tl;dr Chick-fil-a's charity wing (WinShape) will be reevaluating who they donate money to and only donate to apolitical groups. or "taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas".
So there you have it. Gay chicken breasts for some, tiny American Flags for others.
But wait, the media made it clear that they were making money hand over fist with this! Remember all those news stories showing lines wrapping around blocks? How can this be so?
Ahtman wrote: You can't trust a hospital that doesn't know if it is Catholic, Jewish, or a Beatles reference. No, it must be the Riley Children's Hospital.
Charity war, fight!
Oh contraire no Godless Atheist hospital gets the X2 Because We're Jesus Freaks benefit. Scientists + praying priests beat the house odds baby!
Ouze wrote: But wait, the media made it clear that they were making money hand over fist with this! Remember all those news stories showing lines wrapping around blocks? How can this be so?
Well, It may have happened quickly, then pettered out.
If you run a restaurant you have to have a steady supply of customers. not just around the block for a day or two.
Manchu wrote: Sorry, wasn't the hub-bub over what an individual (the president of the company) rather than what the company itself says/does?
It was both. The LGBT community has known about donations for groups supporting anti-gay legislation long before the CEO spoke. It just made the story go from sort of known to national debate. After the CEO spoke on his personal beliefs people tried to make it about him for their own political reasons but really it was about the company funding groups. Turning the story into the oppression of a rich white christian plays into some groups narratives, but the complaints were not what he did with his own personal income. Like any large debate there is distortion over time and media. Sort of like how abortion goes from "should the government make medical decisions for women" turns into "Gary Candidate likes to murder children and hates Jesus".
So Chik-Fil-A the company made donations to groups lobbying against gay marriage under its own then-existing policy of "not supporting organizations with political agendas"?
I'm seeing these two distinct issues:
(1) Chik-Fil-A was not living up to its own policies; and
(2) Something about gay people.
The article you linked seems to be Chik-Fil-A reaffirming its existing policies while pretending something is different than a few months ago regarding gays.
Manchu wrote: Sorry, wasn't the hub-bub over what an individual (the president of the company) rather than what the company itself says/does?
Yep but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
I thought that owner/president of the company donated to that lobbying group... not the company itself....
Right?
Anyhoo... good sammich.
The company donated. He endorsed. It doesn't matter though, because it's a private company.
Yes, but it still has to deal with the consequences of its action's. Its their right to do it yes, its our right to protest and demand a policy change. IF they dont do a policy change, they arent getting business.
Yes, but it still has to deal with the consequences of its action's. Its their right to do it yes, its our right to protest and demand a policy change. IF they dont do a policy change, they arent getting business.
That's true. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. But I'm not arguing that. I just meant that precisely who donated the money is irrelevant since the business is family owned.
Manchu wrote: Sorry, wasn't the hub-bub over what an individual (the president of the company) rather than what the company itself says/does?
Yep but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
Except it really wasn't about that, except to the people who wanted to be able to act like rich, white Christians are an oppressed minority. Certainly some didn't like what he said, but no one called for his arrest or censorship. His comments only brought what was already known to a much greater audience.
Ouze wrote: But wait, the media made it clear that they were making money hand over fist with this! Remember all those news stories showing lines wrapping around blocks? How can this be so?
So you're telling me that a single day of excellent sales doesn't make up for alienating gay people and gay friendly straight people forever?
So that means the mainstream media misrepresented the issue originally? Curse their liberal bias!
In my experience, "the liberal media" is like "the invisible hand of the free market"; you can't see either one because they don't exist despite the fervent wishes of those who wish to see them.
youbedead wrote: People in the media are for most part left leaning, but that for the most part doesn't actually effect their reporting
Well, it affects their reporting. Certainly most reporters and news organizations have SOME bias. But it's generally not any sort of conspiracy, nor are actual news organizations generally devoted purely to supporting one candidate or party.
Frazzled wrote: Yep but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
No, the company made direct payments to various organisations.
So please, do let facts get in the way of the fantasy you're trying to invent in your head.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I thought that owner/president of the company donated to that lobbying group... not the company itself....
No, the company itself donated money. About $5 million all up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Well, it affects their reporting. Certainly most reporters and news organizations have SOME bias. But it's generally not any sort of conspiracy, nor are actual news organizations generally devoted purely to supporting one candidate or party.
Yeah, ultimately as with anything money wins out, and laziness comes a close second. This means they chase job security and promotion first and foremost, and once that's done they just report whatever gets told to them. A bunch of the people on FOX News are liberal, but they stand there and tell them to say what their bosses tell them to say because that's the station's way of business.
On news channels that aren't politically aligned and the reporter has more freedom, then they first and foremost spice up the story however they can, and do that by and large by repeating press releases from various competing factions.
All I know is that Chick-Fil-A makes the best chicken sandwich commercially available to me, with service that is actively polite. I dont' care if they give money to the Weathermen Underground or the Michigan Mlitia.
Polonius wrote: All I know is that Chick-Fil-A makes the best chicken sandwich commercially available to me, with service that is actively polite. I dont' care if they give money to the Weathermen Underground or the Michigan Mlitia.
I dunno, I ordered a spicy chicken sandwich for lunch the other day -- you know how good those are -- and ended up with a chicken breast with no bun and a giant piece of lettuce in my order. So now I think I'm going to have to support gay marriage. Is that how it works?
