil A controversy and predictably the ignorant homophobes have come out of the woodwork.

Link:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056716953

I'd suggest tha maybe a couple here could post some comments in that thread to counter the ignorant homophobia being bandied about - such as the "why do the gays have to shove their sexuality and demands in our faces" line.:rolleyes:

What is your position on the issue? Do you think cities in the USA are right to block Chick-Fil-A from opening? Will the boycott of the chain work or will only serve to further polarise an already hugely divided USA? Are Chick-Fil-A and other businesses well within their rights to support anti-equality and anti-gay groups as no-one is making LGBT people and their friends use their outlets?

stephen_n

The problem, as I would see it, is when does someone's right to an opinion end and homophobia begin. These people are opposed to civil rights, yes but are they preaching hatred in doing so? If it is their opinion that civil rights should not be equal, do they not have the right to so? This guy in Chick Fil A has expressed opinions that to my view are wrong but he hasn't promoted hatred towards homosexuals from what I have seen attributed to him. This campaign however is strong arming his business, to tow the line, so in doing this apart from putting jobs at risk, there is an element of accept our way or pay the consequences! Is there a middle ground I don't know but this is certainly fuel for extremists to convert marginals to their way of thinking!

baby and crumble

My opinion on this mirrors the esteemed Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

stephen_n

baby and crumble wrote: »

My opinion on this mirrors the esteemed Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

I don't think it does, does it? I thought its CEO does but maybe I'm wrong?

Annasopra

stephen_n wrote: »

The problem, as I would see it, is when does someone's right to an opinion end and homophobia begin. These people are opposed to civil rights, yes but are they preaching hatred in doing so? If it is their opinion that civil rights should not be equal, do they not have the right to so? This guy in Chick Fil A has expressed opinions that to my view are wrong but he hasn't promoted hatred towards homosexuals from what I have seen attributed to him. This campaign however is strong arming his business, to tow the line, so in doing this apart from putting jobs at risk, there is an element of accept our way or pay the consequences! Is there a middle ground I don't know but this is certainly fuel for extremists to convert marginals to their way of thinking!

Actually the business is getting stronger in Southern parts of the States.

1ZRed

mango salsa wrote: »

Actually the business is getting stronger in Southern parts of the States.

So an unhealthy fast food chain is growing in the notorious anti-gay bible belt of the south?

Ah sure what could a pack of fatties do to us anyway? We've got nothing to fear!;)

stephen_n

mango salsa wrote: »

Actually the business is getting stronger in Southern parts of the States.

So the more traditionally right wing states, harden their support?

Canard

I had a sort of discussion on FB about this. It seems everyone opposed to it is just throwing around the "stupid gays why are they in our faces" / "he doesnt discriminate against gays so who cares" / "ITS HIS FREE SPEECH!!" cards.

Why would he discriminate against gays when hes making a profit? He's using that profit to fund anti-gay organisations. That is what people are up in arms about and I think the point is to show people what exactly they're funding with their purchases, not to make him change his ways.

He doesnt have the right to oppose people's rights just because it's his opinion and use his corporate position to influence it. If he was trying to remove black people's rights, would people be so quick to brush it off as free speech? I doubt it. He might have the right to free speech but gay people deserve the right to be married. From what I've heard he's actually funding campaigns to make it illegal to be gay...of course it wouldn't happen, but it's the principle of it.

Yes he's Christian and maybe that means it's to be expected, but unless he's also campaigning to have divorce repealed then it's homophobia.

Anyone saying that people should be quiet and ignore it should be ashamed. Rosa Parks didn't cause the civil rights movement by keeping quiet.

stephen_n

Patchy~ wrote: »

He doesnt have the right to oppose people's rights just because it's his opinion and use his corporate position to influence it. If he was trying to remove black people's rights, would people be so quick to brush it off as free speech? I doubt it. He might have the right to free speech but gay people deserve the right to be married. From what I've heard he's actually funding campaigns to make it illegal to be gay...of course it wouldn't happen, but it's the principle of it.
.

