posted
It is frightening to me that anyone finds it okay for government officials to deny businesses licenses based on their opinions. What about freedom of speech? I wish we had one of these stores in our area so that I could support them. Never once did Chick-Fil-A say that they support discrimination.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is sort of out of context, or incomplete.
Who denied them a business license? I seem to recall Boston saying Chick Fil A couldn't go there, but I haven't heard if a CFA has actually tried to get in and been denied. Could you provide a link to what you're talking about? Or actually, I just found a link to a Chicago alderman who is specifically blocking the sale of some land to a CFA. Is that the case you're referring to?
By the by, Chick-Fil-A opposes same-sex marriage, which a great many people view as a form of discrimination. Actually, I think by definition it IS discrimination, it just depends on whether you think it's acceptable discrimination or not.
Also, freedom of speech doesn't equal freedom from all repercussions. You have the right to say whatever you want, and hold whatever opinions you want, but there are often repercussions beyond being hauled off to jail that are both legal and fair.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing he's referring to the letter from Boston's mayor to Chick-Fil-A's president that surfaced recently. Here's a link to the letter, as posted on the Boston, Mass. Facebook page: Link . Here's a link to a HuffPost article discussing that letter: LinkPosts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
An alderman and the mayor of Chicago said that they would do what they can to prevent any Chick-Fil-A's from coming in to the city.
This is all due to the president of the comany stating his opinion against same-sex marriage. He did not say that he would discriminate against homosexuals as employees or customers.
Please keep in mind that Chicago, like most major cities, is in desperate need of jobs.
Same sex marriage is still illegals in the majority of the states..... Including Illinois.
Him having that opinion (right or wrong) is protected free speech. Any repercussions should be from consumers choosing not to dine there.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: Him having that opinion (right or wrong) is protected free speech. Any repercussions should be from consumers choosing not to dine there.
Who are you to say that there can't be other repercussions to bigotry? Democracy is essentially rule of the majority. The opinion of the majority is changing from one of hate to acceptance, just as it did for suffrage and other minority rights. People, including elected officials, can do whatever they feel they have the power to do -- unless the courts overrule them. They'll have to face the repercussions, yes, but there can be a lot more repercussions to anyone's freedom of (hate) speech than just the power of the individual. Fortunately, in this case, some individuals have more power than others.
Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
This isn't true, actually. And consider how you would feel if the reason was CFA supporting SSM, or hiring along those lines.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
This isn't true, actually. And consider how you would feel if the reason was CFA supporting SSM, or hiring along those lines.
If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yesterday my daughter's team was at a camp and the coach said we were all going to eat lunch at Chick Fil A. I didn't think anything about it, because we picked different restaurants every day at the camp and ate there.
When we got to Chick Fil A, we had to get our food to go and leave because there truly was no place to sit down. It was so packed we had to park in a restaurant lot next door and walk over, and the line was to the door.
Surprisingly, we got our food very quickly, because they were fully staffed and were running every register. The manager took my order, and I asked him if they were always this busy, and he said they were a very busy location, but business had exploded in the last week.
So, I would think that the corporate office would accept no new store in Boston if the result at the one I was at is typical across the board.
Like all things, though, it will die down when the media frenzy stops and will probably go back to normal.
I honestly do not get overly concerned about the religious or political views of CEO's of companies. I figure most people don't agree with me and if I only shopped or bought from people who did agree with me, my options would be limited. Chick Fil A has never made any secret that the founder and current management are conservative Christian, and they demonstrate that by being closed on Sunday (the only days I seem to truly crave those chicken mini biscuits for breakfast!). Therefore, this was not a true surprise to me.
I understand this is a much more hot button issue for some people than it is for me, and as Jerry Lee said, those people certainly have the right to express their disapproval by not buying anything there. If a city does deny a business license though based on the religious views of the company's president, that does seem worrisome. I'd have to know more details about how such processes usually work to comment with any degree of authority.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Well, yes. But only in the sense it's also your "right" to murder someone even if it's against the law and then it's the polices right to find you, the DA's right to prosecute, and the penal system's right to imprison or kill you. But then what does "right" mean in this context? Physically possible? It's not legal, so it's hard to say it's our system: our system outlaws that.
posted
I am not comfortable with the government using its power to ban a business because of the beliefs of the owner as long as that owner's business practices conform to the law.