Ouze wrote: In my experience, "the liberal media" is like "the invisible hand of the free market"; you can't see either one because they don't exist despite the fervent wishes of those who wish to see them.
That just says that Dan Cathy was at an event, not that it was CFA sponsored. It may be at this point that the emphasis has shifted from the company using company money to fund groups to following Dan Cathy around. What he chooses to do with his free time and personal money really shouldn't be up for debate.
Ahtman wrote: That just says that Dan Cathy was at an event, not that it was CFA sponsored. It may be at this point that the emphasis has shifted from the company using company money to fund groups to following Dan Cathy around. What he chooses to do with his free time and personal money really shouldn't be up for debate.
It can be up for debate though. If his personal money comes from a company, then people might be interested in knowing what he does with it so that they can decide to frequent his company or not.
I see an accusation that an individual's participation in politics is the same as an organizations. I don't see an argument supported by evidence, however. Awfully fishy for a thread about chicken.
Ahtman wrote: What he chooses to do with his free time and personal money really shouldn't be up for debate.
I think this was always the issue. This is what alienates so many otherwise reasonable people from more whole-heartedly supporting "gay rights." Not everyone who has doubts about the agenda hates gay people or even wants them to enjoy lesser participation in civil society. I think it's a bit like environmentalism. No one wants to destroy the environment but some of these fethers are just irritating.
d-usa wrote: If his personal money comes from a company, then people might be interested in knowing what he does with it so that they can decide to frequent his company or not.
Following that train of thought, perhaps you ought to give your employer a detailed list of what you spend your money on so she/he/it can decide to continue your employment or not.
d-usa wrote: If his personal money comes from a company, then people might be interested in knowing what he does with it so that they can decide to frequent his company or not.
Following that train of thought, perhaps you ought to give your employer a detailed list of what you spend your money on so she/he/it can decide to continue your employment or not.
Polonius wrote: All I know is that Chick-Fil-A makes the best chicken sandwich commercially available to me, with service that is actively polite. I dont' care if they give money to the Weathermen Underground or the Michigan Mlitia.
My dinner is not a political statement.
Do not concur. Everything you buy or contribute to is your money given to organisations, you can be informed or you can allow a company to fund political or business interests you directly oppose.
If I want a soda and I have the choice between a coke and a pepsi and I prefer pepsi but am aware pepsi is funding dog fights, then I'll buy and tolerate the coke. Within this capitalist society, your wallet is one of the most powerful instruments of veto you possess.
When Chick-Fil-A openly funded and aligned it's self with certain political elements, it made a statement about it's beliefs as a corporation, beliefs I did not share and therefore would not fund by my custom.
Large corporations have no bloody business pushing political agenda in a democracy. They are Not people...
Ahtman wrote: That just says that Dan Cathy was at an event, not that it was CFA sponsored. It may be at this point that the emphasis has shifted from the company using company money to fund groups to following Dan Cathy around. What he chooses to do with his free time and personal money really shouldn't be up for debate.
It can be up for debate though. If his personal money comes from a company, then people might be interested in knowing what he does with it so that they can decide to frequent his company or not.
Debate might not have been the right word in this context, but certainly he has a right to express himself, no matter how much I disagree with it, and I do see a difference between a CFA accountant setting aside CFA money to go to some donkey-caves like Focus on the Family and Dan Cathy using his personal funds to support groups.
Ahtman wrote: That just says that Dan Cathy was at an event, not that it was CFA sponsored. It may be at this point that the emphasis has shifted from the company using company money to fund groups to following Dan Cathy around. What he chooses to do with his free time and personal money really shouldn't be up for debate.
You see, it appears that just days after Chick-fil-A had agreed to stop funding bigoted groups, Dan Cathy on September 18th, tweeted a photo from a fund raiser for the anti-LBGT group Marriage and Family Foundation. The WinShape Foundation which Chick-fil-A operates was hosting a 200 mile couple’s motorcycle ride called “WinShape Ride for the Family” with an entry fee of $3,500 per couple with options to pledge $5,000, $10,000, or $15,000 to Marriage and Family Foundation. In order not to appear to be donating to the group, participants were asked to make checks payable to Marriage and Family Foundation and not the WinShape Foundation or Chick-fil-A. Sponsorship packages were reported to have displayed the Chick-fil-A logo as well as that of the WinShape Foundation.
The Marriage and Family Foundation was not only included in the investigation by Equality Matters of the fast-food chain's questionable giving history, it was identified as the top antigay recipient in 2010. WinShape had given more than $1 million to the group in 2010 alone.
Equality Matters explained the group's history in detail. It was originally named the Marriage and Family Legacy Fund when it was founded in 2007 by a member of the Cathy family. In fact, the current Buffington Road address in Atlanta is now shared by Chick-fil-A's headquarters.
Polonius wrote: All I know is that Chick-Fil-A makes the best chicken sandwich commercially available to me, with service that is actively polite. I dont' care if they give money to the Weathermen Underground or the Michigan Mlitia.
My dinner is not a political statement.
Do not concur. Everything you buy or contribute to is your money given to organisations, you can be informed or you can allow a company to fund political or business interests you directly oppose.