Rediculous lazy excuse for an argument, made instead of a valid point. Please provide links to these funds for campaigns to make it illegal to be gay. Those who want to control other people's views are called fascists!

Canard

stephen_n wrote: »

Rediculous lazy excuse for an argument, made instead of a valid point. Please provide links to these funds for campaigns to make it illegal to be gay. Those who want to control other people's views are called fascists!

In what way is it not valid? It's food for thought to the people saying gay people are being in their face by protesting for their rights, because personally I think they'd have a different attitude if it were black people being victimised.

I dont know if that last part is meant to imply I'm a fascist or something, but anyway...

In early 2011, a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Pennsylvania donated food to a marriage seminar conducted by one of that state’s most outspoken groups against homosexuality. Advocates on both sides weighed in, and students at some universities began trying to get the chain removed from campuses.
Equality Matters, an online investigative organization dedicated to gay and lesbian issues, last year obtained tax records that showed that the company’s operators, its WinShape Foundation and the Cathy family had given millions of dollars to groups whose work includes defeating same-sex marriage initiatives and providing therapy intended to change people’s sexual orientation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/gay-rights-uproar-over-chick-fil-a-widens.html

stephen_n

Patchy~ wrote: »

In what way is it not valid? It's food for thought to the people saying gay people are being in their face by protesting for their rights, because personally I think they'd have a different attitude if it were black people being victimised.

I dont know if that last part is meant to imply I'm a fascist or something, but anyway...




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/us/gay-rights-uproar-over-chick-fil-a-widens.html

Reducing every argument to would you say that If they were black is not only lazy but pointless! Why the rights of one be less than the other? If he was anti mixed marriage or anti black marriage I would strongly disagree with him but would not disagree with his right to believe what ever he wants aslong as he is not actively courting hatred or harm on others.

I believe it is facist to impose your beliefs on others take that whatever way you want!

And where in that response does it say anything about making homosexuality illegal?

BobPresto

Doesn't look like everyone in 'Merica agrees...

Canard

stephen_n wrote: »

Reducing every argument to would you say that If they were black is not only lazy but pointless! Why the rights of one be less than the other? If he was anti mixed marriage or anti black marriage I would strongly disagree with him but would not disagree with his right to believe what ever he wants aslong as he is not actively courting hatred or harm on others.

I believe it is facist to impose your beliefs on others take that whatever way you want!

And where in that response does it say anything about making homosexuality illegal?

First you call it pointless then you essentially agree with me - its the point I'm making too. Why should the rights of one be less than the other? If people would react differently, clearly they are.

I would also strongly disagree and not impose my beliefs on him, I never said that so you can leave out the insinuations. He is courting harm and hatred though, thats the difference.

Thats a small example of the organisations, I don't know what the source is for making it illegal but does it really matter? Is what he's done already not bad enough to deserve a protest?

Annasopra

stephen_n wrote: »

So the more traditionally right wing states, harden their support?

Pretty much yeah

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html

stephen_n

Patchy~ wrote: »

First you call it pointless then you essentially agree with me - its the point I'm making too. Why should the rights of one be less than the other? If people would react differently, clearly they are.

I would also strongly disagree and not impose my beliefs on him, I never said that so you can leave out the insinuations. He is courting harm and hatred though, thats the difference.

Thats a small example of the organisations, I don't know what the source is for making it illegal but does it really matter? Is what he's done already not bad enough to deserve a protest?

How do I agree with you in anyway? I state that if he was anti black marriage or mixed marriage that I would disagree with him but not with his right to his opinion. Saying that I would change my attitude if it was one group rather than another is wrong and it's essentially saying that one groups rights rank higher than another's.

Your saying he doesn't have the right to hold views contrary to yours. His views in my opinion are fundamentally wrong but you are suggesting he should be attacked for having them and sharing them with people of the same views!

The catholic church is the strongest opponent of gay marriage in this country, so does that mean anyone contributing to that organisation should be decried? Should we start a campaign against Germany which has a religious tax and contributes something in the region of 4 billion a year to the catholic church?

stephen_n

mango salsa wrote: »

Pretty much yeah

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html

Which goes back to the OP's point about polarizing and already divided landscape!

