The Sinister Design Forums

General => General Discussion => Politics => Topic started by: SmartyPants on August 01, 2012, 08:29:42 PM

Title: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 01, 2012, 08:29:42 PM
Apparently, it is Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day (http://www.facebook.com/events/266281243473841/).  It is frankly ridiculous that choosing where we eat has become political.

CEO of Chick Fil-A, Dan Cathy tells the Baptist Press (http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271) his personal belief pertaining to traditional marriage.  Rahm Emanuel, the current mayor of Chicago and the former White House Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama, declared that Chick-fil-A did not represent "Chicago values," (http://www.suntimes.com/14102489-418/rahm-emanuel-no-regrets-on-my-chick-fil-a-comments.html) and suggested that Chick-fil-A invest its money elsewhere. Chicago has the third-highest unemployment rate in the nation among major cities, so it seems odd that its mayor would tell Chick-fil-A that its not welcome because the company's CEO had the exact same position on marriage that Emanuel's former boss (President Barack Obama) held the entire time Emanuel worked at the White House. Emboldened by Emanuel's comments, a Chicago alderman (http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/ct-met-chicago-chick-fil-a-20120725,0,929023.story) demanded a pledge from Cathy to quit associating with groups that oppose gay marriage as a prerequisite for a business permit. Typical of Chicago-style politics, these politicians want to punish people for having different political views than themselves.

Chick-fil-A boss has right to his opinion. (http://www.suntimes.com/opinions/13994657-474/editorial-chick-fil-a-boss-has-right-to-his-opinion.html)
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: bugfartboy on August 01, 2012, 11:44:31 PM
A lot of this seems like a bunch of phooey in my opinion. Just because a company's head honcho supports the biblical definition of a family, doesn't nessesarily show that he encourages discrimination in the work place. I didn't think that it was legal for any member of any lawmaking division of government to discriminate against a business based on the viewpoints supported by its CEO. Honestly, I feel that the LGBT and other such movements are throwing a hissy-fit over something that's not really worth throwing a fit over.

All that said, I love Chick-Fil-A. They make better chicken sandwiches than I ever could at work, and they're closed on Sundays. :)
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 02, 2012, 12:07:16 PM
Yes, he has a right to his opinion, but the fact of the matter is that I resolutely refuse to hand over my money to an organisation that funds anti-gay groups like Exodus, which actually successfully worked to establish a death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda. I just don't want any part in it. That said, I have a right to my opinion as well, and will not be eating there. Where we eat has always been political: no In-'n'-Out Burger, no Chick-fil-a, and no anywhere else that thinks "supporting traditional marriage" means actively destroying the lives of those who seek any other kind.

You're right that the government leaders can't make that sort of call about whether an organisation is allowed in their city, but they're allowed to discourage it, voice their opinions, recommend other locations, et cetera. The Chicago alderman has the right ideas [as far as I'm concerned], but appears not to be going about pursuing them in the right way, if he's making demands.

You know what makes Chick-fil-a awesome? Mostly that they marinade their chicken in pickle brine the day before, if my sources are accurate. A link to a video for the "Chick-fil-gay" sandwich here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNq8r4S5jSk), fnotor anyone here who happens to not want their money to go to a company that sponsors such bigoted causes, but still likes a good chicken sandwich.

The LGBT community has to put up with a lot of shit from Christians across the world, and when a wealthy business owner comes along and decides to make things even worse for them, they, too, have a right to be pissed off. In fact, if you couldn't tell, I'm pissed off that anyone is so arrogant that they think they have the right to force their "traditional" views on marriage on anyone who doesn't want them. Here (http://i.imgur.com/bHp6k.jpg)'s traditional for you.

In truth, my views on marriage are something more like Hank's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD-INsIbVcw) and John's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQw0eLzfGNI) views, if anyone cares.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: Kaseke on August 02, 2012, 12:26:54 PM
Everybody shoould always have the freedom to speak, but all of this is ridiculous. The people on that site don't actually even tell anything about the company. The moderators are hiding things that they don't want people to know. The people who're gonna go and eat in Chick Fil-A on that day are mostly people who either haven't done their research properly.