If I want a soda and I have the choice between a coke and a pepsi and I prefer pepsi but am aware pepsi is funding dog fights, then I'll buy and tolerate the coke. Within this capitalist society, your wallet is one of the most powerful instruments of veto you possess.
When Chick-Fil-A openly funded and aligned it's self with certain political elements, it made a statement about it's beliefs as a corporation, beliefs I did not share and therefore would not fund by my custom.
Large corporations have no bloody business pushing political agenda in a democracy. They are Not people...
That said I'm going to be more concerned about Nike using sweat shops and child labor then I am a conservative christian owned and run organization not liking gay marriage. There's corporate evil to focus on in the civil rights arena that's a bit more pressing then gay marriage. (but then I'm against ALL forms of government approved marriage regardless of gender or sexual orientation so there's that)
Ahtman wrote: That just says that Dan Cathy was at an event, not that it was CFA sponsored. It may be at this point that the emphasis has shifted from the company using company money to fund groups to following Dan Cathy around. What he chooses to do with his free time and personal money really shouldn't be up for debate.
The first link you posted just said that Dan Cathy was there, and did not say anything about WinShape supporting it. I can only go by the information you give me at the time, not the information you might give me in the future.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: That said I'm going to be more concerned about Nike using sweat shops and child labor then I am a conservative christian owned and run organization not liking gay marriage. There's corporate evil to focus on in the civil rights arena that's a bit more pressing then gay marriage. (but then I'm against ALL forms of government approved marriage regardless of gender or sexual orientation so there's that)
Why create a false dichotomy? Can't I dislike corporate funded bigotry and disprove of sweat shops? Seems a bit silly to pretend you have to pick one or the other.
Manchu wrote: I've heard pro-life people make that same argument MGS. I think it's dumb.
Why do pro-life people hate Pepsi? Or were you referring to a different thing?
Treating this as a sincere question, pro-life people often harangue me about not shopping at certain places because the business or someone prominent associated with the business has contributed to Planned Parenthood.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Can anyone find a website for "The Marriage and Family Foundation"?
Manchu wrote:I've heard pro-life people make that same argument MGS. I think it's dumb.
Making an informed consumer decision on the political funding and stance of the producers of a product is about the same to me as buying free range or organic. Whether or not pro-life people or animal rights people or whoever make informed decisions about their purchases, that's they choice.
I also don't consider myself 'dumb' for refusing my money and business to a company that starts sticking it's neck out into political and moral issues. If it makes a stance on an issue, it is either naivety or arrogance that suggests people won't stop buying the product if they believer a different view.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
That said I'm going to be more concerned about Nike using sweat shops and child labor then I am a conservative christian owned and run organization not liking gay marriage. There's corporate evil to focus on in the civil rights arena that's a bit more pressing then gay marriage. (but then I'm against ALL forms of government approved marriage regardless of gender or sexual orientation so there's that)
It wasn't just 'not liking', it was funding political aspirants who would change the laws in states and remove those rights. It was a fast food joint dabbling in political lobbying over morality. It also funds 'reeducation' of homosexual young people, you know, those things accused of causing teen suicides.
I think there is at least one key distinction. When you buy free range or organic products, you are making a decision based as much or more on the nature of the product itself as on the politics of the company offering the product. But whether or not Starbucks or its executives decide to support Planned Parenthood has truly nothing to do with the quality of their coffee. Yes, I am one of those few Americans who does not find politics at the bottom of every chicken sandwich.
Vote with your wallet if something is important to you, MGS.
My ex-wife is still a professional with McD's, but I still buy their burgers now and again. I love their fries. Their taste, meat-juices soaked fries. Mmmmm....
I use what little economic leverage I have to engage with companies as to the business at hand. (And to be honest, it's usually not on purpose: I just don't buy products or services that I find to be of low quality -- that's actually different than a boycott, you know.)
What seems dumb to me is using a person's business as an avenue to punish them for disagreeing with you.
And, the more I think about it, by dumb I mean morally wrong.
I use what little economic leverage I have to engage with companies as to the business at hand. (And to be honest, it's usually not on purpose: I just don't buy products or services that I find to be of low quality -- that's actually different than a boycott, you know.)
What seems dumb to me is using a person's business as an avenue to punish them for disagreeing with you.
And, the more I think about it, by dumb I mean morally wrong.
What if the person is using their business to engage in activities that you disagree with?
How is it radically different than choosing an Android over an iPhone? Isn't choosing one product over another using what little economic leverage any of us have? How is looking at the field of fast food choices available and deciding not to go to the one that funds groups and legislation you might find questionable or distasteful really that big of a deal? It is just another set of information to make choices from.
I suppose the problem becomes when people start trying to turn it into some moral imperative (NO ONE ELSE CAN EAT THERE!) or try to demonize it (they are evil and must be stopped!).
Huh? I'm saying if what you want is a good chicken sandwich, then lets talk about chicken sandwiches rather than gay rights. If what you want are gay rights, then wandering into the chicken sandwich store was a mistake.
Look at it this way, there was a time when a gay person couldn't be open about their sexuality. A gay business person, for example, would lose business not simply based on his merits as a business man but because people would be unwilling to "support" a gay person.
