What you may not know about Chick-fil-A

[The_Lady_Snow]

Chic Fil A's profits are going to support Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill. Each one of those "ignorant" Christians/Zealots provided more income for that cause and a few other anti gay groups.

Murder, the legalization of allowing the hunting down of a human being. It's not just a civil right we are fighting for it's human rights.

I'm pretty convinced that if "some" people could have it their way, we'd be hunted down with party music playing in the background.

I hope every queer wakes the fuck up and votes, as a woman I feel I have double the target on my back since these people think they own my rights to my vagina as well.


Not one queer dollar should be spent at this particular business.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Mrs Arcstriker

The more that I hear about this debate, the more that I think we have bigger fish (or chickens) to fry...

IMHO, I am a lesbian, and legally married in the GREAT STATE OF CONNECTICUT...and that said, I do not think that a kiss-in will help our cause a fig.

To me, this whole Chick-fil-a thing is nothing more than a herring in the path and I for one will not jump on the bandwagon...any moresoe than I did when it was J C Penney under fire by the Million Moms after Ellen Degeneres was appointed the spokeswoman.

Spend your money there or don't...You all have to choose with your own conscience...A kiss-in though will prove nothing more to the right than what they already know to be true...They think that the sum-total of homosexuality is about sex, and to thrust it into their faces in the forum of a kiss-in might only to foster that point...

I largely agree until your last paragraph. I guess I don't see the issue about sex. Society really needs to stop being so alarmist about it and sex needs to stop being seen as this thing to be kept out of the public eye.

But I certainly do think there are bigger fish to fry. Corporate scandals = least of lgbt/queer community's worries, imo. Edit: Do I think it sucks that these buffoons are funding the murder of the lgbt community in Uganda...yes. But I don't think that boycotting a restaurant is going to help the lgbt community Uganda, either. There are better ways, and the international community has managed to put pressure on the Ugandan government. Like its been mentioned earlier in the thread, movements take time and change takes time.

[BullDog]

Ender I don't understand why you say "Corporate scandals = least of lgbt/queer community's worries." Big corporations make lots of money and that money can be used to fund lots of hateful things. It can do a lot of damage.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Ender I don't understand why you say "Corporate scandals = least of lgbt/queer community's worries." Big corporations make lots of money and that money can be used to fund lots of hateful things. It can do a lot of damage.

They do lots of damage every day by merely existing. These sorts of scandals detract from real social issues and basically allow people who don't care to be politically active an avenue to think they're doing some kind of good without actually doing any good. What this restaurant does with its money changes nothing for someone who doesn't have anything to eat to begin with. Whether this restaurant funds anti-lgbt orgs or not, they already promote the continued maltreatment of homeless/low income and other disadvantaged people (including queers) by their very existence. The damage exists with or without their money. Its the entire damned system that is the problem and continues to allow these organisations to exist. Its not going to change anything for the plight of Ugandan lgbt folks or of disadvantaged queer folks in the US.

[BullDog]

Well Ender I think capitalism as an economic system sucks but it's what we have. There's lots and lots of problems in this world.

[aishah]

the issue that i see is that capitalism, at least in the u.s., is built on exploitation and inequality. the capitalist system that we have cannot exist without exploitation and inequality. so personally i have a hard time separating the two. i mean - in an immediate sense - don't spend money at chik-fil-a, spend your queer dollars elsewhere. in a long-term sense - if one is serious about ending poverty, which disproportionately affects women and queer people, and upending the systems of oppression that exist, we are going to have to dismantle the corporate system.

[Kobi]

Many valid and thought provoking points have been made here. Some reactionary, emotion fueled ones have surfaced as well. All are understandable.

This is tricky and very annoying stuff. And everytime it rears its ugly head, I find myself grappling with the same issues:

1. I liked it better when I thought there were simple right and wrong answers to every dilemma. Today, I am pretty sure, there is no absolute right/wrong that fits every person and every situation. There are many points of view and beliefs and it behooves humans to find common ground on which to compromise so that a peaceful coexistence can emerge. It's possible but it removes the drama factor people seem to thrive on.