Closed on sundays...? Most people don't go to church anymore anyways. Christian values aren't the values of all people in the US, or anywhere else either. Even the people who still appreciate all of those values have been reduced to only a little part of the population, and everyone sees christianity with their own way. You shouldn't push your own views on people like that.

And on a sidenote, honestly, I don't really get that whole abortion thing. What's so bad about it? If you can't raise a baby, are too young to actually have it and/or can't find anyone to raise it for you, why shouldn't you get an abortion? I'd understand it if it was when the baby already had a conscious of itself or anything, but the people who get abortions usually do it very early into the pregnancy. Or then they get it because it'd endanger their own life.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 02, 2012, 12:32:45 PM
I'm not quite sure where the bit about abortion came from, but I generally concur with Kaseke.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 02, 2012, 01:21:35 PM
Just because a company's head honcho supports the biblical definition of a family, doesn't nessesarily show that he encourages discrimination in the work place.
The company's policy is that no one can be discriminated based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical handicap.  The CEO views on what is considered marriage is irrelevant to how the company is run.  If Chick-fil-A violates the law by discriminating against a gay customer or employee, then the city of Chicago has the right to punish the business.  However, the politicians in Chicago don't have the right to withhold zoning permits and licenses because a company's CEO used his First Amendment right to express his personal political views.

Yes, he has a right to his opinion, but the fact of the matter is that I resolutely refuse to hand over my money to an organisation that funds anti-gay groups like Exodus, which actually successfully worked to establish a death penalty for homosexuality in Uganda. I just don't want any part in it. That said, I have a right to my opinion as well, and will not be eating there.
As an American, you have the economic right to choose where you want to spend your money.  There is nothing wrong with boycotting products or services as a way to express your political view.  I personally use google over any other search engine because they are the only one who stands up against China's authoritarian control of the internet.

You're right that the government leaders can't make that sort of call about whether an organisation is allowed in their city, but they're allowed to discourage it, voice their opinions, recommend other locations, et cetera. The Chicago alderman has the right ideas [as far as I'm concerned], but appears not to be going about pursuing them in the right way, if he's making demands.
While boycotting is perfectly acceptable, using government power to punish someone with different poltical views is fascism.  Mayor Rahm Emanuel and alderman Moreno are acting like Senator McCarthy by abusing government power in order to do harm to people with different poltical views. 
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: Kaseke on August 02, 2012, 01:58:05 PM
I'm not quite sure where the bit about abortion came from, but I generally concur with Kaseke.

As it reads on their facebook page,
Quote
I ask you to join me in speaking out on Wednesday, August 1 "Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day.” No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let's affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. Too often, those on the left make corporate statements to show support for same sex marriage, abortion, or profanity, but if Christians affirm
traditional values, we're considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 02, 2012, 02:41:17 PM
Did Rahm Emanuel actually deny permission for licenses? I thought you said he merely made a statement and a suggestion.

@ Kaseke: ah. I see.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 02, 2012, 03:10:31 PM
I would like to point out that Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day is not the created or endorsed by Chick-fil-A.  It was created by Mike Huckabee who is a former Pastor and former Republican Governor of Arkansas.  Huckabee created the facebook event inorder to stand behind those who are mistreated by liberals for expressing their religions beliefs.

Closed on sundays...? Most people don't go to church anymore anyways. Christian values aren't the values of all people in the US, or anywhere else either....You shouldn't push your own views on people like that.
I am confused how the company being closed on Sunday is pushing beliefs on people.  I would also like to know why it is okay for members of the government to push their values on people, while the Chick-Fil-A CEO gets criticized for speakng about his personal values.
Quote from: Chicago Cardinal Francis George
"Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the ‘values’ that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?”