I think it's clear that I'm not saying anyone should be forced to spend their money at one place or another. What I'm saying -- very clearly -- is that the only relevant questions go to the product or service to hand. When you decide whether or not to do business with someone, you don't need to know whether they're gay ... at least with regard to most transactions, I suppose.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I would like for Manchu to become a patron of my Stalin/Pot Memorial Fund Haberdashery.
Manchu wrote: I honestly don't understand the sentiment.
It's quite simple. The Klan might make a hell of a fine barbecue sandwich, but I would not purchase one because I do not wish, in any way, to support any enterprise that involves the Klan.
The Klan is an extreme example, certainly, which is why I still patronize Chik-fil-a. But I understand why others might not, simply due to the owner's beliefs.
Ahtman wrote: It is just another set of information to make choices from.
But it is a basically unrelated set of information. As in my example above, the homosexuality of the hypothetical businessman -- let's call him a roofing salesman -- has nothing to do with his roofing sales business. If you say, "I'm not supporting any sodomite lifestyles" you're not talking about roofing.
This would be a lot easier for people pushing the gay agenda if there was any evidence that Chik-Fil-A treated gay people differently as either customers or employees. As things stand, this is a bit "morality police" and I don't like it done to Christian chicken sandwich makers any more than I like it done to homosexual roofing salespersons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: The Klan might make a hell of a fine barbecue sandwich, but I would not purchase one because I do not wish, in any way, to support any enterprise that involves the Klan.
I'm glad you yourself acknowledge the extremity of the example. Given as much, perhaps we should talk about something more relevant?
Ahtman wrote: It is just another set of information to make choices from.
But it is a basically unrelated set of information.
As someone with close gay friends, I wouldn't say it is unrelated at all. It is unrelated to food, but it isn't specifically about the food, but where my money is going, and if I go to Arby's I know that it isn't going to fund hate mongering and ignorance. I wouldn't eat a restaurant that gave .05 of every dollar to the Aryan Brotherhood either.
The law forbids them from treating their employees differently, but even then pretending every manager is some gay bashing idiot is silly and as I already said demonizing them isn't a solution either, but a problem as well. Recognizing that individuals aren't bigots doesn't mean that the company doesn't give money to groups that are, or that they actively seek to keep them as second class citizens through legislation.
And people who view gay people as destroying society don't want them to have greater legal and social acceptance.
The tricky part is that just because someone has a certain viewpoint doesn't make action taken accordingly valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: It is unrelated to food, but it isn't specifically about the food, but where my money is going, and if I go to Arby's I know that it isn't going to fund hate mongering and ignorance.
Again, do you think that whether or not you get/keep a job should be based on your employer's scrutiny of your political beliefs? Your or their religion? Your or their sexuality? How about race or affiliation with race-based groups like the NAACP?
What if we approached it differently. Instead of punishing a business that is using the money I give them to fund things I don't agree with I do the opposite.
I reward a business with my money if they use my money to support things that I agree with.
If you want to donate money to starving children in Africa, don't feel content buying an iPhone because Steve Jobs has signed some checks to that effect.
Seaward wrote: Out of curiosity, who made you the arbiter of valid reasoning to patronize certain establishments?
Could you please rein in the attitude? I believe this whole line of conversation began with the phrase "I think it's dumb" rather than "you should think it's dumb."
Ahtman wrote: It is unrelated to food, but it isn't specifically about the food, but where my money is going, and if I go to Arby's I know that it isn't going to fund hate mongering and ignorance.
Again, do you think that whether or not you get/keep a job should be based on your employer's scrutiny of your political beliefs?
The problem with this hypothetical is that in this case I'm the one doing the hiring, not the one being hired. If I have a choice between contracting someone that wants to fund the KKK and one that doesn't, I'll take the later.
There's really no difference. You can be the employer. Do you think you should be able to hire or not hire someone based solely on their attitude to gay marriage?
If you want to donate money to starving children in Africa, don't feel content buying an iPhone because Steve Jobs has signed some checks to that effect.
That is some dumb reasoning right there. A company is going to use my money for stuff. Their public image is as much a part of their advertising as actual adds. My purchase goes towards stuff they support, so why should stuff they support not be part of my decision to support them?
I don't have to shop there, but "I don't want to support a company that doesn't use organic chicken" is just as much a factor as "I dot want to support a company that donates to anti-gay groups."
Manchu wrote: There's really no difference. You can be the employer. Do you think you should be able to hire or not hire someone based solely on their attitude to gay marriage?
The answer to that is obviously no, Manchu. That would get you and your company in hot water as it's a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity act.
However, that has NOTHING to do with a person or a business wanting to do business with another company or it's affiliates.
I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.
I disagree, and honestly I have a hard time believing you believe there isn't either. I also think you know the analogy isn't really apt either as the employee/employer relationship is different than the customer/retailer one. There are laws that say you can't fire people for certain things, but there really aren't laws that say how a person can spend there discretionary income.
If you want to donate money to starving children in Africa, don't feel content buying an iPhone because Steve Jobs has signed some checks to that effect.
This may not really be on-topic here, but for what it's worth, Steve Jobs had never once given money to any charitable organization, and he stopped any charity donations that Apple made, as well.
kronk wrote: I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.
Because they are very similar. You yourself called it "voting with your wallet." Ahtman just used the exact analogy, that he is the one "doing the hiring" when it comes to choosing where to buy his chicken sandwiches. Please demonstrate how in the context of this discussion they are dissimilar so that the comparison is invalid.
