Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

All I know is that I think gay discrimination is gay, and I want spicy chicken now...

 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.

This just in: Chick-Fil-A sandwiches still taste awful...

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

No, only rich people have to be that transparent

 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...

I've heard pro-life people make that same argument MGS. I think it's dumb.

I just realized that I have been a DCM and I don't even know who Yakface voted for. We need disclosure Yakface!

 d-usa wrote:

 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.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/20/chick-fil-a-only-pretends-to-stop-funding-non-profits-with-political-agendas/

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.

http://www.advocate.com/business/2012/09/20/chick-fil-raising-money-very-week-anti-marriage-equality-group

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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 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)

 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?

Pro taste people (like myself) hate Pepsi.

Pro-Lose-Some-fething-Weight people (like myself) shun all cola, anyway.

 reds8n wrote:

 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.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/20/chick-fil-a-only-pretends-to-stop-funding-non-profits-with-political-agendas/

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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 certainly respect the decisions of others to boycott/support businesses for political reasons.

I don't do it myself much, but that might be just as much because I dont' have have many strong convications as how I chose to express them.

I'll just add to my agreement with Polonius's statement that I don't see money as liquid political will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
is about the same to me as buying free range or organic

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'm making Tacos tonight, for what it's worth.

I don't get that mentality.

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.

 Manchu wrote:


And, the more I think about it, by dumb I mean morally wrong.

Wow. I don't get you at all, man.

If someone is an ass-hat, I'm not going to support that ass-hat by buying his good and/or services if I don't have to.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't get that mentality.

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!).

I would like for Manchu to become a patron of my Stalin/Pot Memorial Fund Haberdashery.

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.

I honestly don't understand the sentiment.

If Forge World started sending money to the Westboro Baptist Church, I'd stop buying their stuff. And I LOVE forge world. Like, a lot.

Like, if it were a woman, I'd marry it. But I'd then divorce it and seek custody of our kids in the above Westboro Baptist Church scenario...

 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.