August 1st is Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day

[Expat]

If it was all about the First Amendment then those same people would be taking the same position if someone they disagreed with was catching the same heat. Very, very few people on this site have that sort of internal moral consistency. I can think of only three or four who regularly post. So don't cloak it in the free speech veil because the actions don't match the words.

Catching heat about something you say or a position you take is one thing. That is the way life works. Being threatened by government with not being allowed to build a store, is something else entirely. If people want to bad mouth the business and even boycott it, have at it. The liberals are actually very good at that. Much better than the conservatives. I personally have never been real big on boycotts. But that is just me. These sorts of issues should be contested in the free marketplace of ideas. Government should not be in the business of picking the winner.

 

[Roadie]

The members on this board are but a tiny speck in the world. We are hardly enough to be representative of ANY group other than INGO.

The piece I saw on the news didnt have a single person that was interviewed talking about marriage, they were all talking about Free Speech.. UNTIL they got to the part about college students wanting to ban Chick Fil A from campuses..

Oh the hypocrisy..

 

[Denny347]

Read this article...

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters | Fox News

I still feel the same way. If the owners stated that they support flag burning, support Obama, support tougher gun laws, would they get the same "free speech" support...doubt it.

"We support their right to free speech" (as long as we agree with their message)

 

[BigMatt]

I still feel the same way. If the owners stated that they support flag burning, support Obama, support tougher gun laws, would they get the same "free speech" support...doubt it.

"We support their right to free speech" (as long as we agree with their message)

The problem with that scenario is that they would have gotten government protections, tax breaks and subsidies to open more restaurants in Chicago and Boston.

Your point is well received, but it is human nature to support things that you agree with- or at least don't disagree with.

We have people on here making fun of OWS and the crazy church demonstrating at soldiers' funerals. We aren't immune to human nature on this site, but we don't tend to support people we totally disagree with no matter what the cause.

 

[Harry2110]

I still feel the same way. If the owners stated that they support flag burning, support Obama, support tougher gun laws, would they get the same "free speech" support...doubt it.

"We support their right to free speech" (as long as we agree with their message)

Actually Im kinda supporting them in that aspect as I want a equality in marriage but hate that free speech is being not respected as gun control is such a hot topic that we could be next after if us gays become a none issue.

I just wasnt able to go because of the crowd and our chick fil a is not very close. I really dont want politicans seeing that they can ban what they dont like as I have a feeling we gun owners are next on the chopping block and itll be more widespread. Plus what is the stopping a antigay politican from banning a gay pride festival because they dont like it.

 

[Smokepole]

I still feel the same way. If the owners stated that they support flag burning, support Obama, support tougher gun laws, would they get the same "free speech" support...doubt it.

"We support their right to free speech" (as long as we agree with their message)

True, EXCEPT, I don't see where any of the other issues that you listed resulting in some group calling for boycotts of any kind as there was here. The GLBT crowd was calling for boycotts of C-F-A because of Dan Cathy's PERSONAL views on gay marriage and who he donates money to. Not his company's business/hiring practices. Conservatives (and many traditional Liberals) were showing their support of him and THOSE RIGHTS by staging an ANTI-BOYCOTT rally so to speak, by supporting his product. Which, by the way, will likely continue with increased residual sales for a few days or so and most likely more than offset any boycott losses by a few misguided souls.


I don't see where anyone has faced any boycotts for espousing any of the other issues that you stated. Conservatives face this stuff on what can seem an almost regular basis. This one hit a particularly raw nerve that gets hit A LOT. Most of the people that I know are sick and tired of being called HOMOPHOBE, INTOLERANT, HATER and/or anything else that one can think of simply for not holding the view that homosexuality is normal and/or agreeing with everything that the Left and the GLBT crowd want us to and toeing that line.

This is how the Right does it, though quiet, visible, support and where they spend their money. We do it through peaceable assembly and other rational, respectful showings of support. The Left does it through militant assembly and tactics (many times destructful), always spoiling for the fight (it may not start out that way, but almost always devolves to it). Because with the Left it is most always about the FIGHT. Read: Right = MATURE, Left = JUVENILE. And don't tell me that's not true. There are too many examples of both. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (as for most things), for both sides, but they are few and tend to prove the rule.

