Openly gay New York Democrats oppose plan to open Chick-fil-A restaurants along I-90

I mean what I wrote.

So there is no problem that people boycot it the company.

 

Supporting traditional marriage is NOT opposing the LGBT community.

People are free to boycott whatever they want, but they are boycotting chick-fil-a for LITERALLY no reason!

 

It is when the message is "marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman".
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/21/18275850/chick-fil-a-anti-lgbtq-donations
https://www.outsports.com/2019/1/7/18173087/fellowship-of-christian-athletes-gay-lgbt

Your opinion doesn't count.

 

Yeah, so no different to Obama's position for YEARS!

Why not?

 

no one HAS to spend money there. who are you/they to say where people can spend money in a free country?

 

Whataboutism when proven the company / owners supports anti LGBT.
So much for your "boycotting chick-fil-a for LITERALLY no reason"

Because there is no reason why it should.

 

I never stated money has to be spend there. So you bother other people with that question.

 

Me either. Deep fat fried food doesn't agree with me at all. Probably tasty, though.

 

I support gay marriage and I regularly patronize Chick-fil-A. I also support free speech, and they make a fine chicken sandwich. Plus, no one can match the efficiency of their curb service.

 

I wasn't aware that traditional marriage required financial support? Why are there organizations accepting money to support traditional marriage? When was it threatened? When did it become something that needed support?

 

Actually, I am not a big fan of economic boycotts based solely on political ties with lobby groups such as the Heritage foundation. I am disinterested in whether they send donations to stop SSM or reverse gay rights or trans rights in the political arena. We have plenty of gay friendly companies that do plenty of donating of their own to civil rights organisations. I am not interested in personal views of Cathay at all or any statements of his that do not direct reflect the company policy.

I do care about companies that have a pattern of discriminating against minorities in employment, promotion or in service. There have not been credible accusations that gays are not hired, promoted or served at chick a fil restaurants that I have read beyond the occasional annocdote

Chick-fila past donations that came a little too close for my comfort to anti-gay youth and family counseling ( read conversion therapy or 'child abuse on a couch with a cross on the wall' ) via Exodus Intl and the Family Research Council were and are my line in the sand. , but all those repugnant 'charitable donations' ended years in 2017. Exodus International was disbanded and they have stopped donating to the Family Research Council (FRC) as promised in a statement declaring their charitable funding redirection.

Actually I was under the impression that the gay rights organisations that organised the boycott, had been appeased years ago but I may be out of date. So unless they have been sending cash to groups that have been doing 'counseling' and tormenting gay or trans youth or their families recently, I might buy my first chicka fil sandwich. I won't hold a grudge.

 

Gay marriage damages traditional marriage the same way that counterfeit money damages real currency.

 

Please note that the post I was responding to was "Supporting traditional marriage is NOT opposing the LGBT community." Your assertion seems to contradict that statement. But since you chimed in, can you please provide me with examples of how traditional marriage has been damaged? How are heterosexuals getting married today suffering as a result of gay marriage?

 

You said it was about money not food. Maybe people can eat where they want without someone crying about how other people spend their money, eh? Always on the opposite side of logic, you are.

 

So you would eat at a diner if you knew the profits there support ISIS? As if.

 

I'm not sure I understand this either. How can politicians "oppose" the opening of a certain chain restaurant?

Is it just publicly denouncing them, or are they going to try to pass some questionably unfair law targeting that company?

 

So the business is guilty of discrimination against LGBT before their grand opening and should lose their right to open in the first place?

 

The remarkable thing is that the business isn't even currently doing anything that would anger these people. This goes back to the past, several years ago, when the company made some donations to groups that they didn't like. The company has since stopped making donations to any groups like that, even tried to reconcile with these activists and buy off the negative publicity by making some donations to Left-leaning and LGBT organizations, but apparently they have not been forgiven.

The original donations were not even all that big compared to the size of the company.

This is all about emotionalism, instilling fear and purging as part of cancel-culture, hoping to make an example of this company so no other corporation will dare ever make a donation to a group that supports an issue they don't like.

 

If you like fried chicken on a bun with margarine. I used to work for them in the mid 1970's in OKC but since they changed their lemonade to powder from real lemons and they don't have real lemon pie like they used to I don't patronize their establishments.

 

Their food sucks so I don't care, but they should have done it because they aren't open on Sundays and sundays are major travel days.

 

Hurray for the best model of a capitalist endeavor

 

the sandwiches are quite tasty and I just tried the spicy one, that is good too

 

yup

I say follow the money trail of the companies that the Democrat politicians want there instead. I bet you'd find donations to Democrats

 

but that is what Democrats do

 

That makes debate difficult.



Tossing around ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’ as insults is reckless and historically illiterate


Mitch Daniels · Voices Across America · Jul 11, 2021