Chic-Fil-A whats going on here?

spitfirebill wrote: I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals.

This was a perfectly fine conversion for three pages with no name calling. What the berkeley?

N Sperlo wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals.

This was a perfectly fine conversion for three pages with no name calling. What the berkeley?

Were you reading the same posts I was reading? There was plenty of name calling prior to him.

spitfirebill wrote: Wow. This has been awesome. Not! Is there one documented case where CFA has discriminated against a customer or employee becasue of sexual orientation? If not, I bet there will be pretty soon. I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals. Crowd should be really small so I can just sashay up and get a tea refill with no problemo. BTW when you leave the counter at CFA, they say "It was my pleasure" after you thank them for serving you. Way way diferent that the grunt or scowl you get at a lot of Hardees and Wendys.

I don't know what CFA you go to, but the people who work at the ones in my area are the ones that i'm pretty sure wouldn't even get a job at McDs. They're completely inept, rude, usually with poor hygiene, and after all that, have the nerve to tell me what Poopshovel pointed out earlier.

"Have a blessed day."

GTFO with that E36 M3. I gave them the benefit of the doubt exactly 3 times. Haven't been back since, probably never will.

carguy123 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals.

This was a perfectly fine conversion for three pages with no name calling. What the berkeley?

Were you reading the same posts I was reading? There was plenty of name calling prior to him.

Where???

scardeal wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to scardeal: I think most here would agree that CFA shouldn't be banned from anywhere that a McDonalds isn't. I won't buy their because I don't agree with what they are preaching and by doing so, I make a political statement. In no way does religion play into it for me. I think many here are along those lines. CFA is a private business and may support whatever religion they would like. I was raised catholic and found my beliefs differ, but still carry many values of the faith. The political statement they are making is offensive to me. I will have KFC tonight. (Scardeal, I know you weren't targeting anyone here.)

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I think what you're doing is perfectly reasonable. I myself try to avoid giving support of businesses that have come out publicly in support of things I disagree with. And it wouldn't be any surprise to most here that I'm happy with the CFA's announcement, and would go there more often if there were any in my area. What's distressing to me is that it is SO difficult to have a peaceful, rational conversation between people of opposing viewpoints. It seems like Facebook is full of obnoxious pictures with words making fun of an opposing viewpoint for both sides, whether its religion or politics. I feel like this ceaseless lampooning, rather than leading to dialogue and hopefully some resolution, has simply increased the rancor between those of opposing viewpoints and not been a meeting of the minds and hearts. People need to remember that both sides are human beings, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for that reason. We don't have to agree, but understanding the viewpoints of both sides of the issue needs to be present for us to live in any semblance of harmony. Unfortunately (and I'm thinking specifically of 2 instances not related to this debate) there are instances where the underlying motivations make any sort of coexistence absolutely impossible, and I fear that is where we're headed as a nation and a culture.

Mainly because what conversation is there to have?

Is there ANYTHING that ANYONE could say that would make YOU agree with other side on the gay marriage issue?

Just like there is abosolutely nothing YOU could say to convince ME that they shouldn't have all the same marriage rights/benfits that hetereo's have.

carguy123 wrote: Unless I'm missing something Gays & Lesbians don't have the RIGHT to get married in many places so they can't be trampling them by telling people they don't agree with that RIGHT and selling tasteless chicken sandwiches. Now I understand that they want that right, but it's not a right as of yet.

Exactly. CFA is active (speaking out publicly and supporting anti-gay groups) in denying that right to the LGBT community. Tasteless, just like thier chicken sammiches.

carguy123 wrote: Now I understand that they want that right, but it's not a right as of yet.

In an equal society, it would be.

In reply to carguy123:

Nothing as purely offensive.

scardeal wrote: People need to remember that both sides are human beings, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for that reason.

Where in the denial of LGBT rights is CFA or the church treating others as humans with dignity and respect?

Practice what you preach...

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Their food sucks anyways.

Yup, other than the food being awful this just gives me one more reason to not eat there.

Enjoying a big pile of Waffle Fries and Polynesian Sauce. Mmmmmmmm. Tastes like intolerance.

poopshovel wrote: Enjoying a big pile of Waffle Fries and Polynesian Sauce. Mmmmmmmm. Tastes like intolerance.

lol

Otto Maddox wrote: Isn't it routine to block strip clubs, bars, etc. based on nothing more than "family values"?

No.

It is routine to block such adult businesses based on zoning ordinances. Most business licenses specifically ask if the business will be selling adult products.

Would you want an adult business next to a school?

There are no zoning ordinances that allow one type of chicken restaurant but prohibit anti-gay chicken restaurants.

PHeller wrote: Boston could require that all Boston based business cannot base hiring decision on sexual orientation or marriage status.

Probably won't work.

Communities that have tried it quickly realize that is would requiring churches and religious organizations to hire contrary to their Constitutionally protected religious freedoms.

It is illegal, and wildly unpopular at the voting booths.

scardeal wrote: People need to remember that both sides are human beings, and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect for that reason. We don't have to agree, but understanding the viewpoints of both sides of the issue needs to be present for us to live in any semblance of harmony....