Did Rahm Emanuel actually deny permission for licenses? I thought you said he merely made a statement and a suggestion.
After alot criticism, Emanuel has backed off of using extreme measures to attack Chick-Fil-A.  However, Emanuel's proxy, alderman Moreno, is still trying to use government power to prevent Chick-Fil-A from running thier business and creating jobs in Chicago.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 02, 2012, 04:21:20 PM
It's not okay for the government to push their views on people or organisations. I don't agree at all with the use of government power to damage Chick-Fil-A's business. I do agree with simply asking Chick-Fil-A to reconsider their choice of location in a way which only indicates that they would be poorly served in investing in a certain location. (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/7/25/11/enhanced-buzz-28878-1343231454-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: Kaseke on August 03, 2012, 02:21:27 AM
Closed on sundays...? Most people don't go to church anymore anyways. Christian values aren't the values of all people in the US, or anywhere else either....You shouldn't push your own views on people like that.
I am confused how the company being closed on Sunday is pushing beliefs on people.
The company IS a highly christian one, and being closed on Sunday's so people can go to church to me, feels like pushing your own views on others. If it was for some other reason, but they just have to specify it for that cause.

I am not against religious freedom, but this company seems to be. I don't liek their policies, or their values. Their way of supporting their own policies is just wrong.

It's not okay for the government to push their views on people or organisations. I don't agree at all with the use of government power to damage Chick-Fil-A's business. I do agree with simply asking Chick-Fil-A to reconsider their choice of location in a way which only indicates that they would be poorly served in investing in a certain location. (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/7/25/11/enhanced-buzz-28878-1343231454-3.jpg)
That is nothing like the government ordering them to move somewhere else, as it says, he is urging them to find another location, since the place they want to have their restaraunt/stand/anything at all insults the policies of the city and the state.

Also the administrator of the site seems to be deleting any comments that go against this whole event with reason. I wrote something there and it got deleted in under a minute. They say that the whole thing is for freedom of speech, but don't let the people opposing it get their word out, even if it wasn't in an angry manner at all and everything written would be reasoned.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 03, 2012, 12:13:22 PM
I am confused how the company being closed on Sunday is pushing beliefs on people.
The company IS a highly christian one, and being closed on Sunday's so people can go to church to me, feels like pushing your own views on others. If it was for some other reason, but they just have to specify it for that cause.
I am not against religious freedom, but this company seems to be. I don't liek their policies, or their values. Their way of supporting their own policies is just wrong.
You come off as having an anti-christian prejudice.  The company doesn't open on Sunday so devout christains aren't forced to work on the Sabbath.  On Sundays, christain employees aren't forced to work on a day that disobeys one their commandments, while non-christain employees get a day off that doesn't have to include going to church.  With your logic, one could claim that the government is pushing christian beliefs on people for letting kids out of school around Christmas.
The company's policy is that no one can be discriminated based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, or physical handicap.  Since Chick-Fil-A has never had a discrimination issue due to sexual orientation, one could easily assume that Kaseke's problem with Chick-Fil-A is that it calls itself a "Christain" company.

Closed on sundays...? Most people don't go to church anymore anyways. Christian values aren't the values of all people in the US, or anywhere else either....You shouldn't push your own views on people like that.
I am confused how the company being closed on Sunday is pushing beliefs on people.  I would also like to know why it is okay for members of the government to push their values on people, while the Chick-Fil-A CEO gets criticized for speakng about his personal values?
Quote from: Chicago Cardinal Francis George
"Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the ‘values’ that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?”
You ignored half of my questions.  All of Kaseke's comments are bashing christain beliefs, while s/he avoids any subject related to criticism of the government's abuse of power?

