By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
scottie on 26 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:

This is so stupid. So what if the Chik President stands by his beliefs publicly. From what I understand the company has always been open about it's religious base, even remaining closed on Sundays. If you really hate him for it and don't want to buy his chicken, then don't. I don't watch Woody Allen or Roman Polanski movies because I think they are disgusting human beings, but I'm not going to demand a lawsuit or start some kind of nation wide boycott. One thing is for sure, the government should stay out of it.


You missed the point. Nobody gcares at all if this guy believes in God, nobody cares if they close on Sundays. People care because they donate money to  organisations that spread the idea that some people do not deserve their basic human rights.



Around the Network
Kantor on 26 July 2012
badgenome said:
Soleron said:

Corporations do not have those rights. The individuals that make up those corporations deserve free speech and the ability to donate to who they want, but corporations have never been able to print what they want in advertising material or fund what they want politically.

That said, the government doesn't have the right to stop them building a store in their city because the individuals that make it up disagree with the stated beliefs of the individuals that make up the restaurant. It's not within their power, if we are to have a free market. They can restrict explicitly anti-gay-rights material being distributed through the stores, but not its operations.

I'm pretty sure corporations do have those rights. You may not think they should have them, but the freedom of the press part of the first amendment has been interpreted that way for a long time now - rightly so, I think.

So I'm pretty sure the government can't restrict the distribution of anti-gay rights material. That would never, ever survive in court.

Why is it uncontroversial for Nabisco to Photoshop up a gay pride Oreo or for the Jim Henson Company to be pro gay marriage or for Shittiest Company on the Planet award-winning EA to come out against DOMA, but the second the COO of a company says he's against gay marriage suddenly corporations don't have rights? Do corporations have the right to only express "correct" opinions?

I fully believe that the company can say whatever it likes. However, I reserve the right to criticise them if what they say is bigoted and backwards, and that's what we are seeing here.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor on 26 July 2012
mrstickball said:
I haven't read every comment, but how many people are discussing the fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Boston's mayor are using the power of their office to bar a business from their cities, whereas the statement from Truett Cathy has virtually no bearing on the business, nor people that are gay?

Talk about a double standard. If Chicago or Boston banned a business because it was run by blacks, wouldn't that be pretty bigoted? Only one entity in this discussion effects anyone else - and it isn't Chick-fil-A or Truett Cathy.


That is silly. Being black is not a choice. Being a homophobic bigot is a choice.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Kantor on 26 July 2012
homer said:
Good for chick-fil-a. Since businesses seem to care so much about political issues, it's good to see that some people still stand against liberal media oppressions despite the consequences that will arise. You have to be honest, if your stance is not pro-gay marriage or some form of indifference, the media will slaughter you and try to make you out to be a nazi or commie.


So you would support them if they opposed, say, the Civil Rights act? 

Honestly, homophobes are now being perceived like racists, which can only be a good thing. Neither is a choice. Neither can make you inferior. Neither harms society in any way.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

badgenome on 26 July 2012
Kantor said:

I fully believe that the company can say whatever it likes. However, I reserve the right to criticise them if what they say is bigoted and backwards, and that's what we are seeing here.

No, we're not. We're seeing a bunch of local tyrants threatening to keep them from doing business in their cities. That's not criticism, that's totalitarianism. Violating actual civil rights to make a symoblic stand for civil rights is as backwards as it gets, but very few people seem bothered by it because they apparently don't comprehend how it's possible to disagree with someone and yet defend the right to say disagreeable things.



Around the Network
Player1x3 on 26 July 2012
Kantor said:
mrstickball said:
I haven't read every comment, but how many people are discussing the fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Boston's mayor are using the power of their office to bar a business from their cities, whereas the statement from Truett Cathy has virtually no bearing on the business, nor people that are gay?

Talk about a double standard. If Chicago or Boston banned a business because it was run by blacks, wouldn't that be pretty bigoted? Only one entity in this discussion effects anyone else - and it isn't Chick-fil-A or Truett Cathy.


That is silly. Being black is not a choice. Being a homophobic bigot is a choice.


Being an intolerant local tyrant anti-first amendment liberal hypocrite is also a choice



ManusJustus on 26 July 2012

I'm very liberal, but I would prefer companies to take no political stance. Its simply bad for business.



Kantor on 27 July 2012
Player1x3 said:
Kantor said:
mrstickball said:
I haven't read every comment, but how many people are discussing the fact that Rahm Emmanuel and Boston's mayor are using the power of their office to bar a business from their cities, whereas the statement from Truett Cathy has virtually no bearing on the business, nor people that are gay?

Talk about a double standard. If Chicago or Boston banned a business because it was run by blacks, wouldn't that be pretty bigoted? Only one entity in this discussion effects anyone else - and it isn't Chick-fil-A or Truett Cathy.


That is silly. Being black is not a choice. Being a homophobic bigot is a choice.


Being an intolerant local tyrant anti-first amendment liberal hypocrite is also a choice

Cathy isn't being prosecuted for his remarks, so the first amendment is not being violated.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Coca-Cola on 27 July 2012

I say, let's get rid of all gas stations because OPEC countries hates homosexuals, and they actually make laws against their lifestyle.
ride your bikes to KFC!



happydolphin on 27 July 2012
bouzane said:
happydolphin said:
bouzane said:

No offense but it  infuriates me to see somebody mindlessly drone on about this non-existant liberal media bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Also, Chick-Fil-a isn't simply defending "traditional" marriage. They fund groups that are flat out bigoted against homosexuality. This should not acceptable to any rational human being.

@bold. Okay, but how do you know?


Another poster already linked you to the groups that they fund. Do a little bit of research on them, some of are quite terrible.

Thanks I visited the page khan or leatherhat linked me to but didn't know how to navigate it. I'll try again but in the meantime can you post it hear so people can stop assuming things. Its would help alot.