This is all about Political Correctness and as I said before, Political Correctness is ALWAYS Political and RARELY Correct.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Most of the people that I know are sick and tired of being called HOMOPHOBE, INTOLERANT, HATER and/or anything else that one can think of simply for not holding the view that homosexuality is normal and/or agreeing with everything that the Left and the GLBT crowd want us to and toeing that line.

This is how the Right does it, though quiet, visible, support and where they spend their money. We do it through peaceable assembly and other rational, respectful showings of support.

Good point! GLBT people never have to face being assaulted, beaten, killed, fired, kicked out of their homes, denied jobs, or anything like that so I guess they don't have any reason to feel put upon and should just shut up about that whole mess and just tolerate the fact that some people don't like them. It's all about tolerance afterall!

My apologies for diving into this cesspool. I knew I shouldn't have, and since my POV isn't welcome by many here, I'll exercise my freedoms and stop reading this thread.

 

[hornadylnl]

True, EXCEPT, I don't see where any of the other issues that you listed resulting in some group calling for boycotts of any kind as there was here. The GLBT crowd was calling for boycotts of C-F-A because of Dan Cathy's PERSONAL views on gay marriage and who he donates money to. Not his company's business/hiring practices. Conservatives (and many traditional Liberals) were showing their support of him and THOSE RIGHTS by staging an ANTI-BOYCOTT rally so to speak, by supporting his product. Which, by the way, will likely continue with increased residual sales for a few days or so and most likely more than offset any boycott losses by a few misguided souls.


I don't see where anyone has faced any boycotts for espousing any of the other issues that you stated. Conservatives face this stuff on what can seem an almost regular basis. This one hit a particularly raw nerve that gets hit A LOT. Most of the people that I know are sick and tired of being called HOMOPHOBE, INTOLERANT, HATER and/or anything else that one can think of simply for not holding the view that homosexuality is normal and/or agreeing with everything that the Left and the GLBT crowd want us to and toeing that line.

This is how the Right does it, though quiet, visible, support and where they spend their money. We do it through peaceable assembly and other rational, respectful showings of support. The Left does it through militant assembly and tactics (many times destructful), always spoiling for the fight (it may not start out that way, but almost always devolves to it). Because with the Left it is most always about the FIGHT. Read: Right = MATURE, Left = JUVENILE. And don't tell me that's not true. There are too many examples of both. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule (as for most things), for both sides, but they are few and tend to prove the rule.

This is all about Political Correctness and as I said before, Political Correctness is ALWAYS Political and RARELY Correct.

How quickly we forget freedom fries, Target, and anything else French.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

FWIW--

Chick-fil-A 'Set a World Record' | The Weekly Standard

 

[miguel]

How quickly we forget freedom fries, Target, and anything else French.

True.

I remember when the Tea Party threatened to burn down all those McDonalds' becuase they didn't agree with the name change RE: freedom fries.

Heady days, those were!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

More sponsors of hate and intolerance...

5 Companies Like Chick-fil-A That Share Their Christian Faith | TheBlaze.com

 

[Smokepole]

Good point! GLBT people never have to face being assaulted, beaten, killed, fired, kicked out of their homes, denied jobs, or anything like that so I guess they don't have any reason to feel put upon and should just shut up about that whole mess and just tolerate the fact that some people don't like them. It's all about tolerance afterall!

My apologies for diving into this cesspool. I knew I shouldn't have, and since my POV isn't welcome by many here, I'll exercise my freedoms and stop reading this thread.

Don't be an A! Z! Z! This issue is about a response to someone (as well as many others) having a personal opinion that another group doesn't like. And his personal view nowhere comes into play in his company's day-to-day business practices. If it did then there could be an issue.

You are trying to compare apples and watermelons and the fact that you want to take the actions of a very few stupid people that take their personal animus' to unacceptable extremes (and the people that we are talking about here would and do stand with anyone that is hurt, injured or damaged by the type of people that you referenced) and paint anyone not on your page with the same brush. This is about being vilified for having an opinion that doesn't cow tow to the PC mandate and the people that are on the receiving end (for having an opinion not taking abhorrent actions) are tired of being beaten over the head about it on a regular basis. If you are unwilling to see and understand that, you are just as much a part of the problem as those that take other more radical action.

