Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay Controversy: Gay Employees Speak Out

[dalegg 143]

What we're witnessing is the evolution of our social conscience. Just go back half a century and you'd probably find half the population not in favor of mixed marriages, but our social conscience evolved at that point to where we understood that it was a civil rights issue. Homosexuality in this country as in the rest of the world has been treated as an affliction and those who say they are gay, as social outcasts. Gays have slowly gained access (military, benefits to domestic partners, protections from being fired), but marriage is the ultimate recognition by society that their relationships are in fact, genuine and deserve the same rights as straight married couples. I think we're going to see an increasing number of incidents like this where a company has been found to not afford the same benefits or rights to gay couples and activists standing up to that kind of assault on civil rights. It's not just about whether someone agrees with homosexual relationships, but about gay citizens' civil rights.

I think what we are witnessing is the birth of something far worse.

It used to be that a business that actually practiced discriminatory policies would be subject to a boycott, and as our social conscience grew, the average person more and more would choose not to support that business based on their policies....and eventually change would come about. It wasn't that we hoped we could change people's opinions, is that we were saying "if you treat us or any human bad, you will not have our business", and if a business wanted to keep making money, they would have to change.

But now its about more than that. Now its "if you don't agree with my position, you are an evil person and you have to go". It's not even that this opinion has to be a fringe view point. Heck, the company in Question is based in Atlanta, Georgia. What do the majority of people in Georgia feel about gay marriage? I don't know but I'll bet it isn't a majority that support it.

What makes this worse is that the owners stance is so similar to what President Obama's was just until recently. Here's what the President said in 2008, and until 4 months ago I don't think he had said different:

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now for me as a Christian its also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix."

Now..nobody came out and called Obama a hate-filled man after he said that. He was given the usual pass by the left, presumedly because they knew he probably didn't mean it. But who would have more of an influence on Gay Marriage- the President of Chick-Fil-A, or the President of the United States? Or would you guys on the left just prefer people lie about their opinion?

So all of a sudden since the President's view point has evolved, anyone who is slower to evolve than him is a hate-filled bigot.

Tell me what I am missing. What precisely did this guy do, except tell the truth? Did his words actually do anything negative for the Gay Marriage movement? Not hardly. Even if he sends money to organizations that oppose Gay Marriage- so what? The majority of people have evolved to where they know it's wrong to oppose gay marriage and they will cast their vote correctly, right? Or is that the problem. You know it isn't right, so these people must be silenced by the minority so that laws prohibiting gay marriage won't be pursued. This is lame, because I believe you can argue for Marriage Equality based on the Constitution. But trying to run people out of town because they don't have the same opinion as you is just wrong.

What if I found out that the owner of my local Vons didn't support the death penalty? Is that it, do I find all of my friends who do support the death penalty and boycott the store? People have different opinions. Why can't you just let it be?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think what we are witnessing is the birth of something far worse.

When rape is inevitable, best to just lay back and enjoy it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

This is you:

Actually since I am black I doubt I would be in that picture for fear of my life, but I love a good liberal stereotype

Edited August 4, 2012 by Run Herschel Run

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

what people fail to get is that Dan Cathy's opinion of gay marriage is exactly that: an opinion. If Chick-Fil-A was openly discriminating against hiring employees because of their sexual orientation, then there would be a little more substance to this "boycotting" but the fact remains is that Chick-Fil-A is not committing a crime .. and (for now) the views of its COO do not carry into its business practices beyond being closed on Sundays.

And you get it perfectly. As the OP said this is a civil rights issue. It is about the right to have an opinion without fear of political persecution.

[Danno 1,228]

This is you:

That photo would be so much more useful (and popular) if those flags had just been confederate flags (like in the movies 10 times out of 10).

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think what we are witnessing is the birth of something far worse.

It used to be that a business that actually practiced discriminatory policies would be subject to a boycott, and as our social conscience grew, the average person more and more would choose not to support that business based on their policies....and eventually change would come about. It wasn't that we hoped we could change people's opinions, is that we were saying "if you treat us or any human bad, you will not have our business", and if a business wanted to keep making money, they would have to change.

But now its about more than that. Now its "if you don't agree with my position, you are an evil person and you have to go". It's not even that this opinion has to be a fringe view point. Heck, the company in Question is based in Atlanta, Georgia. What do the majority of people in Georgia feel about gay marriage? I don't know but I'll bet it isn't a majority that support it.

