Fast Food chain under fire from same sex couples

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I'm completely pro-gay marriage but i think that if the owners of this particular chain want to be against it then that is their choice and they have to live with the consequences of their stance the same as any of us have to live with our stance on the issue.

So what if they are donating money to anti-campaign bodies? It's their money and their opinion. No one can tell them that they are "wrong".

We have become so PC nowadays that there are now widely accepted "wrong opinions". That's a very scary thought.

So to extend that thought do you think saying white people are superior to black people is just an opinion and that as a simple opinion cannot be incorrect?

Tell that to Nelson Mandela.

Gandhi wrote: »

This whole thing is stupid.

Mayors of cities have no legal power to deny a business's right to open inside their city limits because they don't like the CEO's opinions. The only non-zero outcome they could have is a very expensive lawsuit, which they will lose, and then hand the taxpayers the multi-million-dollar legal bill. All they are doing is making a meaningless crowd-pleasing political soundbite for the press.

I don't have the time right now to look up various American city statutes, so for now I'm going to cross post this from another forum I'm on:

To open up a business in most cities, the business owner is required to obtain permits submit to inspections and so forth. Most cities can deny permits for any reason they like, especially if a nearby neighborhood organization is opposed to it for various reasons. Even then, cities have the option to use tools like "imminent domain" to prevent a business that they don't like from opening up in their city, or to close one down.

The use of this for this reason was upheld by the Supreme Court a few years back.

This means that a city can deny a Chick-fil-A for any reason they like. It's legal, and I say use all of the tools you've got!

This seems to say that if a neighbourhood organisation doesn't want a new Chick Fil-A opening near them the city is within its rights to deny the company a permit.

I'm not sure about the concept of 'imminent domain' so I'll have to do more research before I can comment on that.

EZ24GET wrote: »

The KKK which is an anti-black and anti-semantic organization (and in my opinion based in hatred) are still legal in this country. You can legally donate money to this organization too. Your money is your money.

The key point is that if somebody actually did this, they'd be the center of a galactic-sized ****storm.

Even if he wasn't black, Obama would, and rightly so, condemn such a practice.

If anything, PC comes into it on the anti-gay side because it's not the done thing to question religion with some people. For some reason, we put bull**** opinions based on religion up on a pedestal when opinions just as stupid and bigoted as racialism are rightly derided.

YoungTrouble wrote: »

Look I just don't view gays as real people.They are not Gods children in my eyes.

I take it they snook into the universe while your omnipotent and omniscient deity was looking the other way?

kylith wrote: »

I don't have the time right now to look up various American city statutes, so for now I'm going to cross post this from another forum I'm on:


This seems to say that if a neighbourhood organisation doesn't want a new Chick Fil-A opening near them the city is within its rights to deny the company a permit.

I'm not sure about the concept of 'imminent domain' so I'll have to do more research before I can comment on that.

I don't think Chick- Fil-A has tried to do anything illegal If the community doesn't want them -so there are a lot of other places would welcome them.
Don't quite see them as trying to "muscle" their way in

Corkfeen wrote: »

If a company owner was donating to the KKK, it would be just as big a deal if not bigger. He is supporting groups that are attempting to prevent the equal rights that people deserve. It's not really up for grabs in terms of 'rights', it's just a matter of time before it's legalised across Europe and America even if there are efforts to slow it's implementation down. He has a right to an opinion but the shift in opinion against his company is his own fault and the protests that go hand in hand with it.

Someone has been donating money to the KKK for quite a few good years. Maybe they just lie when asked if they support the KKK, I mean they do wear those masks for a reason.

There really hasn't been a shift in opinion On Wednesday Chick-Fil-A was swamped and people waited hours to be waited on in a public support of the chain. Yesterday the turn out for the "kiss in" wasn't nearly so large.

bluewolf wrote: »

It's a bit more than stupid opinions when they go off to other countries spreading harmful disinformation, supporting the "kill the gays" laws, and generally practising discrimination
if it were all as simple as "i have my opinions" nobody would care

As far as I know The US does not have any "Kill the gay" laws but does have laws to the contrary.
I have had to endure explicit details of gay peoples sexual exploits and intimate details - I really don't want to know this much about you whether you are straight or gay- But because they were gay, and this was at work - I was a captive audience and the management were afraid to do anything about it because they were afraid there would be a discrimination suit.