Turtwig

stephen_n wrote: »

The problem, as I would see it, is when does someone's right to an opinion end and homophobia begin.

Homophobia begins when a person has an irrational fear of or discomfort from homosexual people. Simple enough really. Hatred has nothing to do with it. A homophobe might hate gays but that doesn't mean you could get a homophobe who fully recognising gays as equals but just also happens to fear them.

stephen_n

Jernal wrote: »

Homophobia begins when a person has an irrational fear of or discomfort from homosexual people. Simple enough really. Hatred has nothing to do with it. A homophobe might hate gays but that doesn't mean you could get a homophobe who fully recognising gays as equals but just also happens to fear them.

Ok that's fine and fair enough but where does his view that marriage is the preserve of heterosexuals become fear of homosexuals? This is not an issue of the rights and wrongs of his viewpoint, that would be very clearcut, he's wrong to deny anyone their rights based on sexuality or any other reason! That is not the question being raised by his donations and his beliefs, the question is does he have the right to believe what he does! If he was supporting organizations trying to make homosexuality illegal this debate would not be taking place!

Canard

stephen_n wrote: »

How do I agree with you in anyway? I state that if he was anti black marriage or mixed marriage that I would disagree with him but not with his right to his opinion. Saying that I would change my attitude if it was one group rather than another is wrong and it's essentially saying that one groups rights rank higher than another's.

Your saying he doesn't have the right to hold views contrary to yours. His views in my opinion are fundamentally wrong but you are suggesting he should be attacked for having them and sharing them with people of the same views!

The catholic church is the strongest opponent of gay marriage in this country, so does that mean anyone contributing to that organisation should be decried? Should we start a campaign against Germany which has a religious tax and contributes something in the region of 4 billion a year to the catholic church?

First of all, there's no need to post in such a pissy tone, you sound like a child. I'm just stating opinions yet you're calling me a fascist and twisting my words, so after this post I'm not replying

You are completely missing my point each and every time you go to argue with me. Do all Catholics hate gays? No. Does the Pope? Yes. Do I think he's a bad person for that? No, but his efforts to restrict their rights are disgusting, in the same way that the owner of Chick-Fil-A's use of his profits to fund hateful organisations is disgusting. So before you go off at me again, I'd like to correct you on something.

Your saying he doesn't have the right to hold views contrary to yours. His views in my opinion are fundamentally wrong but you are suggesting he should be attacked for having them and sharing them with people of the same views!

No I am not. He's sharing money with these people, which he's getting from people who don't realize what he's going to do with it. This protest is going to tell people so they can make a more informed decision. He has every right to hold his own views, stop trying to make it look like I said he didn't please.

Anyway, I'm done here.

stephen_n

Patchy~ wrote: »

First of all, there's no need to post in such a pissy tone, you sound like a child. I'm just stating opinions yet you're calling me a fascist and twisting my words, so after this post I'm not replying

You are completely missing my point each and every time you go to argue with me. Do all Catholics hate gays? No. Does the Pope? Yes. Do I think he's a bad person for that? No, but his efforts to restrict their rights are disgusting, in the same way that the owner of Chick-Fil-A's use of his profits to fund hateful organisations is disgusting. So before you go off at me again, I'd like to correct you on something.


No I am not. He's sharing money with these people, which he's getting from people who don't realize what he's going to do with it. This protest is going to tell people so they can make a more informed decision. He has every right to hold his own views, stop trying to make it look like I said he didn't please.

Anyway, I'm done here.

He is sharing money with people who share his views I still can't see what point you are trying to make beyond the fact he hasn't the right to hold these views.

Canard

what point you are trying to make beyond the fact he hasn't the right to hold these views.

oh ffs. :rolleyes:

They share his views, and:

whose work includes defeating same-sex marriage initiatives and providing therapy intended to change people’s sexual orientation.

Do you not see how harmful that is, especially the therapy?

stephen_n

Patchy~ wrote: »

oh ffs. :rolleyes:

They share his views, and:


Do you not see how harmful that is, especially the therapy?