2. Diversity does not mean only that stuff that is acceptable. Diversity means differences, unlikeness, variety. As such the republicans and religious nutcases have as much right to their beliefs (as idiotic and contradictory as we might find them to be) as we do. If we cannot allow them their diversity, we are hard pressed to demand them to respect ours. I hate this cuz it causes me much grief but I believe it cuz of what I said in #1.

3. Groups that feel threatened act/react much like petulant 2 year olds. If we want to work toward a positive result, someone has to have the balls to put down the shovel, get out of the sandbox, and act like a freakin adult. Be nice if we could trade off on this now and then so all parties can practice being both kids and adults.

4. Ghandi, Martin Luther King......great leaders and thinkers knew hatred wasnt cured with hatred. This is fucking annoying yet true. We cannot fix republican religious hatred by making a mockery of their beliefs. Making a mockery of their beliefs adds to them feeling threatened AND it makes them look like they are being persecuted for their beliefs. This, in turn, makes them more ripe for a sympathetic following by people who ordinarily could care less.

5. Einstein said, insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result. Yet, we humans, try to solve things by employing the same strategies over and over again. Then we are perplexed when it doesnt work. I dont know what the answer is. But, I am pretty sure it is not going to be found in rehashing the same no-win shit/arguments/stances/strategies over and over and over again.

[BullDog]

Being an informed citizen and consumer is something I can control and do something about. It may not change the world but it is something tangible. And I do think that less money going to hate groups is a very good thing. Anti equality causes and hate groups do cause lots and lots of damage. If I can play a small part in slowing that machine down and not supporting it with my dollars I will.

I will keep an eye on corporations and other entities that help to fund anti equality and hate groups and I will not spend my money with them. That is something tangible that I can do.

[Ciaran]

By a quick calculation, I've spent almost 2 years of my adult life in the United States and, until this controversy, I'd never heard of Chick-fil-a. Not sure why that is but a quick scan at their website indicates that their food is absolute rubbish. Therefore, I don't need to boycott Chick-fil-a as, whether homophobic or not, I wouldn't have been a patron. Similarly, I won't be kissing on Chick-fil-a premises as I'm not really one for public displays of affection, especially in cheap plastic booths (last time I did that, I was 15 or so).



However, just a few observations. The issue of religious views and the purposefulness of engaging with those who have dogmatic "old light" Christian faith. It's already been pointed out by some on this thread that there's little point in trying to use reason to convince someone who believes the bible's Old Testament (or, rather, selected extracts from it) in a literal sense.


That's undoubtedly the case but, furthermore, it's not the religious fanatics that need to be convinced as regards LGBT rights. Rather, it's the middle ground, some of whom hold less repressive religious views and some who are atheist. It's the battle to win the hearts and minds of the middle ground that's key - that's an evolutionary process that is happening through positive representation of LGBT peoples in mainstream society.


Secondly, as much as I admire the attachment that many Americans have to the US Constitution, don't forget that irrespective of whatever freedoms it offers and protection from Government interference, LGBT rights for US citizens are less than those in most other western countries.


Added to that, the US Constitution effectively provides considerable power to the judiciary and, as most of us know, the judiciary can be as personally and politically motivated as any legislature or, for that matter, any human body.


The US Constitution was framed at a time when protection from Government was important. Today, however, it is generally recognised (outside the US) that one of Government's roles is to protect its people (for example, from discriminatory labour practices) i.e. that the framework for a successful society is the Government to protect its people, not for people to need to be protected from Government.


This continued US rhetoric about personal freedoms, in my view, hinders the progression of a society that offers basic protective rights - I was amazed at the chart, assuming it is accurate, that was posted in this thread showing the US states in which it is legal to dismiss employees for being LGBT. Great that the US has a constitution but, me, I prefer substantive rights.

[QueenofSmirks]

Originally Posted by Mrs Arcstriker

The thing about Chick-fil-a is that each individual store is a privately owned franchise, and boycotting just on the basis of the founder's opinion only stands to hurt the private franchise owner first.

<snip>
.

So, your opinion is that it's okay to support a hate-based corporation and put money into the founder's pockets as long as you're only indirectly doing so by owning or supporting one of his franchises?