This may not really be on-topic here, but for what it's worth, Steve Jobs had never once given money to any charitable organization, and he stopped any charity donations that Apple made, as well.
Before this Chik-Fil-A nonsense, I would have called him stingy. Now I can see he was just trying to avoid making his customers into hypocrites.
Ahtman wrote: There are laws that say you can't fire people for certain things, but there really aren't laws that say how a person can spend there discretionary income.
A non-government employer can certainly fire a person for their political views. Employers don't do it very often, or at least don't talk about it openly, because it looks bad. And why do you think it looks bad? Now, when you want a good accountant, ask him about accounting, not what ticket he's voting. And when you want a chicken sandwich, then let's talk about chicken. If every dime you spend is truly synoymous with your political will and moral value, then you have a lot more research to do than being the passive recipient of politicized news. And if that's what you want to spend your free time doing, so be it. But I still think it's dumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: nd the money I spend gets passed on to charities, so I support the charities by extension.
No you don't. You have to actually support charities to support charities. What you're parroting there is corporate advertising.
kronk wrote: I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.
Because they are very similar. You yourself called it "voting with your wallet." Ahtman just used the exact analogy, that he is the one "doing the hiring" when it comes to choosing where to buy his chicken sandwiches. Please demonstrate how in the context of this discussion they are dissimilar so that the comparison is invalid.
kronk wrote: I'm really not sure why you have been trying to equate the two.
Because they are very similar. You yourself called it "voting with your wallet." Ahtman just used the exact analogy, that he is the one "doing the hiring" when it comes to choosing where to buy his chicken sandwiches. Please demonstrate how in the context of this discussion they are dissimilar so that the comparison is invalid.
whembly wrote: Why can't I just buy Chick-fil-a because it's a damn good sammich?
No one is telling you that you can't. Me saying I'm not doing something doesn't imply you have to do it as well. In fact I explicitly stated that people turning it into some moral imperative are just as bad. Go forth and indulge in CFA to your hearts desire.
whembly wrote: Why can't I just buy Chick-fil-a because it's a damn good sammich?
Why does the consumer bear responsibility of what a business does with their revenue?
Caveat here: I support gays marriage and friends with gay folks...
You do not bear responsibility, you make informed consumer choices that can include not patronizing a business that sees fit to dabble in politics and moralizing in a way that is opposed to your own views and beliefs.
I shoulder no burden in not eating chicken fil a, I would bear a burden of hypocrisy if I were eating their food, knowing my money would be used to fund something I find reprehensible.
And that really is about the morality Manchu is referring to.
Jihadin wrote: 1. I don't care
2. I still like them chikin sammich
My position in a nutshell. Exalted.
Someone bothered to take the time to post in a thread about something they say they don't actually care about, to say that they don't care about it and you took the time to quote them and exalt them in that same thread, saying that you agree with them that you don't care about the thread... in the thread...
There's three types of grp on this. Those that support gay marriage, those do not support gay marriage, and those who con't care. I do occsaionaly like a chikin sammich but the perception is if I buy my sammich from a certain venue then I do not support ay mariage so I'm a possible hater. I'm the third grp. It does not effect me one way or another so I don't care.
Manchu wrote: FWIW, the position seems to be "chicken sandwiches are about chicken sandwiches" but I could just be reading my own position into it.
I can see that, I also totally disagree with it.
Chicken sandwiches are, for me, about how the food was sourced, the welfare of the animals used in the food, the chemicals added, the standards of hygiene, the quality of the food, the service involved, the quality of the establishment, the conduct of the business and how the business chooses to spend the money I've passed onto it.
I see it as part of a wider picture. Wife and I do all our shopping weighing up the morality of the items we buy. We are dead serious about the sustainability issues of fish we eat, for example, but do not partake of the Nestle boycotting, because we find that does not offend to the same extent.
We purchase in keeping with our morals and beliefs.
I support gay marriage because I'm fine with people having different lifestyles in the US so long as they are peaceable. That includes me being fine with people who want to peaceably oppose gay marriage. And if those who peaceably oppose gay marriage are successful, then I would have to acknowledge the resulting law as valid even if I continue to disagree. I simply do not feel that my choice of lunch has a meaningful connection to such an issue.
Jihadin wrote: There's three types of grp on this. Those that support gay marriage, those do not support gay marriage, and those who con't care. I do occsaionaly like a chikin sammich but the perception is if I buy my sammich from a certain venue then I do not support ay mariage so I'm a possible hater. I'm the third grp. It does not effect me one way or another so I don't care.
This is the second time you've posted in this thread to tell us, again, that you don't care...
Do you really not care or do you actually want to tell us something?
Manchu wrote: I support gay marriage because I'm fine with people having different lifestyles in the US so long as they are peaceable. That includes me being fine with people who want to peaceably oppose gay marriage. And if those who peaceably oppose gay marriage are successful, then I would have to acknowledge the resulting law as valid even if I continue to disagree. I simply do not feel that my choice of lunch has a meaningful connection to such an issue.
You fund the business, the business funds the political organisation. Your money is used to fund the political organisation.
No man is an island etc.