The catholic church support both of those too!

So you think that because he is anti gay marriage and supports a denounced form of therapy that his business should be picketed and preventend from opening new business and creating jobs? You believe that is a healthy way to promote gay rights?

Canard

stephen_n wrote: »

The catholic church support both of those too!

So you think that because he is anti gay marriage and supports a denounced form of therapy that his business should be picketed and preventend from opening new business and creating jobs? You believe that is a healthy way to promote gay rights?

I never said I approved of that, and I don't know if they do it monetarily, but that's not really the point I was making.

Did you miss the part where I said it was to help people make an informed decision? Would you really prefer if people just pretended this whole thing never happened?

He's not being stopped from opening new businesses or creating jobs.
If people choose not to work for him after they find out what he's paying for, that's his own fault.

Sappa

I wish chick fillet would come to Ireland,there food is awesome and we could do with a decent fast food chain like that.

stephen_n

Read the original post to which my responses have been based, in particular the piece about cities in the USA not allowing outlets to open on the back of this campaign!

L1011

Sappa wrote: »

I wish chick fillet would come to Ireland,there food is awesome and we could do with a decent fast food chain like that.

Not opening Sundays = lose the post-Saturday pub trade = would die in a week here.

ninty9er

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823655

bonniebede

ninty9er wrote: »

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823655

I thought that was a thoughtful piece, there is a point I think when the sort of hate directed at the CEO of chick fil a would only serve to reinforce the idea that gays do not want freedom to live as they wish, they want to force everyone to agree with the way they live.

a liberal society is one where people can disagree with each other and have reasonable room to associate with anyone they choose, whether that is for leisure, political or business activities.

I don't see being gay as the equivalent of being black, so the discrimination issues are different.

I do like what happened in the eighties when the dunnes workers refused to handle south african goods and went on strike, I can remember being so happy to support them by not buying from the shop.

To me that is how a liberal society works, they are free to sell what they like, I am free to shop or not shop there.

floggg

I never get this argument - free speech means he can say what he wants and fund who he wants, but somehow that same right of free speech doesn't extend to people who disagree with him and want to make their thoughts known through boycotts or protests?

It cuts both ways - free speech means he can say what he likes but it also means he can be criticised for saying it.

I'm not commenting on the couple of mayors who said they aren't welcome, as they don't speak for "liberals" and anyway have been widely condemned by liberals for their comments.

i posted this on the After Hours thread, but thought people here would be interested on this essay on the topic - http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288. It's a good read for people on both sides of the debate.

So here goes:

1. This isn’t simply about marriage. Shocker, right? It’s extremely frustrating that same-sex marriage is the great continental divide. People are judged according to how they stand on this issue, as if no other issue matters. Did you know that a person can be for same-sex marriage and still be homophobic? Did you know that a person can be against same-sex marriage and be gay? We all get categorized very quickly based on the marriage issue and maybe that’s not fair. But here’s what you should know:

- In 29 states in America today, my partner of 18 years, Cody, or I could be fired for being gay. Period. No questions asked. One of those states is Louisiana, our home state. We live in self-imposed exile from beloved homeland, family, and friends, in part, because of this legal restriction on our ability to live our lives together.

- In 75 countries in the world, being gay is illegal. In many, the penalty is life in prison. These are countries we can’t openly visit. In 9 countries, being gay is punishable by death. In many others, violence against gays is tacitly accepted by the authorities. These are countries where we would be killed. Killed.

- Two organizations that work very hard to maintain this status quo and roll back any protections that we may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations.

- Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work.

- Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

2. 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. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.

All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”

But what are you guilty of? When you see a bully beating up a smaller kid and you don’t take a side, then you ARE taking a side. You’re siding with the bully. And when you cheer him on, you’re revealing something about your own character that really is a shame.

3. This isn’t about Jesus. I have a lot of Christian friends. Most of them are of the liberal variety, it’s true, but even this concept seems lost on some of you. Most of them are pro-LGBT rights. Pro-gay and Pro-Christ are NOT mutually exclusive. They never have been, in the history of Christianity, though it’s been difficult at times. It’s not impossible to be both.