On the other hand, I find that this guy whinging about how he is being discriminated against because he supports discrimination (and, yes, opposing SSM is discrimination) to be a little rich. I am having a hard time mustering up much sympathy for him.
Despite my discomfort with government overreaching, I am pleased to live in a place whose heart is on the right side of history.
quote:If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Do you think there are no laws already dealing with when and how a business may be barred from an area, or its entry made harder?
quote:Despite my discomfort with government overreaching, I am pleased to live in a place whose heart is on the right side of history.
It's easy to be content with government overreaching when it's in your favor. When that overreaching was on the wrong side of, as you say, history, though...I suspect it was more than just 'uncomfortable'.
I don't get this. To me, freedome of expression, speech, association, etc., is right up there at the top of the list of important things we ought to be concerned about. It's distressing but not surprising how willing we as a society are willing, even supposed liberals, to just brush it aside when it's in our favor. It's not about sympathy or antagonism towards Cathy. Freedom of speech is designed specifically to protect speech we're uncomfortable with. That's the entire point.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't directed at anybody in particular. I should think that if you truly believe in a principle, if a situation arises where that principle is being tested. If an opponent stands to gain by that principle being upheld, or if they stand to lose by it being forfeited, you must cling to that principle even harder. Anybody can have convenient beliefs.
Voltaire never actually said it, but it's still true, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Those zoning for businesses are not the morality police, and we have not given them that power to exercise it in defense of any philosophy.
There's no karma account we can draw from based on years of abuse or current mistreatment of homosexuals. Tit for tat justice is just about the most useless form.
I wouldn't say I feel sympathy for CFA except insofar as franchise owners who don't agree with the CEO are now taking a lashing for her words, and now have to decide if they can continue supporting that business. It's not a fun position to be in.
But these men who are using the zoning process as a penal system are doing more damage to a cause they support than good. They need to do the right thing and take a big step back from what they've declared they are going to do. While still holding fast to their beliefs.
Folks who dislike CFA and what they stand for can choose not to eat there, and can organize boycotts of CFA locations. They can make sure CFA maintains fair hiring practices, and keeps the law. Those are all methods our constitution fully supports.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be nice to hope that Mr. Cathy would experience a little epiphany with the discrimination show being on the other foot. I suppose that is too much to ask.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Local government has the right to deny businesses entry into markets for whatever reason. And businesses have the right to challenge the decision in court. That's our system.
This isn't true, actually. And consider how you would feel if the reason was CFA supporting SSM, or hiring along those lines.
If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
You are under the mistaken impression that the licensing and zoning authorities have *a right* to violate the law in such a way. They have no such right, and knowingly violating the law, as opposed to having been found to have violated the law in judicial review, is illegal. They have a duty instead to follow the law as closely as they can. Knowingly violating it is not something they can just do, and let the courts sort it out later- at least, should they choose to do this, the affected party could win a fairy large amount of money from them in civil court for their trouble.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the backlash that I know of from friends and whatnot isn't because the CEo HAS that opinion- it's because CFA, as a company, has donated MONEY to anti-SSM causes. It's not the having an opinion, it's the actively discriminating part that irks people. And the lying about the reason they recalled the Jim Henson toys.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. As much dissent as their is to my post, I still disagree. I live in Utah. The local city council denies many businesses for many reasons . . . particularly using a morality clause or because it "doesn't fit in with the city's image". It's the same in a lot of other cities in the state. I'm not really sure why this is purportedly "illegal", unless you can 1) point me to the specific law and 2) show me instances where it's been upheld by the courts.
Same deal-i-o.
Regardless. Many laws are violated that don't get prosecuted. Society functions based on enforcement and the court system, not what's always on the books. Sodomy is against the law in most places, but that doesn't prohibit . . . never mind. As you were.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strider: Yeah I did and I suspected you were alluding to that, but I couldn't be sure. Also, I wouldn't put it past them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you're the one to decide whether a building / business permit gets handed out, it's your individual choice. Whether you're violating laws or not (or whether said laws get enforced) is up to the police, courts, or higher-ups in local government to decide / override. Is there a reason this isn't true?
Do you think there are no laws already dealing with when and how a business may be barred from an area, or its entry made harder?
quote:Despite my discomfort with government overreaching, I am pleased to live in a place whose heart is on the right side of history.
It's easy to be content with government overreaching when it's in your favor. When that overreaching was on the wrong side of, as you say, history, though...I suspect it was more than just 'uncomfortable'.