 

[Smokepole]

How quickly we forget freedom fries, Target, and anything else French.

Once again, apples and watermelons. The Freedom Fries stunt was stupid and sounds like something that a politician would come up with. Oh! wait a minute. That WAS a stupid statement that come out of politician trying to grab a headline. He wanted to change the menus in the House Dining Rooms to read "Freedom Fries" instead of "French Fries". Go figure.

As a aside, Toby Keith's (a Democrat by the way) restaurants - "I Love This Bar & Grill" - locations still call French Fries . . . . waaiiit for iiiit . . . . . Freedom Fries.

And the Target thing died a stupid and relatively quick death too.

Interestingly, these things were both in response to France's lack of support of the U.S. in the Iraq war and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with an American citizen being vilified for anything, like having an opinion. Curious that you would choose those as examples.

As I said, apples and watermelons.

 

[hornadylnl]

Once again, apples and watermelons. The Freedom Fries stunt was stupid and sounds like something that a politician would come up with. Oh! wait a minute. That WAS a stupid statement that come out of politician trying to grab a headline. He wanted to change the menus in the House Dining Rooms to read "Freedom Fries" instead of "French Fries". Go figure.

As a aside, Toby Keith's (a Democrat by the way) restaurants - "I Love This Bar & Grill" - locations still call French Fries . . . . waaiiit for iiiit . . . . . Freedom Fries.

And the Target thing died a stupid and relatively quick death too.

Interestingly, these things were both in response to France's lack of support of the U.S. in the Iraq war and had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with an American citizen being vilified for anything, like having an opinion. Curious that you would choose those as examples.

As I said, apples and watermelons.

Do you buy Ben and Jerry's or Michael Moore films? Shop at anti 2a businesses?

 

[Justin Case]

More hate from the liberal media....

Media Launches Scathing Attacks, Threats Against Chick-fil-A | FOX News & Commentary: Todd Starnes

 

[CX1]

Don't be an A! Z! Z! This issue is about a response to someone (as well as many others) having a personal opinion that another group doesn't like. And his personal view nowhere comes into play in his company's day-to-day business practices. If it did then there could be an issue.

The issue that seems to be missing is the violation of 1st amendment rights that the owner of Chik-fil-a is trying to accomplish that started this whole thing.

The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea.

However taking that position is rather short sided. Because next time it might be a religious view you don't agree with.

What happens when we get a large Muslim population in this country and they start trying to force their religious views into the law?
Their religious book says eating bacon is a sin. And many of them take that fairly seriously.

It is the same principle with the chicken man. His religious book says homosexuality is a sin. And many of those followers take that fairly seriously.

Why should the chicken man or the Muslim get to force their religious belief on me via the law?

The Founding Fathers would have rejected both notions as anti-freedom and anti-American. We are free to worship as we want and one can not force another to worship the same via the Government.

And yes the idiots in Chicago and Boston or wherever where completely wrong in wanting to ban this business in their cities. That is a totally separate issue even though it is also related to the 1st amendment.
However supporting one wrong in demonstration against another does not equal things out. Both are still wrong and both should be stopped.

 

[thebishopp]

The issue that seems to be missing is the violation of 1st amendment rights that the owner of Chik-fil-a is trying to accomplish that started this whole thing.

The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea.

However taking that position is rather short sided. Because next time it might be a religious view you don't agree with.

What happens when we get a large Muslim population in this country and they start trying to force their religious views into the law?
Their religious book says eating bacon is a sin. And many of them take that fairly seriously.

It is the same principle with the chicken man. His religious book says homosexuality is a sin. And many of those followers take that fairly seriously.

Why should the chicken man or the Muslim get to force their religious belief on me via the law?

The Founding Fathers would have rejected both notions as anti-freedom and anti-American. We are free to worship as we want and one can not force another to worship the same via the Government.

And yes the idiots in Chicago and Boston or wherever where completely wrong in wanting to ban this business in their cities. That is a totally separate issue even though it is also related to the 1st amendment.
However supporting one wrong in demonstration against another does not equal things out. Both are still wrong and both should be stopped.