If someone is telling you it is, then maybe you should wonder why they’d do that. I see divorced Christians, remarried Christians, drug addict Christians. I see people with WWJD bracelets bumping and grinding on TV and raking in millions to do it. I see greedy, rapacious, vengeful people who are Christians. And these people are accepted in the Church, and the Church does very little to combat them. Sometimes it seems like being gay is the ONLY thing certain modern Christian movements won’t allow. Why’s that, I wonder?

Jesus had almost nothing to say about sexual behavior of any kind. He was too busy teaching more important things. Empathy is at the heart of his teachings. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Remember that? It’s in red. So let’s examine that:

4. If things were reversed, I’d stand up for you.

Please think about this: How would you feel if KFC came out tomorrow and said they were spending money against equality for Asian Americans, or African Americans, or religious people? Really. Think about it. What would you do? How would you feel? How would you feel if, after their announcement, there was a big increase in KFC sales and I was all over Facebook supporting KFC. Please stop reading right now and imagine this. I’m serious.

You can stop now because it’s ludicrous. It would never happen.

Oh, I don’t mean the part about KFC being against some group. That COULD happen. I mean the part about me supporting them. Let me tell you something, and you can damn well believe it: I’d sign on for the boycott IMMEDIATELY.

Why? Well, because I believe in equality for all people, that’s why. But also, personally, from the bottom of my heart: because you are my friend, and I don’t willingly support people who harm you for just being you. How could I? How could I, really? But, more importantly for our purposes, how could you?

Seriously, how could you? What has Chick-Fil-A ever done for you? Sold you some fatty chicken at a ridiculous mark-up? Made you chuckle at semi-literate cartoon cows? You mean more to me than KFC possibly could. If I, in turn, don’t mean more to you than a chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A–if my life, my quality of life, and my dignity are such afterthoughts to you that you’d not only refuse the boycott, but go out of your way to support someone who was hurting me? if I let this stand, if I don’t stand up to the bullies and if I let my friends egg the bullies on, what does that make me?

Well, it makes me a Chikin.

Yeah, so suddenly it is cause for anger, ridiculous or not.

But I’m not going to stop being Facebook friends with anyone over this issue.

Instead, I will remain. And, when you see my face with my partner’s in my profile, maybe you will examine not simply what your opinions are about gay people, or gay marriage, or the first amendment, even; maybe you’ll examine not merely your opinions but your values. What is friendship to you? What is loyalty? How important are human life and dignity to you? Are they more important than fitting in with your social group? Are they more important than loyalty to a corporate brand, or a political party, or some misguided church teaching?

That’s why we’re so angry. This is personal for us. There are times in your life when you have the opportunity to stand up for your friends. When you let that opportunity pass, your friends notice. It doesn’t mean we can’t be friends, but it diminishes you, and it diminishes the friendship. That’s how it is, no matter what the issue or what the venue.

So stand up. Stand up for us. Do the right thing. You don’t have to agree with us on everything, but repudiate Chick-Fil-A. Unlike them on Facebook. Withdraw your support for them. Join us in the boycott. If you can’t do that, then please ask yourself whether I’m your friend. In fact, ask yourself whether anyone is.

stephen_n

So if the catholic church has pickets outside the outhouse you wouldn't see a problem with it?

floggg

stephen_n wrote: »

So if the catholic church has pickets outside the outhouse you wouldn't see a problem with it?

I wouldn't be pleased but I would recognise they have the right to. I might show up for a counter protest.

Speech is either free or it isn't.

Hence I can't understand people claiming LGBT protesters are attacking free speech. No they're nor, they're exercising it!

stephen_n

floggg wrote: »

I wouldn't be pleased but I would recognise they have the right to. I might show up for a counter protest.

Speech is either free or it isn't.

Hence I can't understand people claiming LGBT protesters are attacking free speech. No they're nor, they're exercising it!

Yeah I get and agree but don't think this case is that simple. Is it chick fil a making these donations or is it private donations made by the owner?