I don't get this. To me, freedome of expression, speech, association, etc., is right up there at the top of the list of important things we ought to be concerned about. It's distressing but not surprising how willing we as a society are willing, even supposed liberals, to just brush it aside when it's in our favor. It's not about sympathy or antagonism towards Cathy. Freedom of speech is designed specifically to protect speech we're uncomfortable with. That's the entire point.
posted
I'll never eat there (which is made easy by the fact that I think there's only one CFA within 400 miles, and even that's 20 miles away at a campus student union), but yeah, I don't think local government should be able to block them.
It's one thing if the CEO personally believed in something and espoused personal beliefs. But the CEO is using corporate funds to support discriminatory policies. I can't support that with my money, so I'll boycott.
The personal or collective boycott is the constitutional way to react to this. Make a personal decision to hurt them as a consumer, even try to organize a collective, but don't shut them down using the government. It's a bad precedent, and next time around it might not be in your favor.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It would be nice to hope that Mr. Cathy would experience a little epiphany with the discrimination show being on the other foot. I suppose that is too much to ask.
It would be especially nice if people who claimed to respect freedom of speech and expression didn't peer down their noses at Cathy for not being grateful for the privilege of being threatened by local government officials for supporting a view they, personally, disapproved of.
I mean, for pity's sake, the sort of soft self-righteousness you're exhibiting here is precisely one of the things that has historically made it so easy to dismiss gay rights concerns: 'Eh, I guess they ought to be allowed to marry, but really they just shouldn't be gay because it's wrong,' or, 'Sure, they shouldn't be barred from adopting, but what did they expect when they decided to be gay?' or so on and so forth.
Either you support freedom of speech and expression, or you don't. I have very little doubt you would be more than a little 'uncomfortable' had local government officials in Massachusetts and particularly Chicago had said to Target, "We're going to take a good hard look at whether you should be allowed to open a store here, because of your embrace of gay rights."
Would the latter case be wrong because it's wrong to oppose gay rights? Your remarks on this topic certainly portray that outlook. Or would it be wrong because it's wrong for local government to exert pressure in zoning and similar matters for practicing open, legal speech?
quote:A lot of the backlash that I know of from friends and whatnot isn't because the CEo HAS that opinion- it's because CFA, as a company, has donated MONEY to anti-SSM causes. It's not the having an opinion, it's the actively discriminating part that irks people. And the lying about the reason they recalled the Jim Henson toys.
Be fair, Tinros, is there anyone who wasn't already unhappy or even antagonistic towards CFA before the toy thing that changed their minds afterwards? Probably very few. As for CFA's politics, so what you're saying is that people are 'fine' with CFA opposing SSM...just as long as they do that in a way that has absolutely no consequence on the world around them.
Well, alright, fine. Don't shop there, which would incidentally be an extremely effective tool for a private business to change its ways. But don't misuse local government and then cite popular support.
quote:I don't know. As much dissent as their is to my post, I still disagree. I live in Utah. The local city council denies many businesses for many reasons . . . particularly using a morality clause or because it "doesn't fit in with the city's image". It's the same in a lot of other cities in the state. I'm not really sure why this is purportedly "illegal", unless you can 1) point me to the specific law and 2) show me instances where it's been upheld by the courts.
Well if you insist on relying on your own second hand anecdotal knowledge...why don't you instead offer an example of a denial and what the actual, stated reason for it was, and see if perhaps you're not misunderstanding things?
And whether or not political speech is different from some 'morality clause' violation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I don't know. As much dissent as their is to my post, I still disagree. I live in Utah. The local city council denies many businesses for many reasons . . . particularly using a morality clause or because it "doesn't fit in with the city's image". It's the same in a lot of other cities in the state. I'm not really sure why this is purportedly "illegal", unless you can 1) point me to the specific law and 2) show me instances where it's been upheld by the courts.
Well if you insist on relying on your own second hand anecdotal knowledge...why don't you instead offer an example of a denial and what the actual, stated reason for it was, and see if perhaps you're not misunderstanding things?
And whether or not political speech is different from some 'morality clause' violation.
Well, fun! How about stores that sell adult toys but no actual pornography? Especially when there isn't any city law or zoning regulation against it. Is it too libertarian of me to suggest that it's the same thing?
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, fun! How about stores that sell adult toys but no actual pornography? Especially when there isn't any city law or zoning regulation against it. Is it too libertarian of me to suggest that it's the same thing?