We just have to look at the financial impact causing ChickFilA to buckle to realize that individuals making informed (or poorly informed) consumer choices based on a business' political affiliation can and does have potentially severe ramifications for businesses that choose controversial causes.
What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me. I'm okay with us disagreeing. I wouldn't try to get you fired or make your business fail, for example, if we disagreed about gay marriage.
I still want to prevail, politically, but that ideally means having more support rather than trying to hurt the opposition. In our democracy, if most of the people want gay people to be able to get married, then let's have that. If they don't want that, then let's not have it.
Manchu wrote: What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me. I'm okay with us disagreeing. I wouldn't try to get you fired or make your business fail, for example, if we disagreed about gay marriage.
I still want to prevail, politically, but that ideally means having more support rather than trying to hurt the opposition. In our democracy, if most of the people want gay people to be able to get married, then let's have that. If they don't want that, then let's not have it.
You are correct, I agree.
If we do not agree over gay marriage, we disagree. I would try to get you to see my side of the discussion.
The difference is you are an individual, not a corporation.
If it was the chairman of the board making a personal statement, I would not care either. If he were putting all his personal finances into anti-gay marriage legislation, well, he can do that.
I do however, very strongly object to certain individuals steering a corporation's spending into controversial organisations. A chicken sandwich is indeed just a chicken sandwich and the chicken sandwich shop has no business at all interfering in the rights of two tax paying individuals to wed. Big business has no business in the rights of citizens!
Manchu wrote: What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me.
And I agree, I just don't see how when one person chooses to do a thing that it somehow is considered coercion for you. If I choose not to eat at CFA I'm not saying you can't, and I'm not saying you are are wrong to do so; my choice isn't about you, it is about me. In the end it is just a fast food restaurant and I have no ill will toward anyone that wants to eat there. I have more ill will toward the guy who went through the drive-through lane and was mean to that cashier. If I'm on a trip and I am hungry and the next restaurant is a CFA and I have no idea when the next chance to eat will be I will eat there with no qualms. When it goes from being about a person making a personal choice for themselves to bullying others into thinking they have to do the same as they do to gain some odd sense validation I think it has lost any moral weight it had to begin with.
Manchu wrote: I support gay marriage because I'm fine with people having different lifestyles in the US so long as they are peaceable. That includes me being fine with people who want to peaceably oppose gay marriage. And if those who peaceably oppose gay marriage are successful, then I would have to acknowledge the resulting law as valid even if I continue to disagree. I simply do not feel that my choice of lunch has a meaningful connection to such an issue.
Do you think those who peacebly oppose gay marriage do so for bigoted reasons? Like those in the past who opposed interacial marraige? If so, is it morally wrong?
Manchu wrote: What I don't like is coercing people to agree with me. I'm okay with us disagreeing. I wouldn't try to get you fired or make your business fail, for example, if we disagreed about gay marriage.
I still want to prevail, politically, but that ideally means having more support rather than trying to hurt the opposition. In our democracy, if most of the people want gay people to be able to get married, then let's have that. If they don't want that, then let's not have it.
Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...
Problem solved!
EDIT: here's a funny note... those states that do NOT allow gay marriages... allows for Divorces of gay couples. Now work that one out...
@KC: One can be peaceable and immoral. In other words, I'm talking about society rather than your conscience.
@MGS: For me, the distinction between the person and the corporation in this context breaks down precisely because what is at issue is not the product or service offered by the corporation but the opinions held by its owners and management.
@Ahtman: You're right, a protest is not technically synonymous with an attempt to coerce. It can also be an attempt to persuade. I don't think that distinction applies to the events at hand, however.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...
That is effectively what is being done minus the change in words (rest assured, an underlying change in meaning is underway nonetheless), which is my big hang up about gay marriage. I do not think it is the same thing as marriage. But the political issue is regarding certain legal rights, which I don't think has anything to do with marriage, either. So on balance, I think this is not really about marriage but something that we are all content to call marriage.
@MGS: For me, the distinction between the person and the corporation in this context breaks down precisely because what is at issue is not the product or service offered by the corporation but the opinions held by its owners and management.
...and what they do with the profits of the corporation... they are not investing personally but making payments as a company... that is the contentious issue for me. John Doe, owner of chickensammich, does not make a payment to a 'gay fixing camp', but that chickensammich issues a donation to this 'charity'...
whembly wrote: Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...
That is effectively what is being done minus the change in words (rest assured, an underlying change in meaning is underway nonetheless), which is my big hang up about gay marriage. I do not think it is the same thing as marriage. But the political issue is regarding certain legal rights, which I don't think has anything to do with marriage, either. So on balance, I think this is not really about marriage but something that we are all content to call marriage.
I am married to my wife. She is not my 'civil partner', she is my wife. We did not marry in a church and if any Christian tells me she is not my wife and we are not married, then I will be having very large and angry problems with that Christian. Your church does not have exclusivity on 'marriage' any more than the muslims do or the wiccans or the moonies.
whembly wrote: Or better yet, strip the vernacular of "marriage" from all official states document and include "Civil Unions" only. Leave the "Marriage" part to the Churchs...
That is effectively what is being done minus the change in words (rest assured, an underlying change in meaning is underway nonetheless), which is my big hang up about gay marriage. I do not think it is the same thing as marriage. But the political issue is regarding certain legal rights, which I don't think has anything to do with marriage, either. So on balance, I think this is not really about marriage but something that we are all content to call marriage.