Conor30

She really is white trailer trash, isn't she! :pac:

http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/07/sarah-palin-dines-at-chick-fil-a-subtly-reminds-us-she-hates-gay/

floggg

stephen_n wrote: »

Yeah I get and agree but don't think this case is that simple. Is it chick fil a making these donations or is it private donations made by the owner?

From what I've heard, it's the company itself.

Even if it's not, it's a privately owned company who's owners use the profits to fund anti-gay causes (not just anti-marriage equality, the would be happy to jail or "cure" us all). So if the profits of every chicken sandwich are being used to find hate groups, it's legitimate to protest the sandwich and the owner.

Heck, if you believe in free speech you should believe to protest for no good reason or justification whatsoever Westboro baptist style! The rights or wrongs of the cause shouldn't come into it.

If it's about free speech, why aren't the "free speech" defenders concerned by the anti-equality groups calling for s boycott of Amazon for Jeff Bezoz donating money to marriage equality groups in Washington. Or the boycotts of Pepsi, General Mills, JC Penny?

Because it has nothing to do with free speech. Somehow some right Wong pundits managed to reframe it that way though and the masses either fall for it, or are just happy to have a reason to jump on an anti-gay bandwagon without sounding too much like bigots.

stephen_n

Free speech is one thing, costing people there jobs is another. The issue about funding anti gay marriage campaigns is not so straight forward, some LGBT people may decide their votes on singal issues but to say supporting a politician who is anti gay marriage, who happens to also support business and profiteering dilutes the issue greatly.

Free speech and the right to protest are not the same things, yes there is the right and indeed the necessity to inform and talk about this, but to protest outside the shops is a completely different issue which can only serve to harden attitudes in the middle ground. If the employees took the stance to protest as the Dunnes workers did, that would be a different issue but as it stands,the actions of these protestors, is no different than youth defence here, protesting outside the well woman clinics!

floggg

Sorry, but if you believe in free speech then you believe the in the right of youth defence to protest if they wish - even if you font agree with them.

If you don't believe in the right to peacefully and lawfully protest then you don't really believe in free speech.

"Speech" in this context is more than words - its making any form of public statement.

And I think the jobs issue is a red herring. It's Chick-fil-a and Dan Cathy who politicised this by donating their profits to anti-gay causes. The LGBT community did not pick this fight.

If as a matter of conscience you disagree with that you have a right to boycott and protest that business. If jobs are lost, it's not because the protesters, it's because the company publicly took a stance which many find abhorrent and which means they cannot conscientiously spend their money there.

And yes, comparisons to blacks or other minority groups are relevant in any civil rights debate. Because its not a debate about who has it worse, it's a debate about civil rights, tolerance and equality. The same principles underpin their struggles as ours - equality.

So that being said, if jobs were lost at restaurants which were subject if sit-ins during the American civil rights movements, whose fault was it - the protesters or the restaurant managers who imposed segregation in the restaurant?

floggg

It is also irrelevant whether or not marriage equality is a simple or complex issue. They have the right to protest and make their views known. And hopefully through their protests they can persuade others.

Of course, while many LGBT voters are not single issue voters (myself included) that doesn't stop you taking a stand when one of the issues you believe in presents itself.

Now, if it is a "complex" issue you may not agree with them on the issue, in which case you can criticise their reasoning. And you are free to join or oppose them at will.

bonniebede

Perhaps i'm missing the point here?

this guy is using his own money or the money from his own business, which is the same thing, to support causes he believes in.

If you don't like the causes, then you are free to boycott his business. you are free to set up your own business. You are free to give your money to groups who support the opposite causes. you are free to protest outside his business.

The reason this stroy got coverage was because various mayors said they would use their power to prevent him doing business.

This is the state, saying you cannot participate in a lawful business, which does not discriminate against anyone (chick fil a serves everyone) bacuse we don't like the views of the owner, nor how he spends his money, even though nothing he spends his money on is illegal.

That is state sponsored discrimination. Surely every liberal should be opposed to that. otherwise you are not against discrimination per se, only against discrimination against you. When you take that position, you are actually saying it is fine to unjustly discriminate, your only protest is that the discrimination directed against you is unpleasant to you.

floggg

bonniebede wrote: »

Perhaps i'm missing the point here?

this guy is using his own money or the money from his own business, which is the same thing, to support causes he believes in.