And where exactly are such stores being prohibited, and under what specific rule? If there isn't any city law or zoning against it, did they just outright say, "We don't like it, that's it," or did they have some patina of justification?
quote:Rakeesh, please go back and reread what I wrote.
Oh, wait, I missed it: you're 'uncomfortable' with threats to freedom of speech, a vague half hearted statement in no way offset by self righteous remarks about the shoe being on the other foot now and isn't that ironic, and the 'right side of history'.
What an empty phrase that is, incidentally. 'Right side of history'. That has no bearing whatever on the rightness or wickedness of anything, but it certainly sounds good and nicely critical, which I suppose is the point.
I read what you wrote, which was to say 'it's bad' but then to shrug it off, because the victim is also bad. That is not, actually, support for freedom of speech.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, of all the things my knickers are twisted about, I am just not up to leading the charge on this one. This jerk will get a teensy taste of his own medicine for a couple of days in a way that will never stand up to a legal challenge - unlike the LGBT community which is legally discriminated against. The ACLU will certainly leap to their defense as they should.
It is sort of like when they let the KKK march in Skokie or letting the Westboro Baptist idiots protest funerals. It is necessary and right to do so but don't expect me to be excited about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fine with it. I think that the mayor has a right to freedom of speech too, and the City of Boston has a right to decide what businesses go into historic sites. They wanted to put a store on the freedom trail in the center of Boston, and all businesses get vetted before they are allowed to build there.
A store that supports active discrimination against gays, who has a CEO who is vocal about it, and who donates LARGE amounts to anti-gay causes...works for me.
It won't hold up in court, more than likely, but it raises awareness of their stance, and I personally know at least 20 couples who don't eat there now.....including me and my wife. So it works for me.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's weird how many bigots come to skokie, westboro was right outside my old school only a year or two ago.
And I really doubt Emanuel will seriously hinder CFA if they have any real plans of moving into Chicago.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Strider said "You saw news about the whole facebook debacle?" and linked to a "debacle" going on.
But it's much to do about nothing. There are only two facts in the whole case so far: 1) The Facebook account is new and 2) The profile picture is a stock image. For some reason, someone took those two facts, decided that it *must* be a PR person for Chick-Fil-A, and (as usual for the Internet) tried to make it true.
What's more likely: a conservative, not wanting to get dog-piled on their own FB account, created a fake one to make those comments. They used a stock image because the entire account was meant to be thrown away.
But you can try to make Chick-Fil-A look bad with no evidence if that floats your boat. Have fun.
-----
Second: the whole "they are lying about Jim Henson's toys!!!" argument is just as logically-unsound.
There is a picture of a sign online saying that the toys were recalled by Chick-Fil-A on July 19. The Jim Henson company released a press release on July 23 saying they were severing ties. Based upon these two facts, we can assume one of two things:
1) Chick-Fil-A is lying and the picture of the sign is fake and was made after Henson pulled the toys. 2) Chick-Fil-A is telling the truth. They pulled the toys and a few days later found out Henson was severing ties.
We don't have enough evidence to determine which of those is true. So if you scream "Look at them liars at Chick-Fil-A!" you are either purposefully twisting the facts or you are ignorant of them. Either way, without proof that the company is lying, your opinion is invalid.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for CFA's politics, so what you're saying is that people are 'fine' with CFA opposing SSM...just as long as they do that in a way that has absolutely no consequence on the world around them.
Yeah, actually, that strikes me as a pretty crucial difference.
If the CEO or even the company merely says "we don't like that," I'm probably not going to get up in arms about it, and I probably wouldn't go out of my way to try to boycott them or raise a fuss about it. It could just be the policies of one guy.
But when they start using my money that I spend there to support causes I don't, well, that certainly changes the equation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerry Lee: It is frightening to me that anyone finds it okay for government officials to deny businesses licenses based on their opinions. What about freedom of speech?
I am glad you have discovered the wide world of discriminatory policy based on the beliefs of elected officials. I presume you are now only frightened and spurred to awareness and concern about it because this time it is happening to someone based on beliefs (discriminatory beliefs, no less) that YOU support. Perhaps there's a lesson here?
quote: Never once did Chick-Fil-A say that they support discrimination.
I'm going to spoil this for you: Chick-Fil-A supports discrimination. It is painfully obvious, they have said as such, and it's not even remotely a controversial charge. To assume it is ambiguous requires a great degree of ignorance about the issue.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My family will no longer eat at Chick-Fil-A for the foreseeable future. But that is our choice.
Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices. As long as they stick to that, they have the right to give money to whatever ignorant group they want. As long as it is a legal organization. The government should not have the right to deny them a license based on that.
I think what is really upsetting people is the fact that most people don't seem to care enough to stop eating there. That, and it seems that there are more Chick-Fil-As in conservative areas than liberal ones. Did I hear on the news that there are none in New York City?
With their closed Sunday policy is it really a surprise to anyone that they have conservative Christian viewpoints?
I would like to know if it is a tax deductible donation or not.
The other thing I would like to know is should I stop eating at the locally owned franchises as most of the ones in Maryland appear to be?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The locally owned ones still pay a franchise fee to the parent corporation...so if you're worried about your money getting back to them, it's connected, but it's really up to you at that point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nate Silver (of FiveThirtyEight) on Twitter: Will there be a Chick-fil-A inside the ground zero mosque?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
It's unlikely that the hourly employees are contributing all that much in the way of funding to causes I don't support. Major dollar contributions from the parent company, however, I can actively protest.
They're a bigger target, and targeting Joe the CFA Employee who might send ten dollars to a PAC or something isn't really a great use of my time. Targeting CFA, who spends hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to support a PAC antithetical to my own beliefs, now that's a great return on my time and energy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices.
Isn't that the thing underlying the zoning challenges? CFA vets their franchisees heavily for values. They give strong preference to married Christian men. I thought the allegations were that they won't allow openly gay people to open a franchise.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh, of all the things my knickers are twisted about, I am just not up to leading the charge on this one. This jerk will get a teensy taste of his own medicine for a couple of days in a way that will never stand up to a legal challenge - unlike the LGBT community which is legally discriminated against. The ACLU will certainly leap to their defense as they should.
Had you said something as clear and emphatic as that in the first place, my initial response would've been quite different.
---------
quote:But when they start using my money that I spend there to support causes I don't, well, that certainly changes the equation.
For me, personally? Where my own private dollars go? It changes things for me, too. I was referring to the tangling of zoning and supporting unpopular speech, not voting with dollars and boycotts.
--------
quote:Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices. As long as they stick to that, they have the right to give money to whatever ignorant group they want. As long as it is a legal organization. The government should not have the right to deny them a license based on that.
I can't speak to their hiring practices with respect to hourly employees, but it's pretty clear they do discriminate on the basis of politics, religion, and sexual preference with respect to owner operators. One of the links above goes into detail. However, they weed out damn near everybody and the process is extremely lengthy and exhaustive, so it's not something that is clear or actionable.
-------
quote:Every dollar we spend at every company we visit ends up as profit to *somebody*. By purchasing an Apple product, I bet you are helping fund the salary of someone who buys drugs and takes them. Do you stop buying Apple products because your money goes to a cause you can't support?
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like if someone went into Ben and Jerry's and said "Here's my money. Please make sure it is used to pay a *straight* employee. Don't let it go to those gay owners as profit."
Do you really think this is a valid comparison? On the one hand, a company is paying an employee who then spends that pay on an activity it likely knows nothing about, that it's rarely ever going to be in a position to find out.
On the other hand, the company publicly uses profits to contribute to a political effort to discriminate against a minority. They don't hide it, are in fact proud of it, could stop if they wished to, and their money makes a difference in that cause. On no level aside from the mere involvement of money are your two examples alike.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I was driving down through Indiana, I listened to one of the thirty or so Christian talk stations. The host was explaining that everyone needed to get as many people as possible to go to Chick-Fil-A and to organize church outings.
He continued with how important this was for about 20 minutes. It was followed by a program explaining that Muslims are deceived by the devil and are engaged in a war against God.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ZachC: Well Rakeesh, you just can't seem to agree with anyone can't you?
While I'm sure this seemed like a deadly zinger when you said it, the shine comes off a bit if you look to see that I agree with...I actually stopped counting when I reached four people.
If that was a joke using double negatives, it went well over my head. But somehow I don't think so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Chick-Fil-A will never discriminate against selling food to customers, or in their hiring practices.
Isn't that the thing underlying the zoning challenges? CFA vets their franchisees heavily for values. They give strong preference to married Christian men. I thought the allegations were that they won't allow openly gay people to open a franchise.
It's one of the issues, and one of the main reasons that I support what the Mayor did.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
