Quote :

"Or are we back to the nonsense that discrimination in one market is fine but that same discrimination in some other market is somehow completely different? The only explanation I can think of is you believe discrimination is fine based upon expectant wealth, as customers and employees tend to earn less than business owners so discrimination here is wrong but discrimination against business owners is always acceptable because they tend to be wealthier?"

'not buying shit from someone' is not discrimination. What the fuck kind of libertarian thinks this way?

7/27/2012 11:46:54 PM

So refusing to buy the labor services of minorities is not discrimination? Thanks for the correction.

7/28/2012 2:04:16 AM

Company A offers to sell me a chicken sandwhich for $3 dollars and has an established policy of avoiding controversial political issues. Company B offers to sell me a chicken sandwhich for $3 and has an established policy of contributing portions of their corporate profits to several political groups I find distasteful. I buy the chicken sandwhich from company A.

How the fuck is this hard to understand. If you have the option to buy a very much interchangeable piece of shit chicken sandwich WITH profits being directed towards political activities you disagree with and one without all that - one of these things is a clearly inferior choice. For someone who strongly disagrees with this political and social spending on the part of the company and cares deeply about these issues, purchasing a meal there as opposed to their numerous comparable competitors would be like a Republican buying a meal at a democratic fundraiser instead of an unaffiliated restaurant.

This is why most companies which sell directly to consumers in a market-place where their product is fairly interchangeable with their competitors attempt to avoid political controversy. If you position your product as a clearly inferior choice in such a way to a substantial portion of your customer base, it doesn't really matter if another significant portion agrees with you. The presence of a clearly inferior choice is the more powerful motivator in purchasing decisions by far.

[Edited on July 28, 2012 at 6:39 AM. Reason : as]

7/28/2012 6:32:09 AM

Quote :

"So refusing to buy the labor services of minorities is not discrimination? Thanks for the correction."

I'd love to have d#s or some other "Libertarian" pipe in on this issue. Can you refer me to the lines in your manifesto that back this concept up?

And 2, who's the fucking minority in this case?

7/28/2012 7:01:41 AM

Quote :

"And 2, who's the fucking minority in this case?"

LoneSnark

7/28/2012 7:04:52 AM

"Person A offers to <work for me> for $3 dollars <an hour> and has an established policy of <keeping his sexual orientation a secret>. Person B offers to <work for me> for $3 and has an established policy of contributing portions of their <salary> to several political groups I find distasteful. I <fire Person B and hire Person> A. "

It is perfectly understandable to find both forms of discrimination fine. But if it is not okay to refuse to do business with a gay employee yet perfectly fine to refuse to do business with a christian employer, explain how that can be. I gave an option. Does it switch based upon the wealth of the targeted individual? It keeps getting restated that its fine to refuse to buy someones chicken, no one is willing to address whether it is fine to refuse to buy someones labor.

Quote :

"And 2, who's the fucking minority in this case?"

What does it matter? Insert any of the following: Christians, Muslims, gays, women, Irish, blacks, Latino, Mormon. Why is it perfectly fine to discriminate against some but not others?

Quote :

"This is why most companies which sell directly to consumers in a market-place where their product is fairly interchangeable with their competitors attempt to avoid political controversy."

And this is also why many gays keep their orientation secret from their employers, refusing to contribute to gay organizations because disclosure requirements might out them as gay. You are fine with this?

7/28/2012 9:02:01 AM

First off, to compare christians to blacks, women, irish (and gays, but that's another debate) is ridiculous. Christians choose to be christians. And they can choose to just live their lives according to their beliefs, or they can choose to try to force others to live according to their beliefs (donating money to organizations that fight to ban gay marriage).

And second, this isn't a case of "discriminating" against christians. People don't want to give their money to chic-fil-a because the ceo came out on radio and spouted his political views, and he contributes money that he makes selling chicken to political organizations that they don't agree with.

It's not a case of "discriminating" against christians. I wouldn't care if he was a muslim or an atheist. I just don't agree with his views on gay marriage (which isn't monopolized by christians). And that's not really the issue either, its the fact that he's so vocal about it and knowingly contributes large sums of money to it.

I think you're being disingenuous. I doubt you'd be arguing so passionately if this was a case of a ceo going on the radio supporting gay marriage and knowingly contributed large sums of money to political orgnizations that were trying to legalize gay marriage. I doubt you'd have a problem with some people choosing not to support their business.

And you're basically arguing that people shouldn't discriminate against a ceo who discriminates against gays.