If you don't like the causes, then you are free to boycott his business. you are free to set up your own business. You are free to give your money to groups who support the opposite causes. you are free to protest outside his business.

The reason this stroy got coverage was because various mayors said they would use their power to prevent him doing business.

This is the state, saying you cannot participate in a lawful business, which does not discriminate against anyone (chick fil a serves everyone) bacuse we don't like the views of the owner, nor how he spends his money, even though nothing he spends his money on is illegal.

That is state sponsored discrimination. Surely every liberal should be opposed to that. otherwise you are not against discrimination per se, only against discrimination against you. When you take that position, you are actually saying it is fine to unjustly discriminate, your only protest is that the discrimination directed against you is unpleasant to you.

Many liberals did indeed criticise it.

The debate isn't really about that though - it's been reframed by many conservative commentators to be about a perceived attack by the LGBT community/liberals against his freedom of speech and religion (the mayors comments seem to be seen as part only of that perceived attack).

Which is misguided for the reasons stated in my earlier posts.

stephen_n

floggg wrote: »

It is also irrelevant whether or not marriage equality is a simple or complex issue. They have the right to protest and make their views known. And hopefully through their protests they can persuade others.

Of course, while many LGBT voters are not single issue voters (myself included) that doesn't stop you taking a stand when one of the issues you believe in presents itself.

Now, if it is a "complex" issue you may not agree with them on the issue, in which case you can criticise their reasoning. And you are free to join or oppose them at will.

I meant the reason for the contributions to politicians who stand for more than single issues! It is assumed his money is supporting the stance against gay marriage by supporting these politicians, it is not a fact!

stephen_n

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, but if you believe in free speech then you believe the in the right of youth defence to protest if they wish - even if you font agree with them.

If you don't believe in the right to peacefully and lawfully protest then you don't really believe in free speech.

"Speech" in this context is more than words - its making any form of public statement.

And I think the jobs issue is a red herring. It's Chick-fil-a and Dan Cathy who politicised this by donating their profits to anti-gay causes. The LGBT community did not pick this fight.

If as a matter of conscience you disagree with that you have a right to boycott and protest that business. If jobs are lost, it's not because the protesters, it's because the company publicly took a stance which many find abhorrent and which means they cannot conscientiously spend their money there.

And yes, comparisons to blacks or other minority groups are relevant in any civil rights debate. Because its not a debate about who has it worse, it's a debate about civil rights, tolerance and equality. The same principles underpin their struggles as ours - equality.

So that being said, if jobs were lost at restaurants which were subject if sit-ins during the American civil rights movements, whose fault was it - the protesters or the restaurant managers who imposed segregation in the restaurant?

It's nice to have high handed morals when it's not your job being put on the line. The company did not make a public stance it made donations, the organisations protesting it took the public stance and they are therefore liable for any loss of jobs.

Not really sure where your going with the comparisons to blacks comment in your reply as it is completely out of context with anything previously mentioned in the thread.

floggg

stephen_n wrote: »

I meant the reason for the contributions to politicians who stand for more than single issues! It is assumed his money is supporting the stance against gay marriage by supporting these politicians, it is not a fact!

When you finance a political or other group, you fund all it's activities, not just the ones you agree with. So even if they only support some of the issues, they are responsible for advancing all of thm.

But just from looking at the website of one of the groups involved, Exodus international, it doesn't really seem like they are multi issue. The first line of their "About" section reads

Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.

stephen_n wrote: »

It's nice to have high handed morals when it's not your job being put on the line. The company did not make a public stance it made donations, the organisations protesting it took the public stance and they are therefore liable for any loss of jobs.

That's ludicrous. The company's management chose to take a course of action which they knew would likely alienate many. It was the company's decision to make these donations, and the president (or whatever his title is) who chose to discuss the donations on radio.