I am married to my wife. She is not my 'civil partner', she is my wife. We did not marry in a church and if any Christian tells me she is not my wife and we are not married, then I will be having very large and angry problems with that Christian. Your church does not have exclusivity on 'marriage' any more than the muslims do or the wiccans or the moonies.
I'm a heathen, so what do I know?
You can call her whatever you want . But that suggestion was what the STATE would call the union.
Again, if gay couples can't marry due to states laws... and yet, that same state will allow for a divorce. Does.Not.Compute.
Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.
As a matter of public consequence, the marriage enjoyed by you and your spouse is nothing more than a legal relationship endorsed by the state. That is very different from sacramental marriage. In years past, in this very country, there was not such a division between the two notions. The existence of gay marriage shows that a huge gap has grown up between them.
Perhaps you think that is a good thing. I'm not so sure I do. But my point was that I am in favor of states recognizing gay marriage independent of that consideration.
Manchu wrote: Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.
The concept of Marriage was started in Rome (or maybe Greece) during the Roman Empire.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Isn't it an individual's and citizen's responsibility to strive for a moral society?
Sure. But a moral society is not the same thing as a moral individual life, hence my mention of conscience. I am not going to support outlawing masturbation, for example, whether or not I or anyone else finds it immoral.
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
As for moral buying, I get it. I do. But I'm not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy because the owner has a viewpoint I disagree with. And all of the hyperbolic comparisons, Chick-fil-a isnt' the clan, or the Phelps, or the Tamil Tigers. They're a restaurant chain that has a conservative christian mentality, of which I agree with far more than I disagree.
Much like too many christians obsess over homosexuality (which is a tiny speck of human morality), too many liberals obsess over the anti-gay ideals of a lot of christians.
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
As for moral buying, I get it. I do. But I'm not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy because the owner has a viewpoint I disagree with. And all of the hyperbolic comparisons, Chick-fil-a isnt' the clan, or the Phelps, or the Tamil Tigers. They're a restaurant chain that has a conservative christian mentality, of which I agree with far more than I disagree.
Much like too many christians obsess over homosexuality (which is a tiny speck of human morality), too many liberals obsess over the anti-gay ideals of a lot of christians.
And I approve this message!
Seriously... it's fething good chicken sammich... that's all.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: Isn't it an individual's and citizen's responsibility to strive for a moral society?
Sure. But a moral society is not the same thing as a moral individual life, hence my mention of conscience. I am not going to support outlawing masturbation, for example, whether or not I or anyone else finds it immoral.
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
Personally I am against the concept of corporate personhood and that corporations have the same rights as people.
But if you want to give free speech to a corporation then they are free to speak out against gay marriage. I don't think that anybody in this thread has said that they shouldn't be able to say what they want. But the usual caveat applies: Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom of Consequences.
If people don't like what you say they can't make a federal case about it. But they can choose to listen to what you have to say and take their money elsewhere. How and where I spend my money is a form of speech as well.
Manchu wrote: Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.
As a matter of public consequence, the marriage enjoyed by you and your spouse is nothing more than a legal relationship endorsed by the state. That is very different from sacramental marriage. In years past, in this very country, there was not such a division between the two notions. The existence of gay marriage shows that a huge gap has grown up between them.
Perhaps you think that is a good thing. I'm not so sure I do. But my point was that I am in favor of states recognizing gay marriage independent of that consideration.
This may surprise you but I once pondered the same things. Some thought the solution was to simply call it a "civil union" and save the more sacred "marriage" term for the traditional meaning even though they were essentially the same legally. I wondered if that might be a good way to meet in the middle.
So, things work a little differently up here. We don't have that "intricate system of checks and balances" that America "enjoys." We basically elect a dictator for 1-5 years. One day the Prime Minister just went ahead and made gay marriage legal. No, civil unions or anything like that. WHAM! Everyone start getting gay married right now! I was just kind of went "oh, alright then I guess that's settled....." and pretty much that's what the rest of the country thought too. The world didn't end and the sun came up the next day and eveything. It just doesn't effect most people's lives.
Whatever my ambivilance about the issue before when it (rarely) gets brought up again in Canadian politics it just annoys me now. Like it's done we got bigger problems to deal with.
Anyways, I didn't post that with any personal agenda just saying how it went up here. If it becomes legal America will survive.
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
Personally I am against the concept of corporate personhood and that corporations have the same rights as people.
But if you want to give free speech to a corporation then they are free to speak out against gay marriage. I don't think that anybody in this thread has said that they shouldn't be able to say what they want. But the usual caveat applies: Freedom of Speech =/= Freedom of Consequences.
If people don't like what you say they can't make a federal case about it. But they can choose to listen to what you have to say and take their money elsewhere. How and where I spend my money is a form of speech as well.
Corporate personhood is actually an incredibly useful legal fiction and nothing new. It's why you can sue and tax a company as "the company" and is based on the theory that people acting as a group do not lose their individual rights. There are plenty of limits on corporate personhood and while the argument could be made more restrictions are needed the concept itself has been in existance since at least the early 1800s and is pretty sound legal theory at this point.