7/28/2012 11:52:55 AM

I'm glad I don't get all pissy about what other people think. In fact, this thread has inspired me to go get some Chick-Fil-A because I think it tastes fucking delicious and I don't give two flying shits what happens with that organization after my transaction with them is complete.

7/28/2012 12:03:45 PM

I don't really care what he thinks either. I do care that he wants to try to make others live according to how he thinks, and contributes his chicken-selling profits to organizations that use that money to try to pass legislation that requires people to live according to how he thinks.

And I think it's pretty weak to not care about where your money is going... He's standing up for what he believes in, which is fine.... and people can stand-up for what they believe in by not giving him their money. I think a lot of people who say "i don't care where he contributes his money" only feel this way because they agree with his views or just don't care about the issue. They wouldn't be saying the same thing if he was giving money to the naacp, or the aclu, or codepink, or the westboro baptist church, or the muslim brotherhood, or the kkk, or an atheist organization.

[Edited on July 28, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/28/2012 12:21:05 PM

7/28/2012 12:23:29 PM

Personally, a president's Christian religious beliefs and who they donate to is very unlikely to influence at what places I eat at. I eat at places that serve good food, are clean, respectful employees, etc. While I don't believe in what the president said and the charities they donate to, it has little impact on where I will eat. If they were donating to the KKK, then maybe I would never eat their again.

It is a franchise and I doubt 100% of the franchise owners believe in what the president said.

I have only eaten at Chik-fil-a a handful of times in my life. People can protest, but the comments encouraging people to burn down Chik-fil-a for their hate crimes are outrageous and hypocritical. Part of them are likely trolls... but still disconcerting.

7/28/2012 12:27:06 PM

Quote :

"What does it matter? Insert any of the following: Christians, Muslims, gays, women, Irish, blacks, Latino, Mormon. Why is it perfectly fine to discriminate against some but not others? "

Christian? Minority? HAHAHAHQAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!1!!!

Not buying things from people isn't discrimination. It's preference of your spending. Have you bought anything from the Polish Bakery on Atlantic Ave. this month or from an Afghani market? If not, how dare you discriminate against them?

7/28/2012 7:04:52 PM

I wonder in UNC will ban all the Chik-fil-a's that are on campus. I can foresee it.

3 on UNC's campus and then another one in Chapel Hill.

[Edited on July 28, 2012 at 8:06 PM. Reason : oh noes!]

7/28/2012 8:04:16 PM

i wonder if the chik filet on ASUs campus has been affected in any way?

i wonder if hippies are organizing sit ins?

hardly necessary since the menu had like 4 items including lemonade.

7/28/2012 8:54:32 PM

7/28/2012 9:23:32 PM

^ LOL at that... and some of the franchise owners are supportive of gay marriage. People are making the fallacy of saying all the owners, etc. are essentially biggots.

My big concern is with the government banning Chik-fil-a... it would open up a Pandora's box if it was deemed legal to ban a business based off of a president's religious beliefs.

Quote :

"Although the ACLU strongly supports same-sex marriage, a senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois warned that if Chicago bans Chick-fil-A over the religious views of its management, it will be engaging in "viewpoint discrimination."[...] “The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said ACLU senior attorney Adam Schwartz. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination,” he added. “But we also support the First Amendment,” Schwartz said. “We don’t think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”"

[Edited on July 28, 2012 at 11:25 PM. Reason : unconstitutional]

7/28/2012 11:24:35 PM

7/29/2012 1:08:57 AM

Quote :

"And second, this isn't a case of "discriminating" against christians. People don't want to give their money to chic-fil-a because the ceo came out on radio and spouted his political views, and he contributes money that he makes selling chicken to political organizations that they don't agree with. "

Sure, this is a case of discriminating against Christians that are too vocal about their beliefs.

If it is fine for you to fire him for being against gay marriage then it must be fine for him to fire someone else for being in favor of it.

So, Bullet, you'd be fine if this CEO turned around tomorrow and refused to buy any more labor services from all his employees that were too vocal about supporting gay-marriage and perhaps donated money, that he paid them, to pro-gay marriage organizations he doesn't agree with?

Please answer this question and say why, I've asked it of you several times and every time you pretend like you didn't read it.

Quote :

"I think you're being disingenuous. I doubt you'd be arguing so passionately"

You have not read my responses to you. I told you on page 2 I am in favor of gay marriage. I am merely also against discrimination against people for their personal beliefs.

7/29/2012 11:57:08 AM

Quote :

" I don't really care what he thinks either. I do care that he wants to try to make others live according to how he thinks, and contributes his chicken-selling profits to organizations that use that money to try to pass legislation that requires people to live according to how he thinks."