You have a very point about the way things are argued, but most reasonable people do not have any real issue with peoples opinions (well... they shouldn't). It's when those people act on those opinions and actively try and prevent something that, although they disagree with it, has no actual affect on them.

It would be kind of like people speaking out against communion because they find it offensive and against their beliefs (and maybe has some corrupting influence, I don't know). That is fine and no one should have any real issue with that (other then it being slightly ridiculous in their opinion). But when they actively campaign to stop it, despite the fact that it really has no affect on them, that is what people find unreasonable and inappropriate.

93EXCivic wrote:

carguy123 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals.

This was a perfectly fine conversion for three pages with no name calling. What the berkeley?

Were you reading the same posts I was reading? There was plenty of name calling prior to him.

Where???

Go back and look. Its there. That's why I used it.

I've NEVER been to a Chick-Fil-A with rude or dirty workers. I have no idea where you went.
And they have NEVER told me to have a blessed day. That's just been my experience.

I respect how you are voting with your wallet by not shopping to support your feelings, rather than getting on a high horse like the mayors of Boston and Chicago.

spitfirebill wrote: Wow. This has been awesome. Not! Is there one documented case where CFA has discriminated against a customer or employee becasue of sexual orientation? If not, I bet there will be pretty soon.

Yes, they've been sued and settled before, there was an article linked to earlier in the thread.

dculberson wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: Wow. This has been awesome. Not! Is there one documented case where CFA has discriminated against a customer or employee becasue of sexual orientation? If not, I bet there will be pretty soon.

Yes, they've been sued and settled before, there was an article linked to earlier in the thread.

Thanks. I didn't check any links.

gamby wrote: That's because it's fair game to criticize those who do the discriminating. It's 2012. Gay people aren't second-class citizens.

It's impossible not to discriminate. The question is whether it's just to make a certain discrimination. The law discriminates about who can marry whom. You're not allowed to marry your siblings, your parent, or your own child. In most states, you're not allowed to marry an heir, adopted child, stepchild, etc. that is not of blood relation. You're not allowed to marry more than one person at the same time. You're not allowed to marry someone below a certain age. You're not allowed to marry someone who is incapable of understanding what marriage is.

Do you agree that any of the above limitations protect either the persons or society? If so, you're discriminating about marriage and who can marry whom. At the same time, as gross as it may be, it is legal for some situations stated above to have a sexual relationship with one another.

That really makes the question, what is marriage, what value does marriage give to society that makes it deserving of legal enshrinement, and what are the characteristics of marriage that produce that value? I know my answer to that is very strongly disagreed with by some members here. It's not born out of hatred towards the LGBT community, but it does disagree with it.

As far as the charge of second-class citizen, it rests solely upon whether one sees marriage between same-sex couples as just or not. Legally, they have every right that a non-LGBT person has: they can vote, own a business, marry a person of the opposite sex, travel freely, etc. There are no legal or economic restrictions specific to being a member of that community.

That's it. I should've studied philosophy and law in addition to computer science.

N Sperlo wrote:

spitfirebill wrote: I'm just glad that next time I go to CFA I won't have to put up with the LBGT crowd and whiney pandering liberals.

This was a perfectly fine conversion for three pages with no name calling. What the berkeley?

It was typed with tongue in cheek. You just didn't hear it.

SVreX wrote:

PHeller wrote: Boston could require that all Boston based business cannot base hiring decision on sexual orientation or marriage status.

Probably won't work. Communities that have tried it quickly realize that is would requiring churches and religious organizations to hire contrary to their Constitutionally protected religious freedoms. It is illegal, and wildly unpopular at the voting booths.

Then it should be required that they label themselves as "Religiously Based Hiring Process" where being a good member of said religion is part of the resume.

Also, they shouldn't get government incentives for their programs because that would defy separation of church and state.

But that would make a lot of very large organizations very under-funded, and probably hurt lots of people until non-religious organizations were able to pick up the slack.

Let them build it and then see if the population goes there.......same advice I'll give for religious venues, sporting events, concerts, governments, etc......

Don't like it, don't go there.

Personally, do you go to a courthouse for a marriage license? Sure.......do you have to get one via a religious institution, no.

I'd be willing to take religion out of government for the trade of "Quit your bitching and GTFO of the news".....

Same goes for numerous other complaints, just leave the rights that this country was based upon alone. I believe Pursuit of Happiness pretty much covers LGBT rights, just like Freedom of Religion covers the CFA....

Is my thinking just ahead of the curve here?

Bobzilla wrote: Let's put this another way...... If the mayors of Boston, chicago and councilmen from San Fran were blocking a restraunt owned by a LBGT person, what would we say? Its the same thing, buton the other shoe. They are discriminating based on sexual preference and that is just as wrong legally and morally as it is the other way.

It's not the same thing.

The "same thing" would be if the CEO of a national scale gay-owned business came out in opposition to straight marriage and refused to hire openly straight people. If that happened, you can bet there would be a lot of whining.

all this over chickin'?

grillit at home dammit

fasted58 wrote: all this over chickin'? grillit at home dammit

No way duuuuude.

The chicken is... like... a...a... METAPHOR, yeah! That's it! It's a Metaphor! For like... uhh..... other things!