I can guarantee you if I wanted to open a Dunkin Donuts, and it was owned by Focus on the Family, I would find another franchise to spend my money on.

[QueenofSmirks]

Originally Posted by ruffryder

Who said anything about spending money on kiss in day? I say walk in, look around and say loudly, "Babe, this isn't KFC! Oh yea this is that hate place. What brought us here? Oh yea, we are here just to voice our opinion and freedeom of speech that we do not agree with what the owner of Chick Fil A says and his values about marriage. Have a nice day everybody. We are going to KFC now where the chicken and company is finer!" *give your partner a smooch and walk out* LOL! Can you imagine !

I actually don't think this type of behavior does anything positive, in my opinion it's borderline obnoxious. I don't like obnoxious behavior from anyone in public, I don't care who they are or what their problem is. And that type of behavior doesn't get taken seriously, it's only further damages what is already damaged.

I feel pretty much the same way about a "kiss in". What good does that really do? Does anyone really believe a "kiss in" is going to suddenly open people's eyes or change their opinion?

[QueenofSmirks]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Being an informed citizen and consumer is something I can control and do something about. It may not change the world but it is something tangible. And I do think that less money going to hate groups is a very good thing. Anti equality causes and hate groups do cause lots and lots of damage. If I can play a small part in slowing that machine down and not supporting it with my dollars I will.

I will keep an eye on corporations and other entities that help to fund anti equality and hate groups and I will not spend my money with them. That is something tangible that I can do.

I wholeheartedly agree - and I've been doing exactly that for more than 20 years. I have boycotted Dominos, Walmart, Cracker Barrel, and a slew of other companies for as long as I can remember. ChikFilA has been on that list for a couple of years.

Anyone can spend their money however they see fit, including the people associated with ChikFilA, but I'll be damned if one penny of MY money is going to support their bullshit agenda.

[Martina]

I think we should go have sex in front of every one of their businesses. Dirty kinky scary sex. Let's show up in drag. Let's show up naked. Let's show up mad as hell. Let's practice martial arts moves. Let's sing and dance and be our most outrageous selves. And look them in the eye and let them know that nothing they can ever do will make us change or go away.

[not2shygrrl]

Originally Posted by The_Lady_Snow

I'll take the chance and be honest that it's hard to have these conversations with Christians/Zealots when half the stuff they ate throwing in my direction is based on a book of lies. You can't have a constructive rational conversation with someone who keeps on saying or mentioning Sodom & Gomorrah. It's a lost cause there is zero critical thinking going on and it's totally like arguing with a toddler mid hissy fit.


I don't believe believe ALL Christians behave in this manner. I'm speaking of all the hoards that showed up for a free hate filled sammich. It is one of the most vile things I have seen in my adult life, people had their children in there as they sang God Bless America. These adults are having hate filled conversations regarding LGBTQI people speaking about us as if we're pariah's, as if we we're infesting their "space". It's scary what kind of hate is brewing out there all in the name of "God".


It's hard getting past all the biblical muck just so that the OBVIOUS (which is our rights as citizens) can be discussed.

Some very good points for me in your post, well said.
Their children are the same ones who statistically will become homosexuals one day. Then what? the damage will have started at such a young age complicating matters beyond what already exists.

[girl_dee]

Originally Posted by QueenofSmirks

So, your opinion is that it's okay to support a hate-based corporation and put money into the founder's pockets as long as you're only indirectly doing so by owning or supporting one of his franchises?

I can guarantee you if I wanted to open a Dunkin Donuts, and it was owned by Focus on the Family, I would find another franchise to spend my money on.

Me too, i don't want to hear about franchises because the franchise lines the pockets of the hate groups.

[Martina]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Added to that, the US Constitution effectively provides considerable power to the judiciary and, as most of us know, the judiciary can be as personally and politically motivated as any legislature or, for that matter, any human body.

So? As you said, that is true of any institution. The judiciary in the U.S. has a history of protecting minority rights.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

The US Constitution was framed at a time when protection from Government was important. Today, however, it is generally recognised (outside the US) that one of Government's roles is to protect its people (for example, from discriminatory labour practices) i.e. that the framework for a successful society is the Government to protect its people, not for people to need to be protected from Government.