That's not what happened with CFA, but I don't agree with turning it into a boycott either. However, the boycott is equally matched by the absurdity of the amount of support by the demonstration of people who happen to agree with the COO's POV on gay marriage. There's also a back story to CFA - a restaurant chain where the owner has infiltrated his religion into the business and has made donations to organizations that have been politically active in fighting against gay marriage. So, I don't think gay activists are off base for reacting to his public statement, which by itself, was a political one in this context. And there's even a back story to the boycotting - in that these organizations who have received contributions from CFA to fight gay marriage - they were the ones who organized boycotts against companies such as Ford Motors, for just advertising in gay magazines or Disney for offering benefits to employees with domestic partners.

So, if you extend that belief that such boycotts go beyond difference of opinion in all those cases, I would agree with you. If you are, though, singling out the gay activists for adopting the same politic tactics done by anti-gay groups, then I think you are being selective.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And you get it perfectly. As the OP said this is a civil rights issue. It is about the right to have an opinion without fear of political persecution.

That's absurd. I guess I'll have to go back to my example that if it really is only about someone having a right to their opinion, then I suppose you would patronize a company even if the owner openly stated his opinion that you personally found offensive. For example, suppose he stated that he believes "people shouldn't marry outside of their race," and decided to make that opinion public, you wouldn't let that interfere with whether or not you patronize his business? Explain how the owner's civil rights are being infringed upon by a boycott of his business? Good grief.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's absurd. I guess I'll have to go back to my example that if it really is only about someone having a right to their opinion, then I suppose you would patronize a company even if the owner openly stated his opinion that you personally found offensive. For example, suppose he stated that he believes "people shouldn't marry outside of their race," and decided to make that opinion public, you wouldn't let that interfere with whether or not you patronize his business? Explain how the owner's civil rights are being infringed upon by a boycott of his business? Good grief.

Once again I think for many people, this is not about Gay marriage this is about being able to have an opinion with out Liberals trying to use Govt and other influences to have you banned.

Boycotts are great and wonderful. A shinning example of freedom in action. Don't like Cathy's opinions dont eat there. Simple enough. The problem is when Liberals call for banning of his business by Govt officials or Institutions.

How would you feel, if say, Several conservative mayors and elected officials wanted to ban Ben and Jerry's because they support the occupy wing nuts .

[dalegg 143]

That's not what happened with CFA, but I don't agree with turning it into a boycott either. However, the boycott is equally matched by the absurdity of the amount of support by the demonstration of people who happen to agree with the COO's POV on gay marriage. There's also a back story to CFA - a restaurant chain where the owner has infiltrated his religion into the business and has made donations to organizations that have been politically active in fighting against gay marriage. So, I don't think gay activists are off base for reacting to his public statement, which by itself, was a political one in this context. And there's even a back story to the boycotting - in that these organizations who have received contributions from CFA to fight gay marriage - they were the ones who organized boycotts against companies such as Ford Motors, for just advertising in gay magazines or Disney for offering benefits to employees with domestic partners.

So, if you extend that belief that such boycotts go beyond difference of opinion in all those cases, I would agree with you. If you are, though, singling out the gay activists for adopting the same politic tactics done by anti-gay groups, then I think you are being selective.

Honestly even the boycotting of businesses that say things you don't agree with doesn't bother me that much. That is to me pretty much the right way to handle things in a free enterprise. It goes too far when these knuckleheads harrass the employees though. I think the demonstrations go a bit far- and you are right to compare it with groups that boycott businesses the other way around. What bothers me most about this is when city officials come in and start threatening to ban businesses based on their personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if they could actually get away with the ban legally. As mayor of a city they could just make it very difficult to function properly, and you don't give an elected official a pass on his statements just because he won't be able to accomplish what he says he wants to do-- otherwise you would never give a Republican Presidential nominee grief for saying he wants to make abortion illegal, or you wouldn't even bat an eye when Mitt Romney says he vows to repeal Obamacare.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Once again I think for many people, this is not about Gay marriage this is about being able to have an opinion with out Liberals trying to use Govt and other influences to have you banned.

Boycotts are great and wonderful. A shinning example of freedom in action. Don't like Cathy's opinions dont eat there. Simple enough. The problem is when Liberals call for banning of his business by Govt officials or Institutions.

How would you feel, if say, Several conservative mayors and elected officials wanted to ban Ben and Jerry's because they support the occupy wing nuts .

Have I or anyone else come out in defense of what the mayor of Boston has said? Nope. Do they represent all 'libruls?' Nope. Was he being stupid? Yep. End of that argument.

