Chik-fila-a: Boycott or not to Boycott

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Zosiasmom, Jul 24, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Terrant

    Terrant New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think it is specifically an attempt to punish Cathy for what he said by most. It has been suspected that CFA has been against the homosexual lifestyle base mainly on past donations. Cathy's statement pretty much confirmed in their minds that their suspicions has been correct. It is not just a protest of Cathy but also CFA because of those donations.
     
  2. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I generally agree.

    It's not to "punish", but to align and put into effect a political statement (or to bolster some activistic impetus) which furthers what same-sex marriage advocates are trying accomplish (equal rights).

    Less "money" in the hands of Dan Cathy (who IS essentially Chic-fil-A), means less POLITICAL power for him as well.

    If gay people and those who advocate for them don't realize that, then they surely 'sense' the same.
     
  3. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Classic! Some conservatives love veterans and active-duty soldiers...until they find out they may not be conservative.
     
  4. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think you understand what "slander" is. The boycott against Chick-fil-a and calling their food disgusting is NOT slander.

    However, your childish disrespect of a veteran by assuming things you cannot possibly know about his service? THAT is slander.
     
  5. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But how does it restrict his free speech, is the part I don't understand. Nobody is trying to raid his house and put a muzzle on him or (god forbid) kill him. They are just choosing not to patronize the business of a man who uses that money to advance causes that directly affect their lives.

    If I'm not mistaken, you haven't explained how exactly this restricts his free speech.
     
  6. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the word "homophobe" is certainly not indicative of any level of outrage. And I have found that fried fast food is invariably greasy. It really is difficult to drop a piece of breaded raw chicken into a vat of boiling grease and have it come out any way OTHER than greasy, so pointing out that Chick-fil-a chicken is - simply by the very nature of the cooking process - "greasy chicken" is not expressing any outrage at all either.

    I am not indignant about anything and I challenge you to find something that I have posted that would show my "righteous indignation". No... wait... hold that... that's probably a waste of time given the fact that, if I had asked you to provide evidence of my outrage, you would have pointed to "homophobe" and "greasy chicken" as evidence of my barely contained, seething and smoldering anger. God only KNOWS what you'd come up with for indignation. Suffice it to say that I am not at all indignant about anything. Maybe if I were gay, I might feel differently, but even then, I doubt it.

    I have said that I would not honor the boycott when I returned to the states, and if there is a CFA restaurant in the towns I visit, and if I do happen to have a hankering for greasy fried chicken - it honestly does happen from time to time - then I will certainly consider dining there without regard to the owner's statements about marriage.

    I have also said that I think that the fact that the perfectly timed dip in the restaurant's approval ratings are indicative of the fact that people are aware of the same sex marriage debate in this country and that they are rapidly shifting their opinions in favor of it. I cited examples of how different states have moved towards acceptance over the past 40 years. You can look at national public opinion polls about gay marriage and see that the tide has turned. More Americans now view same sex relationships as normal than do not. http://www.gallup.com/poll/154634/Acceptance-Gay-Lesbian-Relations-New-Normal.aspx

    And finally... you really should stop insulting my service. You don't know what I did or where I served so back off a bit. I have no idea in what service you served, but in the Navy, we cursed from time to time... and I still do, especially on message boards when I want to emphasize a particular point. (I can think back to at least four former commanding officers of mine who went on to achieve flag rank - two of them to 4 stars and one of them all the way to become CNO, and they ALL used the F-word with great regularity, and oftentimes in anger... they were all VERY professional and were promoted accordingly). I am sure that the officers you served with were all just fine fellows and that you had a delightful time in service and that your uniform was always just totally spiffy and snazzy and I'll bet you had the shiniest shoes - and the brownest nose - in the whole regiment. That was obviously marvelous for you and clearly established your expectations of what polite and courteous military officers should be like. I am sorry that I do not live up to your prissy squeaky clean image of what a military officer should be or should talk like...really I am. That does not mean that I was ever anything less than an ultimately professional and talented naval officer and leader of men. And, to top it off... NOTHING I have ever written here has ever suggested that the ends justify the means.

    So.. after you take away the laughable characterizations of my attitude as "outrage" and "righteous indignation", and after the baseless insults of my military career.... basically, you said nothing of consequence there.... wanna reload and try again, big shooter? :lol:
     
  7. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Pretty sure I did. (*) In the 60's, folks didn't muzzle defenders of integration or marriage equality. Folks did get killed. More often though the majority found ways to intimidate people who spoke up, including harming their businesses if they did. They hurt people who dared to speak their mind, with the intent of silencing them and therefore denying them free speech. Many who did that, or allowed it to happen, thought being on the 'right' side of the argument made it ok. They were wrong too.​
     
  8. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How is choosing to boycott CFA restaurants restricting Don Cathy's free speech? How does that make him strop being free to speak his mind about any and every topic under the sun?
     