7/29/2012 12:06:44 PM

Chick-Fil-A has been serving cock to men for years.

7/29/2012 2:26:15 PM

http://www.examiner.com/article/roseanne-barr-chick-fil-a-patrons-should-get-cancer-are-guilty-of-child-abuse

Roseanne Barr: Chick-fil-A patrons should get cancer, are guilty of child abuse

Quote :

"Failed Green Party presidential candidate Roseanne Barr said that anyone who eats at Chick-fil-A deserves to get cancer, Twitchy reported Wednesday."

Its so hypocritical when someone complains about Chick-fil-a being bigoted and hateful to only respond with such a hateful message aimed at patrons of Chick-fil-a.

7/29/2012 5:44:50 PM

Quote :

"FAILED ROSEANNE BARR"

7/29/2012 7:00:48 PM

Quote :

"I wonder in UNC will ban all the Chik-fil-a's that are on campus. I can foresee it. 3 on UNC's campus and then another one in Chapel Hill."

If they do some shit like that, then I will burn that motherfucker to the ground. A nigga gotta get his coffee and spicy chicken biscuit in the morning.

7/29/2012 9:37:27 PM

^ I did more research on this. Its a public university funded by tax payers, so it might be more prone to legal issues. Private ones can do it very easily without having to worry about legal issues.

NYU in NYC put it up to a vote by the student body back in the spring and the majority voted they stay on the basis of freedom of speech.

There was a protest sign I saw that said "If you eat here, you are saying you support bigotry" or something to that extent. I bet with that failed logic you could make the same claim about paying taxes or buying any other good or service.

Frankly, I am sick of it... I am not religious at all and believe that gay couples should have the same legal rights as everyone else under the law. Chick-fil-a donates a lot of food and donates to a lot of other organizations that do a lot of good things. The misconception is that the money only goes to 1-2 organizations that are out to prevent gay marriages.

It is also a franchise... I wonder if anyone asked any of the franchise owners their thoughts. It is highly unlikely, statistically speaking, that 100% of the employees, franchise owners, etc. from Chick-fil-a are against gay marriage.

That being said... boycott it if you want. The government has no legal role to ban it though.

7/29/2012 10:00:09 PM

I don't get all these people defending their right to boycott chick-fil-a.

Has anyone (anyone important at least) said that people don't have the right to boycott? As a mostly capitalist society, Americans have the right to boycott anything for any reason. If I wanted to I could Boycott McDonalds because The Hamburgler is my favorite character and I don't think he gets enough screen time.

7/30/2012 12:48:23 AM

^ The issue isn't boycotting... its government officials saying they will ban Chick-fil-a.

7/30/2012 6:35:08 AM

Would the government really ban Chick-Fil-A, or are they just saying that they would ban it so they can win votes, inevitably do nothing, and have a nice laugh in a few weeks when everyone doesn't care about Chick-Fil-A anymore?

7/30/2012 7:55:48 AM

I don't think the government can ban chick fil a, but it'd be fun to watch someone try. Anything that causes them to burn money fighting this works for me.

Colleges too can ban them, and in some areas, you might see developers not wanting then in a development?

If their policies comply with state law in states with gays marriage, they're probably fine.

7/30/2012 8:56:23 AM

Quote :

"^ The issue isn't boycotting... its government officials saying they will ban Chick-fil-a"

that's the issue i've been arguing (boycotting). i haven't been arguing that government officials should be able to ban chic-fil-a from certain places. i think they have a right to open stores anywhere they want. I think most people who are arguing this issues are talking about boycotting, not banning.

7/30/2012 9:22:33 AM

7/30/2012 11:45:58 PM

http://www.change.org/petitions/north-carolina-state-university-remove-chik-fil-a-from-the-atrium-food-court

7/31/2012 5:20:41 PM

^That would be hilarious and extremely ironic if NCSU bumped them off campus but UNC kept them around.

But that made me check to see if there was anything similar being pursued at UNC, so I did a search and found this story:

http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2011/02/college_students_nationwide_petition_chickfila_for_promoting_a_homophobic_agenda

Two very interesting quotes from this story:

Quote :

"Campus food service administrators said removing Chick-fil-A from campus dining would have economic consequences. “Since we have three Chick-fil-A’s on campus it would cost from $1 million and a half to $2 million,” said Mike Freeman, director of Auxiliary Services at UNC. The school’s athletic department also has a contract with Chick-fil-A, which sells food at games, he said. Chick-fil-A has denied that they are homophobic. “We have no agenda against anyone,” said Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A president and chief operating officer, in a recent press release. “While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees,” he said. The company pledged to support marriage. “To do anything different would be inconsistent with our purpose and belief in Biblical principles,” Cathy said."

