Chick-fil-a

[Jenamarie]

I think a lot of people didnt even know huckabee had anything to do with it at all. It was just a visceral response to defend free speech. It has to potential to infringe on every religious persons right to speak and for once everyone saw that immediately.

How? How is having a negative reaction from the general population to the things you say a violation of the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

With the exception of the dumb mayor who wanted to ban Chick Fil A (and was very quickly shot down and put in his place about that), where is the "violation of free speech" in this whole hullabaloo?

[talisyn]

Anne didn't say there was a violation of free speech, she said there was a defense of free speech.

[Jenamarie]

But again, how were they defending free speech? Should we expect NO consequences for the things we say? If you come into my home and start trash talking my husband, am I wrong to tell you that you are no longer allowed in my home? Are those who found the CEO's words offensive wrong to voice their opposing opinion, and let him know that they will no longer do business with his company?

[jerome1232]

But again, how were they defending free speech? Should we expect NO consequences for the things we say? If you come into my home and start trash talking my husband, am I wrong to tell you that you are no longer allowed in my home? Are those who found the CEO's words offensive wrong to voice their opposing opinion, and let him know that they will no longer do business with his company?

I do have an issue when the court of public opinion is used to determine what causes a corporation can donate to without fear of buckling due to the fact that the move is unpopular.

Suppose the boycott is succesful, and it's used against any corporation found to be donating to pro-marriage charities. Sounds a bit like control by fear to me.

[Jenamarie]

Is boycotting a business whose business practices you have moral objections to immoral? If several people share those objections, and decide not to do business with them, is that immoral? Should both sides not be allowed to maintain the integrity of their convictions?

[annewandering]

Is boycotting a business whose business practices you have moral objections to immoral? If several people share those objections, and decide not to do business with them, is that immoral? Should both sides not be allowed to maintain the integrity of their convictions?

Why wouldnt they be ok?

[Jenamarie]

I do have an issue when the court of public opinion is used to determine what causes a corporation can donate to without fear of buckling due to the fact that the move is unpopular.

Suppose the boycott is succesful, and it's used against any corporation found to be donating to pro-marriage charities. Sounds a bit like control by fear to me.

Why wouldnt they be ok?

Anne, my post that you quoted was in response to jerome1232's post. If a boycott is "controlling by fear", then is a boycott ever justified? Can an individual, or group of like-minded individuals, decide that they do not want to give money to a business whose practices they oppose? Are only a certain number of those like-minded individuals allowed to do it? If done on a small scale is it okay, but if it reaches a critical mass where financial harm is done to the business, then does it become wrong and "ruling by fear"?

The CEO answered a question. That answer greatly disturbed many people. Are they not allowed to act on this new-found knowledge of an organization they had been giving some of their money to? Money that, a chunk of which, went to something they would never want to knowingly give a dime to?

If the right to be allowed to stand by religious convictions is to be protected, cannot those who disagree with those religious convictions also have their right stand by their convictions?

[annewandering]

Anne, my post that you quoted was in response to jerome1232's post. If a boycott is "controlling by fear", then is a boycott ever justified? Can an individual, or group of like-minded individuals, decide that they do not want to give money to a business whose practices they oppose? Are only a certain number of those like-minded individuals allowed to do it? If done on a small scale is it okay, but if it reaches a critical mass where financial harm is done to the business, then does it become wrong and "ruling by fear"?

The CEO answered a question. That answer greatly disturbed many people. Are they not allowed to act on this new-found knowledge of an organization they had been giving some of their money to? Money that, a chunk of which, went to something they would never want to knowingly give a dime to?

If the right to be allowed to stand by religious convictions is to be protected, cannot those who disagree with those religious convictions also have their right stand by their convictions?

I see no reason to not be able to boycott anyone you want and for any reason at all including not liking the color of their store. If it reaches critical mass then it is obvious that people are not happy and it might be smart to consider why. If I dislike a company and enough other people dont like it either then they are going to fail. They did not consider their clientele and deserve to fail. Businesses are not charities. They have to provide a service or product that we are willing to pay the price for and that includes helping them support their causes.

I see no reason at all to do business where I dont like the company.