  9. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Slander is making false and damaging statements, it has nothing to do with assumptions.​
     
  10. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    It doesn't. Calling for a boycott of his restaurants doesn't. Calling for a boycott of his restaurants, because he spoke a political opinion that you or the majority didn't like -- that's intimidation and punishment. It applies duress to him and anyone who might also wish to speak about those issues.​
     
  11. expatriate

    expatriate Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,891
    Likes Received:
    86
    Trophy Points:
    0
    people who stand on soapboxes in the public square and shout out their opinions are often shouted down... people often don't approve of what they say... they still are free to say it. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from reproach for whatever you say.
     
  12. OverDrive

    OverDrive Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,990
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48

    It looks like the book that you just wrote in defense of not being outraged nor denying calling ppl homophobes because they disagree with you on the boycott issue, and attempting to give me a summary of your DD214 all indicate that I must have hit a nerve on being an intolerant hater of any counter opinions.

    As it is said, "Thou doest protest TOO much!"

    And so here is 'my' book:

    My probing of your Navy service as you have moved out of the States does bring up questions concerning whether you are an expatriate or an 'ex-patriot.' The majority of military personnel that I have known thru out my life, adhere to more of a conservative thought (independence) that of the liberal ideology (Govt knows what's best) and dont have a high regards for professional politicians (who try to run the country's military). The favorite CIC's that I have known that were highly thought of by the military were Reagan and both Bush's...Obama only got a larger sector than normal of military support in 2008 because of the large number of Blacks in the Army & Marines. And so you as a Navy lifer dont fit the mold that I have seen and would have been a minority during your service from Johnson to Clinton. And so, me being raised as a military dependent, and served in the military during war time, cant identify with you as the typical American serviceman. Sorry, but you seem to be an oddball and must purposely have bailed when W. took office.

    But I have little-to-no respect for the Liberal ideology, now dressed up as Progressivism, as it is intolerant of others views, Govt over-seeing of individual success and taxing away incentives as it is "their $$$" as opposed to an individual's money, and as growing Govt to tyranny thus robbing overall liberty, and so forth.

    But, you know where the sides are drawn, and so choosing the side that I have really no respect for, I see your hypocrisy and false belief systems in all your posts... the Libs wont write it down anywhere, but they walk out their ideology as 'their ends justify their means." Slam a co.s product and good reputation to accomplish your ideological goal.

    And this OP is just another example of agreeing with the their 'unofficial' mantra and saying 'we' can have free hate speech, but dont you dare question our self-righteousness." How much of this thread is 'liberal hate speech?"

    And so I have but contempt for your postings and general attitude just as the 1st time that I encountered you on this forum. I guess you could say 'I dont like the cut of your jib."
     
  13. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And so you are saying that it is permissible for the Mayor of Chicago, some other ward-heeling Chicago politican, or any other "PC Nazis" to tell anyone who can and can not open a legal businessplace in the United States? You'd have loved Hitler's Germany!

    OK, Johnny, glad to be hearing from someone who has seriously studied the topic... so, some guy plugs another guy in his ********, right in the big middle of his (*)(*)(*)(*)-tube. Just so I understand, you find nothing defective in mental processes that could cause that? I'm hopeful that such dysfunctions of human physiology and defects can be cured, but homosexuals think they should be celebrated! While we're at it, let's celebrate mental illness and cancer, too!

    We could play the "who's got a link" game, but we'd just be wasting each other's time, and neither of us would be convinced of the other's viewpoint. Still I suggest that you at least examine the well-researched theory that homosexuality in humans is attributable in many instances to defective olfactory bulbs and generally, a defective sense of smell. It's logical when you think about it... I plunge my penis into a man's ass and the smell doesn't make me want to retch? Gee, maybe there's something wrong with my ability to smell properly...? Or at least observe the development of life on this planet through millions and millions of years -- how much of THAT is attributable to the "normality" of homosexuality?

    Lastly, in the spirit of examining what's "normal" and what's not... do you know what "chicken" stands for in homosexual slang? It sure as hell isn't a sandwich at Chick-Fil-A. Go ahead and google it up, and you may also gain some understanding of "man-boy love". Now that I'm sure you agree (snort!), let's all go to Chick-Fil-A tomorrow, on August 1st, and have a great big bowl of their thoroughly excellent Chicken Noodle soup. You haven't had soup that good since you left home! Cheers!
     
  14. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    They're not angry about Dan's statement, the statement just changes their understanding of his families charity work, and it's the charity work folks are angry about?

    The Cathy family has been making donations to Christian charities since the 1960s. Last year his parents donated over $14.3 million dollars, the bulk to children's camps and foster homes, and 8% of it went to a Christian organization that has taken a stance on gay marriage... but folks were ambivalent about that. Until Dan voiced his opinion. His statement made it clear the business he works for is against homosexuals?

    What's the goal here? To damage the business Dan works for, in hopes of derailing the charitable foundation his parents setup in 1984 so it can't send 8% of it's annual donations to an organization getting out a message you don't like? Not sure how that's going to work, but if you succeed, are you thinking about the other 92% of the charity you're trying to derail? Acceptable collateral damage to impede an organization whose message you don't want heard?

    We complain about how dirty presidential campaigns are, that candidates focus on attacking each other rather than on presenting their ideas. Never heard of politician yet who was willing to do 12x as much damage to a foster kid, just to damage his opponents ability to speak.