So again he has stated this same belief before. He never said "down with the queers" at any time. Apparently this time it got picked up by more of the media, but I see very little difference in his statement a year ago and what he said earlier this month.

7/31/2012 5:33:13 PM

^ actually, the down with gays comes from where they donate money to.

They clearly do hate gays.

What they should be saying is that their idiotic, nonsensical beliefs don't ooze their way into their business practices.

7/31/2012 5:39:54 PM

Quote :

"They clearly do hate gays."

They, what do you mean, they? 100% of the workers, owners (franchise owners), etc. hate gays?

7/31/2012 8:45:35 PM

The corporate owners of chik fil a.

[Edited on July 31, 2012 at 9:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2012 8:59:55 PM

On CNN today, I read that this boycott of CFA was a "threat to religious liberty" and I've heard it call a war on relgion.
1.While near 80% of this nation claims to be christian, I have a hard time buying that the marjority is being opressed by the minority.
2. How is it a threat to religious liberty? You have the right to believe anything you want, but I also have the right to say its stupid to believe that. Not all religious people are hateful and science deniers, but some are. If you are a bigot and use a holy book to hide behind, you're a coward. Just say we hate gays, they are icky, I'd at least respect your honesty, don't hide behind your holy book.
3. Don't confuse a war on religion with not always getting your way and always getting to be the bully. Maybe the christians will luck out and someday have a president or 40+ who identify as christian.

7/31/2012 10:26:46 PM

I've seen no evidence they hate anybody. All they've done is spend money in the political process to affect legislation. The corollary would be to believe that gay people want to get married for no other reason than they hate Christians.

I was also unaware the organizations they gave money used it to run around trying to run out of business and silence pro-gay business owners.

[Edited on July 31, 2012 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .,.]

7/31/2012 10:30:14 PM

I read a Fox News article today about Chik Fil A that said Americans were at a dead-even split on gay rights, when the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly are against the "Biblical definition of marriage-- according to chik fil a".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

7/31/2012 10:32:25 PM

Quote :

"I've seen no evidence they hate anybody. All they've done is spend money in the political process to affect legislation. The corollary would be to believe that gay people want to get married for no other reason than they hate Christians. "

In my rant, I wasn't talking about any member of CFA, rather, I was openly attacking people who think the boycott is a 'war on religion' or a 'threat to religious liberty'. Marriage is a civic right, it doesn't have to be religious, you can be married by a captain of a ship or a judge etc. So gays getting married wouldn't be because they hate christians. If you want a religious marriage, you are welcome to have one because of religious liberty, if you want to be married in a court house, you can do that...but not gays. It's no big deal though, they are on the losing side or history, the bigots that is.

[Edited on July 31, 2012 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ...]

7/31/2012 10:41:03 PM

Chick Fil A supports the Family Research Council which, among other despicable things, fights against bullying rules in schools that would give gay students recourse against bullying.

Chick Fil A support Exodus International which is one of those camps that tells gays they are diseased and tries to "convert" them to being straight.

They also support Focus on The Family which has the same pro-bullying agenda as FRC, and has also successfully thwarted the teaching of evolution, and has pushed the failed abstinence only education programs.

If money talks, then the founders of chik fil a are using their money to say they hate gays, it's pretty clear.

Where's their donations to all the political groups that push for the government to support the bible's economic ideals regarding the poor...?

Quote :

" It's no big deal though, they are on the losing side or history, the bigots that is."

You'd hope so. Chick fil a is a multi-billion dollar company, which buys them a lot of power in our "democracy" where corporations are allowed to act as people when it comes to politics, but aren't accountable for other crimes otherwise.

What it boils down to is that CFA supports hateful organizations, and is very proud of it, based on a hypocritical, flimsy understanding of the Bible.

But they have the freedom and rights to boldly proclaim their despicable views, and people who support justness and fairness have a right to hassle them about it.

[Edited on July 31, 2012 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ]

7/31/2012 10:56:57 PM

^by doing what? NOT contributing to their business?

I'm sure that hurts them soooo much.

8/1/2012 12:11:07 AM

Quote :

"Marriage is a civic right"

In accordance with legislation at best. Nothing to stop the government from saying no government sanctioned marriage for anyone.

Quote :

"If money talks, then the founders of chik fil a are using their money to say they hate gays, it's pretty clear. "

Yes, they hate gays so much they continue to employ them and serve them as customers, a conscious decision not to discriminate against those they disagree with that the other side doesn't seem to share.