Now back to the absurdity of those who came out to CFA's across the country in support of the COO's merely expressing his opinion. If the chairman of a company came out and publicly stated that he believed that White people made this country and are the superior race, would you support him making his opinion public? And if there was a Black mayor somewhere in the country who said he would do anything in his power to prevent that company from opening up in his city, would you say he's going too far? I think for you as well as many, you easily dismiss the plight of gay people and don't see that they are in a long struggle for civil rights. No one in this country should be excluded based on race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

Edited August 5, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Honestly even the boycotting of businesses that say things you don't agree with doesn't bother me that much. That is to me pretty much the right way to handle things in a free enterprise. It goes too far when these knuckleheads harrass the employees though. I think the demonstrations go a bit far- and you are right to compare it with groups that boycott businesses the other way around. What bothers me most about this is when city officials come in and start threatening to ban businesses based on their personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if they could actually get away with the ban legally. As mayor of a city they could just make it very difficult to function properly, and you don't give an elected official a pass on his statements just because he won't be able to accomplish what he says he wants to do-- otherwise you would never give a Republican Presidential nominee grief for saying he wants to make abortion illegal, or you wouldn't even bat an eye when Mitt Romney says he vows to repeal Obamacare.

There's definitely overreach on both sides of the aisle - and you point out abortion is one example - where local government officials are trying to circumvent Roe v. Wade and authority of the Supreme Court by passing laws making it illegal. Do I personally think this is wrong? Not necessarily because these legal battles will eventually end up being challenged in front the highest court of the land. The mayor of Boston was an idiot for saying what he did, but his opinion has no legal teeth. He's highly popular and probably felt safe speaking his mind. I wouldn't put much weight into what he said other than he just put his foot in his mouth.

[akihon 129]

Now back to the absurdity of those who came out to CFA's across the country in support of the COO's merely expressing his opinion. If the chairman of a company came out and publicly stated that he believed that White people made this country and are the superior race, would you support him making his opinion public? And if there was a Black mayor somewhere in the country who said he would do anything in his power to prevent that company from opening up in his city, would you say he's going too far? I think for you as well as many, you easily dismiss the plight of gay people and don't see that they are in a long struggle for civil rights. No one in this country should be excluded based on race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

but how has Chick-Fil-A discriminated against LGBTQ? that's the question here. Sure, I realize that civil rights for LGBTQ has been a long ongoing struggle and I'm an ally in every way but in what way has Chick-Fil-A applied their COO's prejudice in hiring LGBTQ? None. That is the point. Boycotting Chick-Fil-A because you don't support what the COO said, fine .. but don't forget that it also affects the employees ... some of whom are LGBTQ.

I also find it hilarious how people use "liberal" as an insult. being called "conservative" isn't exactly great either LOL .. and I'd rather be called "liberal" because it implies being more open-minded than a "conservative". Let's not get into the extremes of each - which is the main reason why people are using "liberal" as an insult. Not everyone is extreme, thanksverymuch.

Edited August 5, 2012 by mebbe

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think they were supporting Mike Huckabee that came up with the idea. It says less about free speech, and more about the power of FNC. Except for the relentless posts on Facebook, and the rest of the internet, MSNBC doesn't seem to have the same muscle, does it? When Comedy Central can generate a bigger crowd for a psuedo event than any organization on the left ever did since the sixties, I think the effort to turn Americans into correct thinking little commies is turning out to be an exercise in futility.

This is from an outside observer, that doesn't give two shakes about CFA, and has no problem with people having whatever sort of relationship they want with anybody else, as long as it is among mature individuals, done consensually, and with a little bit of decorum.

[웃 910]

you easily dismiss the plight of gay people and don't see that they are in a long struggle for civil rights. No one in this country should be excluded based on race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation.

Religion excludes gay people. It is a guaranteed way to assure an eternity in hell. It is an abomination, sinful, ungodly, sexually immoral, DETESTABLE, sick, SHAMEFUL, worthy of death, and a capital offense. Homosexuals must be put to death, according to the bible.

Leviticus 18:22

New International Version (NIV)

²² "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

http://www.biblegate...:22&version=NIV

Leviticus 20:13

New Living Translation (NLT)

¹³ "If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.

http://www.biblegate...:13&version=NLT

Deuteronomy 22:5

New International Version (NIV)

⁵ A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

http://www.biblegate...2:5&version=NIV

Romans 1:26-33

New Living Translation (NLT)

²⁶ That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. ²⁷ And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

²⁸ Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. ²⁹ Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. ³⁰ They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. ³¹ They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. ³² They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.

http://www.biblegate...-33&version=NLT

Edited August 5, 2012 by ☠

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Kip and LI same person? You decide. Poll at 11.