    Marriage equality in this country is necessary, fair, and inevitable. Dan Cathy is wrong in his belief that God would be against it. But a high tech lynch mob going after his place of work because he dared to speak that opinion is also wrong.​
     
  15. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63


    Then shout him down and stop attacking his family and business.​
     
  16. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We pretty much disagree. Still, I'll try to do better.
     
  17. OverDrive

    OverDrive Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,990
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    My sincere question to you is:

    How any honest, free-thinking person can support a professional Chicago politician ('I only vote present') and Saul Alinsky Community Organizer, with a whole grocery list of communist friends and mentors in his past, and runs the White House as a crime syndicate, selling out this nation's security for his own political advantage and paying off his cronies with big contracts, is beyond me!! You have to be not 'color blind, but rather 'blinded by color' to buy into his BS!

    Obama is not just 'disingenuous,' but an out & out liar! And shud He be re-elected (God help the USA!) his dirty laundry will be found out, soiled underwear piece by piece at a time, and he will be impeached for any of a multitude of reasons! The truth about the Obama Presidency will come out, as there are presently about 50 books about his sordid past and radical ideology presently out; but because of the liberal news media, his cheering squad due to their liberal bent, he was never properly vetted and has them running interference for him. It really is just so obvious and shamelessly disgusting. It's all so sickening that it even makes me want to move to Mexico!! [​IMG]
     
  18. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep. I've noticed that.
     
  19. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You are correct. Overall what people are doing is PROTESTING the views of the President of Chic-fil-A.

    Correct.
     
  20. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It's funny (to a small degree). It's as if some people actually 'believe' that proponents of same-sex marriage and homosexuals should NOT fight Dan Cathy (politically) for what he said.

    And in an era where we KNOW that money is stupidly allowed to be translated into VOTES, we darned-sure are going to try to change the 'income' of a guy like Dan Cathy. It does NOT take a genius to know what has been known (already) for a very long time:

    If you want to have an effect (on almost ANY person), try to hit them in their pocket; that's where it counts.

    If Cathy REALLY cared what happened to the money he was making via Chic-fil-A... he would NOT have associated his corporation with his views. I suspect that this will (at least) affect the revenues of his company for an extended period of time. I doubt it will devastate the company... but over time an effective and affective POLITICAL STATEMENT will be generated from all the attention this is getting.
     
  21. Johnny-C

    Johnny-C Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    34,039
    Likes Received:
    429
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It doesn't. Dan Cathy is not in any way "gagged" by the negative response of his present and potential customers. He can say whatever he wants (according to the 1st Amendment), but he is not guaranteed to encounter 'zero' consequences for the same.

    Cathy's Constitutional rights are absolutely intact. And it is just as clear that those who wish to criticize/oppose the criticism he is receiving... are free to express themselves as well.

    That MANY pro-Cathy supporters also risk being criticized as being anti-homosexual, is a possible consequence of their actions as well.

    Personally, I find it rather hard to believe that so many like Cathy are willing to put up their anti-homosexual BANNERS so boldly. I can think of quite a few other REAL problems that probably deserve more attention, than who wants to legally marry who. :(
     
  22. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, basically, physically hurting people is "denying them free speech," right? Just making sure we're on the same page.
     
  23. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I didn't say it did. However, as assumptions are generally false, especially when you know absolutely nothing about the person you are making those assumptions about...
     
  24. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So...boycotting his restaurant doesn't take his free speech...but having a reason for calling that boycott does?
     
  25. The Real American Thinker

    The Real American Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    Messages:
    9,167
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well...I don't, and I'm bisexual. Boycott the hell out of him if you want, but you will forever be branded with the same brand as Roseanne Barr (who said she hoped people who ate at Chick died of cancer), Rahm Emanuel, Tom Mennino, and anyone else who did what they did. Which is to say, you'll be branded as an extremist who wishes death on those who disagree and support using the force of government to "ban" businesses (but only some businesses) that don't toe the party line.

    I'm sorry, but I can't and WILL NOT be associated with such filth. Additionally, having personally witnessed the overflowing, neverending charity of the Cathy family and Chick-fil-A...I can't justify hurting them economically. To hurt them economically would not only stop them from donating to anti-same sex marriage organizations, it would also keep them from giving free food to the homeless, millions in college scholarships to those who need them, etc. And I don't think that is right either.

    You want to fight Cathy? Support pro-same sex marriage organizations. Show people that homosexuals are good people, people no different than heterosexual people except in the gender of the person they choose to spend their life with. Show people that there is no logical reason to be against same sex marriage.

    Do that, and you'll have a much better chance than a stupid boycott at changing people's opinions and gaining acceptance. But things like this boycott just turn people away, and that doesn't help anyone.

    And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Right here, you stopped making it about boycotting the company and turned it into something personal, trying to hurt Cathy's income and, by extension, his life.

    That's exactly what I'm talking about. (*)(*)(*)(*) like that doesn't help.

    Right now, thanks to the likes of Barr, Emanuel, and Mennino, the only political statement you're sending is that homosexuals are militant (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s that would raid Cathy's house and murder him and his family if they could.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page