Quote :

"But they have the freedom and rights to boldly proclaim their despicable views, and people who support justness and fairness have a right to hassle them about it."

Right, people have the right to be assholes. Just like Chik Fil-a has the right to not hire gays and perhaps refuse to serve them chicken (in a moral sense if not a legal sense), gays have the right to refuse to buy chicken from Christians they politically disagree with. But just because you have the right to be a bad person doesn't change what your behavior is.

8/1/2012 2:15:59 AM

Chick-Fil-A chicken biscuit today for breakfast.

Mmmm...

8/1/2012 7:49:49 AM

^Yep had my spicy chicken for the third morning this week. Possibly taking the family tonight too.

BTW much like the hate crimes legislation, I don't see why bullying should be worse if it is against a gay kid. My son was being bullied at the first of the year by another kid. I don't feel that bullying a homosexual kid is worse than my son being bullied. They should both have harsh penalties. Is beating up a dorky kid really not as bad as beating up a homosexual kid or a black kid? If a group of bullies attacks them, I think they should all be equally punishable.

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 9:55 AM. Reason : Is that not PC these days either?]

8/1/2012 9:52:02 AM

Does CFA donate money to organizations that actively lobby against legislation targeted at defending black people? (I don't know) If he doesn't than isn't that discrimination? (by your definition of choosing who he gives money to)

8/1/2012 10:02:00 AM

8/1/2012 10:03:58 AM

Religion isn't above criticism. If you use your religion as a tool for your discrimination, you should be criticized for it. That doesn't make the person saying, 'No, it's wrong to hate someone based on a 2000+ year old manuscript, maybe use some of your best moral judgment.' an asshole. To clarify, I don't think CFA people are assholes, I just think they have been infected by the very powerful thought virus, religion. That doesn't make them bad, but now their entire world view is looked at through the prism of bronze age mysticism, books written in a time before germ theory or when people were still trying to figure out why it rained.

To this point, Nighthawk:

Quote :

"BTW much like the hate crimes legislation, I don't see why bullying should be worse if it is against a gay kid. My son was being bullied at the first of the year by another kid. I don't feel that bullying a homosexual kid is worse than my son being bullied. They should both have harsh penalties. Is beating up a dorky kid really not as bad as beating up a homosexual kid or a black kid? If a group of bullies attacks them, I think they should all be equally punishable."

Based on my very limited, first hand experience (working first at the NCGA and then as a political consultant) when the bullying bill was up for debate on the NC Senate house floor in '09 or '10, the language was something like you can't be bullied based on...then it gave a huge list -race, gender, socio-economic etc etc. One in that list was sexual orientation or gender orientation. The ENTIRE bill was struck down because of that language, meaning your son wouldn't have the 0 tolerance resources for bullying, nor would the black kid, or the poor kid all because included in the bill was a way to say, can't bully people because they are gay. If that make sense? I dunno, reading it back pretty sure I worded it like shit.

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 10:18 AM. Reason : ...]

8/1/2012 10:17:23 AM

^That is what I was asking about, and my personal problem with bullying/hate crimes legislation. If you killed my son, it should not matter if it was because he was gay, black, or whatever. Murder is murder and should be treated as such. I have never seen where bullying/assault/murder is more worthy of condemnation and punishment if the victim is (insert minority group). Hence why I personally have opposed these kinds of legislation in the past. Its again not because I think beating up the queers is cool, but those same rights and protections should be extended to all. My sons are both small physically and is currently in like the 20% percentile for their size (just went to the doctor last week for their annual checkup). This makes him more likely to be targeted by the bigger kids in his class. The doctors have said he will likely end up catching up and passing the other kids as they hit puberty and stop growing but his will hit later. Hence my interest on this subject.

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2012 10:49:22 AM

^I understand what you're saying and agree with you totally. Bullying/violence for any reason shouldn't be tolerated.

I was bullied a tad in middle school, then I got gigantic in HS. Anyway, easiest thing I found to deal with it was go along with it. Some guy used to stuff me in a trash can, so when I saw him coming, I'd slide the trash can out and tell him I was ready. He grew tired of it when he saw it didn't bother me.

8/1/2012 10:53:41 AM

Quote :

"“While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees,” he said."

this is an aside, but does he believe in everything in the bible says about marriage? polygamy? can the husband have a few concubines? if a woman's husband dies, should be required to marry her brother-in-law? does he believe that women that are raped have to marry the dude that rapes here? why doesn't he believe that stuff?

[Edited on August 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : ]

8/1/2012 10:56:05 AM