Amen (no pun intended).

 

[Smokepole]

Do you buy Ben and Jerry's or Michael Moore films? Shop at anti 2a businesses?

Ben & Jerry's - Almost never. But I rarely buy ice cream from the store. And their prices are HIGH for what you get. I know the value of a dollar. I know plenty of conservatives that buy their ice cream and besides, I can't remember the last time I heard of them being publicly raked over the coals for their politics. And with today's media that would be EVERYWHERE.

Michael Moore - Saw Roger and Me. None since, but that is because he misrepresents, skews and presents information and video footage out of context to further his political view. Here, Mr. Moore is coloring his films to promote his political views as truth (much of which isn't), pandering to his natural audience and hoping to dupe others. I don't patronize his films because he is fraud and a political hack. Not because he holds an opposing viewpoint.

I don't agree with Aaron Sorkin either. But I watched and enjoyed The West Wing and watch The Newsroom even though Sorkin presents many Conservative/Republican bits out of context. I still enjoy the shows.

Both of these are cases of a people applying their political views to their businesses and selling it. No evidence whatsoever that Dan Cathy does.

Anti -2a Businesses - I don't patronize A2A businesses because their business practices infringe on my ability to exercise my Constitutional Rights. And by their policies and views they don't want my business anyway. WIN - WIN.

Again, apples to watermelons. Out of 5 examples you have given so far, you weren't even in the ballpark with four and way out in left field on one.

Conservatives are continually raked over the coals publicly and with great fanfare for having views and opinions that do not conform to the Politically Correct filter. I don't care what a persons Political and/or Religious views are unless it effects me in some way.

I do take umbrage when someone like Dan Cathy gets vilified the way he has because I know that if I (or anyone else) were to voice my personal thoughts and views even semi-publicly on any PC subject I would be subjected to the same treatment. And this is DECIDEDLY UN-AMERICAN. Americans are supposed to be free to have their own opinions. And conservatives don't usually go public over someone merely having an opinion unless that someone applies it to business practices that effect them or in some other way sticks it in our collective face.

With the Left, all that is necessary is for one to merely have a non-conforming opinion to trigger the Bash a Lot Media. Hence the Support Chik-Fil-A Day. Sorry you it seems you are unable to get that.

Sorry for the long post. I HATE the PC SHI ITE!

 

[hornadylnl]

Ben & Jerry's - Almost never. But I rarely buy ice cream from the store. And their prices are HIGH for what you get. I know the value of a dollar. I know plenty of conservatives that buy their ice cream and besides, I can't remember the last time I heard of them being publicly raked over the coals for their politics. And with today's media that would be EVERYWHERE.

Michael Moore - Saw Roger and Me. None since, but that is because he misrepresents, skews and presents information and video footage out of context to further his political view. Here, Mr. Moore is coloring his films to promote his political views as truth (much of which isn't), pandering to his natural audience and hoping to dupe others. I don't patronize his films because he is fraud and a political hack. Not because he holds an opposing viewpoint.

I don't agree with Aaron Sorkin either. But I watched and enjoyed The West Wing and watch The Newsroom even though Sorkin presents many Conservative/Republican bits out of context. I still enjoy the shows.

Both of these are cases of a people applying their political views to their businesses and selling it. No evidence whatsoever that Dan Cathy does.

Anti -2a Businesses - I don't patronize A2A businesses because their business practices infringe on my ability to exercise my Constitutional Rights. And by their policies and views they don't want my business anyway. WIN - WIN.

Again, apples to watermelons. Out of 5 examples you have given so far, you weren't even in the ballpark with four and way out in left field on one.

Conservatives are continually raked over the coals publicly and with great fanfare for having views and opinions that do not conform to the Politically Correct filter. I don't care what a persons Political and/or Religious views are unless it effects me in some way.

I do take umbrage when someone like Dan Cathy gets vilified the way he has because I know that if I (or anyone else) were to voice my personal thoughts and views even semi-publicly on any PC subject I would be subjected to the same treatment. And this is DECIDEDLY UN-AMERICAN. Americans are supposed to be free to have their own opinions. And conservatives don't usually go public over someone merely having an opinion unless that someone applies it to business practices that effect them or in some other way sticks it in our collective face.

