Maybe you would like to explain to the class how it is a restaraunts fault but not the church itself. They are following the church but the media doesn't want to start that fight yet. That is how I see it.
I have told them I worship Satan before and they still sold me a chicken sandwich. It was really fucking good too.
Sigh. Ok let's not bitch about the individuals or other companies boycotting Chick-Fil-A. They are also using their voice, and hurting them with the lack of dollars. Perhaps if Chick-Fil-A saved those $5Mil they used on sociopolitical contributions they wouldn't have to worry about losing a few bucks here and there.
As far as a mayor forbidding a company from establishing itself in the city - I'm not sure about the intricacies of local Chicago but yes a local government has all the right to prevent an establishment that espouses hate, especially towards a percentage of it's own people.
You might think "hate-speech" is going too far - that's probably somewhere along the lines they'll take it. I prefer it to go under some sort of vote myself but fuck, it's only chicken.
(Ironically, the "Citizens United" ruling essentially closes the gap between a company donating money towards a political group and protected free speech by an individual. So it can be argued that what Chick-Fil-A is doing is "hate speech")
Hate speech is not synonomous with freedom of speech, it would be the same as me saying the flying spaghetti monster thinks black people belong at the bottom of the ocean. Ermahgerd!
If hate speech was not synonymous with freedom of speech the KKK would not be able to do what they do. They'll march right through the Capital with the right permits.
I truly don't understand, Chic-fil-a stated their PERSONAL opinions of what they believe in. They stated that they DO NOT discriminate in their business against ANYONE all they did, was admit to the world what THEY believed in. In other words they expressed their LEGAL beliefs, after all we are FREE citizens in America. And to all the "high ranking" officials in the "big" cities who state they will not accept "intollerant" companies, who is being intolerant? Someone who is simply stating there opinion, or someone saying "I will not allow your company because of your beliefs in our city". So please tell me who is TRULY being intolerant?!?! This whole situation has been blown COMPLETELY out of proportion!!! I truly hope that people see this for what it is, that Chick-Fil-A is simply expressing their rights/beliefs as free American citizens, and are NOT discrimination against anyone as far as their business is concerned
I like their food and I don't care what anyone has to say about it. People will always discriminate on our beliefs and our food choices but we must be strong and my belief is that their chicken is awesome and no one is gunna stop me. I know the hate is very strong right now against people like us but remember they are using hate to combat what they claim as more hate so they cannot win this battle.
Further, a report published by gay rights advocacy group Equality Matters earlier this month says Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million to Christian groups opposed to homosexuality between 2003 and 2009, and nearly $2 million more in 2010.
Oh look, the President of the company is using Chick-Fil-A's money to sponsor official anti-equality groups.
You understand all Christian groups are opposed to homosexuality? It could be a freaking Christian homeless shelter so lets not take things out of context here.
they can say what they want, close on sundays, and spend their money how they want, but they do have reports of active discrimination
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html ^ they've been sued 12+ times for employment discrimination, they say stuff like how they prefer to hire people who are married, they fire/don't hire people who are "sinful" or have other jobs/activities they don't agree with, they fired a muslim who wouldn't pray to jesus at company training
i would say the cities probably can't ban them because that's just like one mayor dude making the decision but the uni campuses can stop them from opening places on campus if the students are voting against it (and some of them seem to be) because the students are just voting based on their personal opinions too
personally i wouldn't spend my money there and i'd vote that shit off my campus too but i don't have to because they don't exist in the mad sinful land of canada where we love gays and my gay friends go shopping to find pretty clothes to wear to pride </blockquote>
Yes it is unconstitutional for the mayor of a city to ban a company or establishment from their city and is also a form of discrimination to try and get rid of something because of personal beliefs. As for a campus I believe you are right but my school, FSU, voted to allow a Chick-fil-A to be built and I am damn glad I get to eat me some delicious chicken without all the hate and violence surrounding me caused by anti-Chick-fil-A individuals.
Further, a report published by gay rights advocacy group Equality Matters earlier this month says Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million to Christian groups opposed to homosexuality between 2003 and 2009, and nearly $2 million more in 2010.
Oh look, the President of the company is using Chick-Fil-A's money to sponsor official anti-equality groups.
You understand all Christian groups are opposed to homosexuality? It could be a freaking Christian homeless shelter so lets not take things out of context here.
Is that a question? I'm aware that not all Christian groups oppose homosexuality or the equality of marriage. I'm also aware that if you have the right research you yourself can send in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post to demand a correction. I'm finally aware that you don't have that research, and simply assumed a major newspaper made a mistake based on the convenience that mistake would be.
So I'll repeat myself and the article: Chick-Fil-A directly contributed money towards an anti-equality group. They happen to be Christian.
Sigh. Ok let's not bitch about the individuals or other companies boycotting Chick-Fil-A. They are also using their voice, and hurting them with the lack of dollars. Perhaps if Chick-Fil-A saved those $5Mil they used on sociopolitical contributions they wouldn't have to worry about losing a few bucks here and there.