I doubt if Mr. Cathy would be in unity with those countries that do have such laws either. This started when a Southern Baptist online magazine asked a question. Mr Cathy stated his beliefs and opinions- would you prefer he lied?

Omackeral wrote: »

Here we go......

and there he goes...

jank wrote: »

So you think its OK that government dictate who can and cannot set up business? OK so, then you are a Fascist.

Governments in fact do this all around the world, many of them have laws about who can be a director of a company. Equally, planning laws may dictate where a business may be set up. Facist? Hardly.

As to religious groups - they would do well to consider the following problems with translation about sexual behaviour...a widely used passage in Corinthians may not mean what they think it to mean.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think saying "gays are not real people" and "god is not real" are equally ignorant things to say?

Are you fúcking kidding me?

There's no doubt that the first post was awful, and it deserved every bit of the ban it received. However, to come out and say god doesn't exist is equally ignorant and hurtful to billions of people around the world, all of whom live their lives I accordance to the laws of their religions. Is telling a gay person who has dedicated his life to equality that he is not a real person worse than telling somebody that has pledged their life to god that he doesn't exist? I personally think not, you are offending an entire lifestyle with both of those statements.

Personally I think that the religious person might even have slightly more reason to come out with a statement like that. The banned poster stated that he believed gay people were not gods children, a view that's taken from many interpretations of the bible. It's not a view I condone, but at the same time, it is something he believe to be true, and he has a legitimate reason to believe so. By the beliefs of many religions being gay will lead to you not reaching salvation and might mean damnation, clearly showing the being gay is a bad thing, or at least as far as anybody strongly following the religion is concerned. On the other hand, we still have nothing but theory that there is no devine being. Therefore there's no legitimate backing for the statement. Yes, I concede, the religious person is basing their statement on something we also have no proof of being true, but it's a basis none the less.

Both statements are wrong, and I personally think they should be given the same treatment. Both offend a huge number of people, and while a majority here are more inclined to get offended by the original statement, I don't think it really means the second can be ignored. Both do the same thing, and in my mind, in a similar severity.

On to the topic at hand. The CEO of this company is entitled to hold any views he wants, to support and donate money to any lobbying group he wants, provided of course he is not breaking the law. At the same time, everybody has a right to protest, but I dont really see the point. It's silly to think he will change his views, or resign, as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. If they don't agree with those running the company, they don't need to go there and buy chicken, but I really don't see what they are trying to achieve. The cathy family is entitled to run their company in any way they choose, and provided they do not discrimate actively, there is no reason why people should expect them to change anything they are doing. In my opinion this protest all comes down to a group that believes everybody should come into their way of thinking and anybody who doesn't is suddenly some sort of criminal. I am not a supporter of gay marriage, yet would not discrimate against gays. I believe they are equally as human as you and I, but I believe marriage is between a man and woman. A gay couple should be entitled to the same civil status as a heterosexual couple, but I will always believe that marriage is, by simple principal and definition, only between a man and a woman. Just as in politics I would support groups that are trying to promote my opinion. Its a view many lgbt rights groups would disagree with, and fair enough, but I'd hate if I was getting slated as a business man for my opinion, when I have done absolutely nothing wrong.

Out of interest actually. Id like to ask people where the distinction is between those that are trying to get Gay marriage legalised and those who don't. Just because it's the general consensus, doesn't mean people don't have the right to lobby against it. I have the right to support groups that will try bring my opinion into practice, in this case, just as I have the right to support fine Gael for their economic policies, or sign a petition to stop an incinerator being built near my home. Just because this is a controversial topic doesn't stop me having the right to lobby my views and try promote my opinions. We all do it, voting being just one of the many examples. Now why should we exclude somebody from this practice because he's against gay marriage? If there was a vote about gay marriage in this country, there'd be a lot of people who would vote against it. We wouldn't boycott their shops and call them swine for doing so would we? Every cause needs somebody in a position of power to promote it, doesnt mean he's any more evil than those who would vote against gay marriage in an election.