I do agree with simply asking Chick-Fil-A to reconsider their choice of location in a way which only indicates that they would be poorly served in investing in a certain location. (http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/7/25/11/enhanced-buzz-28878-1343231454-3.jpg)
Out of curiosity: Would it be okay for Boston to bully a business who had an executive who criticized Massachusetts's health care mandate?
Would it be okay for San Francisco to bully a business who had an executive who criticized the city for having $10.24 an hour minimum wage?
Would it be okay for Phoenix to bully a business who had an executive who criticized the city's sanctuary city policies?
Would it be okay for Dallas to bully a business who had an executive who criticized the city's harsh possession enforcement?
Would it be okay for New York to bully a business who had an executive who criticized the city's wanting to eliminate the sale of large sodas?
Is it okay for the government to bully a business because an executive of the business used his First Amendment right to express his political beliefs?
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 03, 2012, 09:21:36 PM
Is it reasonable to suggest that a governmental head embodies the will of the people he or she governs? No. A mayor or governor or President can express his or her opinions towards an organisation as they choose, as he or she was elected for their viewpoints -- if this viewpoint does not adequately express those of the people of a governed body of people, the official may be reelected. If the views of the official do align with those of the people, then it is more likely the organisation will be denied permission to locate in the area governed -- after all, it's just as much a matter of zoning rights and licenses as it is of buying or renting space.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 04, 2012, 11:58:22 AM
If the views of the official do align with those of the people, then it is more likely the organisation will be denied permission to locate in the area governed -- after all, it's just as much a matter of zoning rights and licenses as it is of buying or renting space.
Does this mean that you do think it is okay for the government to deny an organisation the right to operate in an area as long as that organisation has the minority political opinion?  Senator Joseph McCarthy would agree with that.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: Kaseke on August 04, 2012, 01:53:35 PM
Does this mean that you do think it is okay for the government to deny an organisation the right to operate in an area as long as that organisation has the minority political opinion?  Senator Joseph McCarthy would agree with that.
The government has not at any point denied any right to operate... He is only expressing his opinion in a stronger manner as the speaker of the people. Not denying them any acces. Sure he uses some strong words, but so far there has been nothing about denying the bussines an acces to the state.

You ignored half of my questions.  All of Kaseke's comments are bashing christain beliefs, while s/he avoids any subject related to criticism of the government's abuse of power?

I think I've very well expressed my opinion on this case. I don't think the government hasn't abused anyone, or anything in this manner. As said in Dukclings last post, he is only doing his duty as the spokesman of his people, unlike many other politicians.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 04, 2012, 02:14:15 PM
If the views of the official do align with those of the people, then it is more likely the organisation will be denied permission to locate in the area governed -- after all, it's just as much a matter of zoning rights and licenses as it is of buying or renting space.
Does this mean that you do think it is okay for the government to deny an organisation the right to operate in an area as long as that organisation has the minority political opinion?  Senator Joseph McCarthy would agree with that.

No. No, it does not.

It means that I think that when a government official who speaks for the people of the area he or she governs points out that an organisation holds views contrary to those held by many in said area, it is likely that the owners of the spaces said organisation would like to rent will not be receptive to the organisation's efforts to locate in the area -- this would be a choice of the people, and not of the government.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 07, 2012, 01:39:45 PM
Statistically, gay marriage is more popular in American than traditional marriage.  So why is Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day so much more popular than National Starbucks Appreciation Day (http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-starbucks-chickfila-20120807,0,2316872.story)?  The major difference is that Chick Fil-A was bullied by liberal government officials, while Starbucks was allowed to do business without harassment by conservatives government officials.  This Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day has less to do with gay marriage and more to do with people protesting against big government trying to attack those with different political beliefs.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: CraigStern on August 10, 2012, 09:51:59 PM
The major difference is that Chick Fil-A was bullied by liberal government officiels, while Starbucks was allowed to do business without harassment by conservatives.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nom-launches-boycott-of-starbucks-over-same-sex-marriage-stance-72006/
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 10, 2012, 10:38:50 PM
Like I said many times before, boycotts by private individuals are okay, while the government bullying businesses isn't.  The example you gave me is about a non-government conservative organization boycotting Starbucks.  That is a much different situation from having liberal government officials trying to prevent Chick-Fil-A from running their business.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: CraigStern on August 12, 2012, 02:26:41 PM
Sure. I'm just pointing out that Starbucks was, in fact, targeted by conservatives--just not conservative elected officials.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: SmartyPants on August 12, 2012, 07:31:18 PM
People felt more sympathetic to Chick-Fil-A because they were being victimised by the big, bad government, while Starbucks is being boycotted by some organization that few people take seriously. 
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: ArtDrake on August 12, 2012, 07:53:13 PM
Ah, yes. The poor, poor faceless corporation representing senseless bigotry and hatred in this country was just being victimised by the big, scary, mean government officials suggesting they take their outdated discrimination elsewhere.

I mean, if we're going to be intolerant of one thing, it ought to be intolerance.
Title: Re: Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day
Post by: Kaseke on August 20, 2012, 01:35:15 PM
I still have nothing else to say, that I don't feel like the government was really bullying Chic-Fil-A at all. Just one person raising an opinion with his power as a governmental person.