As far as a mayor forbidding a company from establishing itself in the city - I'm not sure about the intricacies of local Chicago but yes a local government has all the right to prevent an establishment that espouses hate, especially towards a percentage of it's own people.
You might think "hate-speech" is going too far - that's probably somewhere along the lines they'll take it. I prefer it to go under some sort of vote myself but fuck, it's only chicken.
(Ironically, the "Citizens United" ruling essentially closes the gap between a company donating money towards a political group and protected free speech by an individual. So it can be argued that what Chick-Fil-A is doing is "hate speech")
No you are wrong again a city or local government does not have the right to ban an establishment based off their own personal beliefs. That is called discrimination.
Further, a report published by gay rights advocacy group Equality Matters earlier this month says Chick-fil-A donated more than $3 million to Christian groups opposed to homosexuality between 2003 and 2009, and nearly $2 million more in 2010.
Oh look, the President of the company is using Chick-Fil-A's money to sponsor official anti-equality groups.
You understand all Christian groups are opposed to homosexuality? It could be a freaking Christian homeless shelter so lets not take things out of context here.
Is that a question? I'm aware that not all Christian groups oppose homosexuality or the equality of marriage. I'm also aware that if you have the right research you yourself can send in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post to demand a correction. I'm finally aware that you don't have that research, and simply assumed a major newspaper made a mistake based on the convenience that mistake would be.
So I'll repeat myself and the article: Chick-Fil-A directly contributed money towards an anti-equality group. They happen to be Christian.
No you are making an assumption that these Christian groups are specifically organized to be anti-homosexual by pointing out and labeling that the groups Chick-fil-A donated to are opposed to homosexuality. It is very misleading and biased and I felt it was necessary to point out the difference because you were quite clearly not going to.
Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380 Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000 National Christian Foundation: $247,500 New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000 Exodus International: $1,000 Family Research Council: $1,000 Georgia Family Council: $2,500
Personal beliefs end once they influence your social or political actions. Your social or political actions may be based on personal beliefs, but they directly affect other people.
Personal beliefs end once they influence your social or political actions. Your social or political actions may be based on personal beliefs, but they directly affect other people.
You know, like the gay people of Chicago.
Anything a person does or says can end up affecting other people. So where do you draw the line?
Personal beliefs end once they influence your social or political actions. Your social or political actions may be based on personal beliefs, but they directly affect other people.
You know, like the gay people of Chicago.
Is this not the same thing as saying that the gays personnal beliefs are not longer considered personal beliefs when their parades and fundraisers all influence the straights of Chicago?
Personal beliefs end once they influence your social or political actions. Your social or political actions may be based on personal beliefs, but they directly affect other people.
You know, like the gay people of Chicago.
Anything a person does or says can end up affecting other people. So where do you draw the line?
You know, butterfly effect and all that.
When you lobby Congress against a resolution to condemn the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Also known as "Kill the Gays" bill. And that's not exaggeration. It would either kill or imprison for life citizens of Uganda found guilty of committing homosexual acts.
Personal beliefs end once they influence your social or political actions. Your social or political actions may be based on personal beliefs, but they directly affect other people.
You know, like the gay people of Chicago.
Anything a person does or says can end up affecting other people. So where do you draw the line?
You know, butterfly effect and all that.
When you lobby Congress against a resolution to condemn the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Also known as "Kill the Gays" bill. And that's not exaggeration. It would either kill or imprison for life citizens of Uganda found guilty of committing homosexual acts.
Thank you, Family Research Council (for $25k).
Nice to know you only lose your freedom in NSGLand if you spend money, I guess.
Look I support gay marriage but that still doesn't mean we can sit here and try to ban an establishment for the owner's views. Instead what you can do is boycott is which is a legal and viable option.
Comments
I have told them I worship Satan before and they still sold me a chicken sandwich. It was really fucking good too.
Zeality at Chic fil a
As far as a mayor forbidding a company from establishing itself in the city - I'm not sure about the intricacies of local Chicago but yes a local government has all the right to prevent an establishment that espouses hate, especially towards a percentage of it's own people.
You might think "hate-speech" is going too far - that's probably somewhere along the lines they'll take it. I prefer it to go under some sort of vote myself but fuck, it's only chicken.
(Ironically, the "Citizens United" ruling essentially closes the gap between a company donating money towards a political group and protected free speech by an individual. So it can be argued that what Chick-Fil-A is doing is "hate speech")
So I'll repeat myself and the article: Chick-Fil-A directly contributed money towards an anti-equality group. They happen to be Christian.
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $247,500
New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
Exodus International: $1,000
Family Research Council: $1,000
Georgia Family Council: $2,500
You know, like the gay people of Chicago.
You know, butterfly effect and all that.
Thank you, Family Research Council (for $25k).
If this was a tiny town in nowhere, U.S., no one would give a shit that the mayor is disallowing a Chick-Fil-A.
I've already declared my ignorance about Chicago's laws and exact manner of government, I just stated a possible track the mayor may take with this.
I don't think this will go largely federal though if Chicago can manage this through legislative means.