MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
Well maybe one day they'll serve them some bad chicken
How about a moratorium on "there are no reasoned opinions that marriage is gender specific for a male and a female, only bigotry." Because that leads to "therefore you are not wrong, you are in fact a vile and loathsome hater." And logically to "One cannot be against same-sex marriage and be a decent human being."
It’s not about marriage, it’s not about gays, it’s about a basic understanding that a free society requires a decent respect for a wide range of opinion without penalty by the state.
Moonlit_Angel said:1, as seems to have been noted, seems the restaurant is still managing to set up shop many other places. One city's stance on the issue isn't reflective of some threatening widespread boycott.
(one city refusing to let a restaurant in town isn't exactly a mass crackdown, and the chain can still set up restaurants plenty of other places). But that doesn't mean those people are free from criticism or scrutiny of those beliefs.
INDY500 said:How about a moratorium on "there are no reasoned opinions that marriage is gender specific for a male and a female, only bigotry." Because that leads to "therefore you are not wrong, you are in fact a vile and loathsome hater." And logically to "One cannot be against same-sex marriage and be a decent human being."
What if the shoe were on the other foot? Would it be acceptable for a mayor of a city in, say, Mississippi to refuse to allow a business with noted pro-gay stances to set up shop in his city?
After all, there're plenty of other places to set up business in, right?
BVS said:But one could argue that these are two entirely different things. One company is donating money in order to DENY rights, and one is SUPPORTING rights.
Surely you can see the difference?
What if a Chic-Fil-A type company gave millions to support organizations that were trying to remove crosses from cemetaries or the word 'God' from the pledge?
Caleb8844 said:But the thing is, both positions are legal. I get it -- supporting the denial of rights to a certain section of the population is wrong. But it's not illegal.
Freedom of speech was created to protect horrible, detestable, widely disagreed upon speech. It wasn't created to protect our right to say things that no one finds offensive.
And as for your example, as a Christian, I would find that position incredibly offensive, unreasonable, and mean-spirited -- probably exactly how many people feel about chic-fil-a's stances. However, if my local mayor decided to ban the restaurant sporting those opinions from my city, I would be just as distraught as I now am.
BVS said:Of course both stances are legal, so are the KKK's but several local governments have blocked them from doing things like adopting a portion of a highway. Very few got up in arms about governments taking these kinds of boycott stances. So my point is that these things are not without precedent. I'm glad you would be consistent in your stance but many would not, and are not.
Caleb8844 said:The KKK is linked to innumerable crimes. I don't find that analogous to Chic-Fil-A in the least. Though frankly, I thought it was illogical that they weren't allowed to adopt a highway, even though that situation is fairly different from this one.
So...I have a few points here...
YouGov BrandIndex, which tracks public perceptions about name brands worldwide, says Chick-fil-A’s consumer approval rating has nosedived since revelations that the fast food chain gave more than $2 million to anti-gay hate groups in 2010.
The company’s steepest slide seemed to follow remarks made by company president Dan Cathy, who told the Baptist Press that marriage equality is “inviting God's judgment.”
YouGov BrandIndex compiles total scores based on an average of key scores measuring quality, impression, value, reputation, satisfaction and willingness to recommend. Perceptions are measured among adults over 18 who have eaten fast food in the past month.
On July 16, the day the Baptist Press published its Dan Cathy interview, Chick-Fil-A’s Index score was 65, which was 19 points above the top sector average score that day of 46.
Four days later, Chick-Fil-A had fallen to a 47 score, three points below the top sector average score of 50.
Last Wednesday, Chick-Fil-A had a 39 score compared to the average score of 43.
In total, Chick-fil-A dropped 26 points in consumer approval since the controversy began.
Hi. I've missed you and your avatar.
Also, hey, unico! Good to have you back.
You would think that if you had that much money you'd actually go and buy yourself some decent food. But no.
Todd looks nice.
Me three!
And chicken. Lots of fast-food chicken.