With the Left, all that is necessary is for one to merely have a non-conforming opinion to trigger the Bash a Lot Media. Hence the Support Chik-Fil-A Day. Sorry you it seems you are unable to get that.

Sorry for the long post. I HATE the PC SHI ITE!

The only violation of Cathy's freedom of speech is governments attempting to keep him from opening stores. Yet I don't see anyone here interested in taking away government's ability to do that.

Nobody is putting a muzzle on Cathy preventing him from speaking his opinion. I've seen businesses vilified here for their anti 2A policies. It's no different. As a consumer in the free market (what's actually left of it), I can choose to boycott any business for any reason I see fit. I boycotted a gas station for over a year until they came under new ownership. Why? Every time I'd pay at the pump, I'd have to go inside and wait in line for 5+ minutes to get my receipt because they wouldn't put paper in the pump printers. Is that trivial? Yes, but it's my right to do so.

I'm not stupid. I can watch the media frenzy over this Chick-fil-a story and still form my own opinion about it. It seems as though some want to prevent the media from telling this story. Why? Where's their first amendment right?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The issue that seems to be missing is the violation of 1st amendment rights that the owner of Chik-fil-a is trying to accomplish that started this whole thing.

The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea.

However taking that position is rather short sided. Because next time it might be a religious view you don't agree with.

What happens when we get a large Muslim population in this country and they start trying to force their religious views into the law?
Their religious book says eating bacon is a sin. And many of them take that fairly seriously.

It is the same principle with the chicken man. His religious book says homosexuality is a sin. And many of those followers take that fairly seriously.

Why should the chicken man or the Muslim get to force their religious belief on me via the law?

The Founding Fathers would have rejected both notions as anti-freedom and anti-American. We are free to worship as we want and one can not force another to worship the same via the Government.

And yes the idiots in Chicago and Boston or wherever where completely wrong in wanting to ban this business in their cities. That is a totally separate issue even though it is also related to the 1st amendment.
However supporting one wrong in demonstration against another does not equal things out. Both are still wrong and both should be stopped.

Let's set aside the whole "freedom of religion" issue for a moment.

"The man is trying to force his religious view into law.

"The 1st gives me the right to reject his religion and demand that it be kept out of the law I am required to follow.

"People seem to just gloss over that fact because they happen to agree with his idea."

In the first place, let us suppose - for argument's sake - that Dan Cathy contributes money to organizations which advance his beliefs vis-a-vis marriage. There is no law against that; there isn't even a principle that there should be a law against that. It's called "lobbying" and it's been around since the Serpent tried to convince Eve to eat the apple.

Secondly, the First Amendment certainly gives you the right to reject his religion, but the Constitution merely says that Congress can't make a particular religion the "state religion"; it says nothing about The Peoples' ability to legislate their morality into law (which is a good thing, because people have been doing that since the aforesaid Serpent did his thing in the Garden). You are certainly able to hold your own view of "morality" and you may lobby for your brand of morality and contribute your time and treasure to the same right along with the rest of us.

What you don't have the right to do is tell the rest of us that we aren't allowed to believe in and attempt to live by and attempt to legislate our morality just because you don't agree with it. As long as your rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the attainment of) Happiness are not infringed.

All of this hoopla concerning gays - every bit of it - is an attempt by a small segment of the population to impose their views of morality on everyone else and they do it in every way possible. They attempt to persuade; they attempt to teach it in schools; they attempt to popularize it on TV; they lobby the government at all levels for favorable status. All of this might be acceptable, but they don't stop there. They attempt to cut off debate by labeling anyone who doesn't agree with their POV as "haters", "homophobes", "barbarians", etc. Do you see the hypocrisy in this? They wish to control the debate by shutting out half the argument; just in the same way they tried to shut off debate on the Environment and on the morality of particular wars and on personal transportation and on individual possession of firearms and on the morality of abortions and birth control.

So basically, what you've tried to say is: Gays have a right to their opinion and all the rest of us have to shut up and accept their opinion without argument.