Polonius wrote: I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
The problem is that, by giving the CEO access to the much greater financial and organizational resources of an entire corporation, "corporate" speech has much more influence than an individual person. It stops being about speech between equals and becomes little more than a question of which corporation can afford to buy the most speech. This is especially true when "speech" often includes giving corporate money to various causes that few, if any, individuals could attempt to match.
Much like too many christians obsess over homosexuality (which is a tiny speck of human morality), too many liberals obsess over the anti-gay ideals of a lot of christians.
And why shouldn't we obsess over them when they cause completely unjustified harm to a significant element of society? I see no reason to excuse the behavior of ignorant bigots just because it's a "tiny speck of human morality".
Polonius wrote: I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people lose their right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
The problem is that, by giving the CEO access to the much greater financial and organizational resources of an entire corporation, "corporate" speech has much more influence than an individual person. It stops being about speech between equals and becomes little more than a question of which corporation can afford to buy the most speech. This is especially true when "speech" often includes giving corporate money to various causes that few, if any, individuals could attempt to match.
NRA might take away. They shoot back. You spend more time ducking and running, jiving and grooving and hopping and popping then trying to accomplish that goal. Now if you come across a Female Lobby Group for Strippers lobbying for the dancers not pay taxes on their tips let me know
I'm leery about the legal personhood of corporations, but I don't understand the mentality that people losetheir right to free speech, just because they have limited financial liability and a structured organization. If I have the right to speak against gay marriage, why wouldn't a corporation I own?
Yeah, I draw a bit of a distinction between corporate speech in general and the specific issue of campaign finance. Though I'm not entirely comfortable treating corporations as if they have the same rights as human beings do. I do concur with d-usa about consequences, though. If you're a private individual donating to a cause I despise, you don't usually have to worry about me choosing not to spend money at you. If you're a business, maybe you care about making yourself less appealing to customers.
Polonius wrote: As for moral buying, I get it. I do. But I'm not going to deprive myself of something I enjoy because the owner has a viewpoint I disagree with. And all of the hyperbolic comparisons, Chick-fil-a isnt' the clan, or the Phelps, or the Tamil Tigers. They're a restaurant chain that has a conservative christian mentality, of which I agree with far more than I disagree.
Sure, but we each choose our own threshold about how much we're willing to inconvenience ourselves over a given moral or ethical point.
I might really enjoy a chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-a, but they're not a high priority for me, and I can easily get satisfying food elsewhere. Justice is a high priority for me, and for whatever reason, the injustices done to gay folks bothers me a good bit.
Contrary to reports first made by the gay-activist group The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) on Tuesday and later picked up by mainstream media outlets, Chick-fil-A and its charitable-giving arm, the WinShape Foundation, did not agree to stop making donations to groups that support the biblical definition of marriage in exchange for being allowed to open a franchise in Chicago.
Manchu wrote:Whether you care for history or not, the notion of marriage as practiced in this country developed in the context of Western Christianity. "Marriage" as some inclusive term for disparate social phenomena throughout all human history and across all cultures is not what I'm talking about as changing. Obviously.
whembly wrote:Setting the record straight...
Contrary to reports first made by the gay-activist group The Civil Rights Agenda (TCRA) on Tuesday and later picked up by mainstream media outlets, Chick-fil-A and its charitable-giving arm, the WinShape Foundation, did not agree to stop making donations to groups that support the biblical definition of marriage in exchange for being allowed to open a franchise in Chicago.
Actually, the marriage concept was "institutionalized" during the Rome heyday...
I don't exactly remember what prompted this... but I'm pretty sure it either was because of tax reasons (ensuring consistent revenue) or the ability to vote.
Oh, don't worry, I would love to kill the lobbying industry as well.
There's nothing wrong with having a lobbying industry, in fact its basically necessary in a democracy this size as its an important part of communicating public desire to Congress. You can, however, argue that it has too much influence or too much access. That said, the best way to limit that is to develop lobbies in areas you are sympathetic to.
The problem is that, by giving the CEO access to the much greater financial and organizational resources of an entire corporation, "corporate" speech has much more influence than an individual person. It stops being about speech between equals and becomes little more than a question of which corporation can afford to buy the most speech. This is especially true when "speech" often includes giving corporate money to various causes that few, if any, individuals could attempt to match.
True, but I agree with Polonius that the larger issue is to what extent corporations should actually be granted personhood.
People can boycott whatever they want for whatever reason they want. I'm in favor of gay marriage, or at least not against it, but this issue's pretty moot regardless thanks to demographics. In twenty years, even Mississippi's going to be gay marriage-friendly.
The problem is that, by giving the CEO access to the much greater financial and organizational resources of an entire corporation, "corporate" speech has much more influence than an individual person. It stops being about speech between equals and becomes little more than a question of which corporation can afford to buy the most speech. This is especially true when "speech" often includes giving corporate money to various causes that few, if any, individuals could attempt to match.
True, but I agree with Polonius that the larger issue is to what extent corporations should actually be granted personhood.
I don't see how a CEO have access to a corporations resources is any more dangerous to free speech than somebody that is independently wealthy. Less so, actually, as a CEO needs to answer to shareholders, and can't fritter resources away on personal quests.
Although anybody that thinks that CEOs are the problem with corporations doesn't really understand the problem.
If you're a business, maybe you care about making yourself less appealing to customers.