If customers find a companys actions unpalatable thy are allowed voice their opinion. The outrage is in direct response to the company's actions. It is managemnt who are responsible for those actions and thus responsible for the consequences.

On your reasoning, if people protested a clothing company which used child labour, it would be the protesters fault if lost sales meant job cuts, not the morally reprehensible decision to choose child labour. Are you for real?

stephen_n wrote: »

Not really sure where your going with the comparisons to blacks comment in your reply as it is completely out of context with anything previously mentioned in the thread.

My comparison to civil rights restaurant sit-ins is entirely relevant to a present day protest of a restaurant chain on civil rights and equality grounds. I thought that would be obvious. Again, are you suggesting in that context the protesters were at fault if any restaurant staff lost jobs?

Noting your first few comments on this thread about such comprising being lazy and pointless, I included a pre-emptive rebuttal to any such response.

Azure_sky

Only in America...

It's hard to believe that this is the same country that put a man on the moon. Oh well I welcome our Chinese, new overlords!

Conor30

Azure_sky wrote: »

Only in America...

It's hard to believe that this is the same country that put a man on the moon. Oh well I welcome our Chinese, new overlords!

America is everything, from the deeply arch-conservative/borderline fascist to the off-their-head liberal...
The Chinese have a worse track record on human rights!!

stephen_n

The company made behind the scenes donations they didn't make any public statement. So the support for any political candidates is impossible unless you support each and every issue they do?? That is truely ludicrous! Linking gay rights to race rights is not an issue, saying "would you say that if they were black" is completely different! As is the difference between the right to free speach and the right to protest as protesting is a far more aggressive and intimidating act! This campaign is counter productive to LGBT issues due to its point of focus!

floggg

Whether the donations are public or private, they are still something which one could reasonably expect to cause outrage and draw protest. It is the effect of these donations that people find offensive and dangerous, not the manner in which they were made, so whether public or private, many people are outraged.

In any event, Dan Cathy publicly took credit for making them on radio, which started off this whole brouhaha, so yes, they did make a public statement.

How is it ludicrous that you bear responsibility for the actions of groups you fund (not just support)?

If i give money to a group which supports tax reform and persecution of read heads ostensibly with a view to supporting their tax policies, I have no personal responsibility if the money I donated is used to persecute red heads?

That my friend would be ludicrous.

Anyway, as I pointed out, Exodus International (for one, being the only one I googled) is not a multi-issue group, so it's kind of irrelevant in this context, isn't it? And it should be noted - these groups aren't just opposed to marriage equality, they are generally anti-gay full stop. Some of them (or their representatives) have supported (directly or indirectly, depending on reports) Uganda's attempts to introduce the death penalty for homosexuality, called for criminalisation homosexuality in the States, and promoted harmful "gay cure therapies."

Why shouldn't you link race discrimination and discrimination based on sexual orientation. The principles are the same - equality. If you believe in equality you believe that all forms of discrimination against any minority, for whatever reason (or none) is equally wrong.

Moreover, if one group who feels discriminated is lawfully and "morally" entitled to pursue a particular tactic to protest what they perceive to be discrimination and prejudice, objectively speaking, an other group should also be entitled to pursue the same tactic.

Unless you are suggesting (which I would like to think you are not) that the legitimacy of a protest action and/or the entitlement to protest is to be judged on the merits of the cause? Though of course in the 60's, many doubted the merits of the civil rights movements, and so the restaurant sit-ins would likely have failed any test of its merits.

Lastly, the right to protest is very much part of, rather than being distinct from, the right to free speech. A protest is making a public statement - that's all. "Free speech" covers everything from art, public protests, poems, speeches, and clothing. It is generally only curtailed in a democratic free society were it used to infringe upon other peoples rights.

The protesters didn't interfere with anybody's legal rights - they voiced their opposition and hoped to persuade others of the righteousness of their cause. People were however free to continue to eat there - as evidenced by the crowds attending to show their support.

No, feel free to say you disagree with them, either on the issue of gay rights and equality, the decision to protest, or the manner in which the protest was conducted. You can also say that it ended up doing more harm than good.

But they most certainly have a right to do so, whether or not you agree.