[HoosierGuy]

I heard chick-fil-a does not open on Sundays. I can half respect that. Hobby Lobby does not open on Sundays either for the same reason - religious reasons. I would more respect it if they did it simply for workers and giving them a day or rest from a hard weeks work. Workers rights over religious expression. But with those two it's religious expression over workers rights. Still I half respect them for not opening on Sundays particularly considering the money they could make on Sundays. Either put up or shut up and Chick-fil-a is putting up, so I can respect them for that.

[prisonchaplain]

It's perfectly acceptable to "vote with your pocketbook." It just isn't very effective in most cases. In some cases effectiveness would not matter, but, boycotts are like strong spices. They work well when used with extreme moderation.

[annewandering]

I dont know about the idea that boycotts dont work. They dont get my money anymore and that makes me happy. What other people do or not do is their problem.

Oddly we are all lemmings. If you dont believe that just explain why all of a sudden every other kids is being named Elm or whatever is the new extremely popular name. If I decide to refuse to do business I know all my fellow likeme lemmings will do the same. :)

[NightSG]

It's perfectly acceptable to "vote with your pocketbook."

Like any method of voting, though, the problem comes from uninformed voters. How many of the people boycotting know what the founder actually said that was so offensive?

[SisterSarah]

It's perfectly acceptable to "vote with your pocketbook." It just isn't very effective in most cases. In some cases effectiveness would not matter, but, boycotts are like strong spices. They work well when used with extreme moderation.

Although I agree that everyone has the right to vote with their pocketbook, I think this entire chicken fila controversy is just that, all about politics and nothing to do with the chicken.

I personally do not eat at that restaurant but not because of any socieo political stand on any issue; but because I don't care for fast food restaurants at all.

That said, I think the politicians that made a stand to boycott a place of business (any legal place of business) is wrong. We elect politicians to do the business of the people but not to interfere with private enterprise.

The irony in the boycott of this restaurant is if it is meant to be in support of gay rights, then what happens iof there are gay people that are actually employed by chic fila? It is highly unlikely and even illegal for a company to inquire of a persons sexual orientation before hiring them so it is also highly likely that gays could be working for that restaurant and would lose their jobs if the restaurant is boycotted. Somehow I think these politicians were using this as an attention getter during an election year.

My take on this is if you like the food, then go there and enjoy it. If you don't like what is on the menu, find another place to eat.

[prisonchaplain]

That said, I think the politicians that made a stand to boycott a place of business (any legal place of business) is wrong. We elect politicians to do the business of the people but not to interfere with private enterprise.

Politicians can personally boycott all they want. However, using the power of government to BAN a specific franchise because of the politics of its CEO is outrageous. Fortunately, many of these show-boating efforts are backfiring, and the politicos are making a hasty retreat. Sadly, they may have known their efforts would fail, but made the attempts to pander to particular interests.

[JohnnyRudick]

I am a little concerned over Governor Romney's “Those are not things that are part of my campaign,” comment, especially since Obama seems to take the stand against Chick-fil-a as well as most other far left types. It seems to be a polarizing subject that the Governor needs to take a stand on or loose much of his voting block.

[Backroads]

From what I understand, the Kiss-In didn't gather much support...

[Bini]

Other than this very thread, I haven't been following the coverage on Chick-fil-A. We did drive by it the other night, some time in the evening, and the franchise wasn't hopping with customers.. Maybe three or four cars in the drive-thru and some in the parking lot. Are things are getting back to normal?

[BenRaines]

There are actors that I don't go to see their movies because I disagree with their political stance. Don't wish for my dollars to support their lifestyle. It is the little that I can do.

My agency to choose. My not attending does not make headlines though.

Ben Raines

[JohnnyRudick]

I recently asked a question here somewhere between page 11 and here and I no longer see it. Did it get deleted for a reason anyone know?

[skippy740]

Your question mentioned and referenced current political candidates and was deleted.

[JohnnyRudick]

Your question mentioned and referenced current political candidates and was deleted.

Is there a place where I can ask it?

If you remember it had to do with Chick-fil-a as well.

Thanks;-)

[beefche]

Is there a place where I can ask it?

If you remember it had to do with Chick-fil-a as well.

Thanks;-)

No, there is no place on this forum that you can ask that question.

[annewandering]

ask on faceboook. ^^

[JohnnyRudick]

No, there is no place on this forum that you can ask that question.

I think - what I meant was:confused: - is there another forum of my peers?.

And

Could someone please direct me there.

[beefche]

You can try ornery.org.