Excellent point, but, as you say, not recognized or accepted in the U.S. We sadly have an exaggerated fear of government. You can't get even a liberal to praise government in the U.S. There has been no vision of government as a force for good since Reagan. I watch old episodes of West Wing and pretend they really happened and cry. (just kidding) Anyway, that's lost for now.

Originally Posted by Ciaran

This continued US rhetoric about personal freedoms, in my view, hinders the progression of a society that offers basic protective rights - I was amazed at the chart, assuming it is accurate, that was posted in this thread showing the US states in which it is legal to dismiss employees for being LGBT. Great that the US has a constitution but, me, I prefer substantive rights.

Very true. But we are also LOSING these personal freedoms. It would seem like at least a few people care. I am thinking of Ron Paul's youthful followers. (not a supporter of Paul, but there are some hopeful elements in his popularity.) Anyway, during the Bush era, I wondered if anyone did care. And talking about personal freedoms is one way to reach out to people. My students sure care about whether they can be arrested and held without cause. Most people care about how their personal information is used.

And there is no "either or" between the US constitution and substantive rights. In fact, that constitution has helped us guarantee substantive rights, any number of times. VOTING rights, for example. Freedom of the press. You can argue that the market means that we do not get much of a choice when we vote or that the Press has been reduced to cheap entertainment. How little coverage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gotten is a national shame.

But these freedoms still mean something. Republicans as we speak are working hard to restrict the franchise (requiring voters to show ID). They have a healthy fear of voters, especially minority voters. That is an encouraging sign.

[girl_dee]

my feelings.......

i would have never had a problem if CFA or anyone else gave every penny of their profit to their own church, or belief organization. What i have an issue with is them giving their money to "ANTI" groups. Anti this and anti that is IMO trying to stop others from doing what they believe in. i feel funneling money and energy into anti groups defeats the whole purpose, what i fear is the gays ending up looking as ridiculous as the people lining up to buy a hate sandwich.

Do what you want, promote your own beliefs all you want but leave everyone else the hell alone.

It's kinda like what Mother Teresa said when they asked her to go to an Anti-War rally, she declined and said "if you have a Pro-Peace rally, i'll be there. "

[MissItalianDiva]

My feelings in a nutshell.....

To each their own on their personal beliefs but we do need to respect one another. Yes Dan Kathy has a right to free speech but what he does not have a right to do is use money to breed hate.

Great article with some great eye opening facts on just where your money is going when you choose to support Chik Fil A....Is this really something we as a society should be agreeing with. These are the organizations Dan Kathy is choosing to support with the public dollar. I wonder if Dan Kathy was donating to organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan would folks still feel Dan Kathy has a right to do so...not likely!

Excerpt

"In 2010 The Family Research Center spent $25,000 lobbying congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill. They compare homosexuals to pedophiles and the mentally ill, and claim that they abuse drugs and that they are not discriminated against."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ve-Free-or-Die

Now what really ticks me off is what is now happening to add insult to injury. If the 2 million wasn't enough to anti gay groups now it is being announced that profits from the "appreciation day" up to 30 million are going to be donated to these groups...smh good job at supporting his so called free speech. This is beyond free speech if it was then why does society not feel it is appropriate to support anti black businesses...same concept in my opinion.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/08/03/45543

Let me add also I do not feel this is a "Christian" issue but an issue of religion and religious zealots. The two are entirely different in my eyes. By definition Christianity is to emulate the thoughts,ideas,and actions of Jesus which if you read the bible Jesus chose to associate and befriend those who others consider lower than others such as the thieves and prostitutes. His actions were those of love,compassion and acceptance unconditionally. Here is the part I do not get with these religious folk...they claim Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that he knew our sins before we ever committed them since he knows the end from the begining. Funny part is about this whole religion thing is that even in the bible it warns about religion and according to the bible the ones who persecuted Jesus were the religious folks. Christian=Christ like...not seeing much of that in all this.

[Nomad]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Yes I agree. If we didn't have such a messy line between the two things would be much better.

one of the messiest of those messy lines is the one written on government issue paper money - "in G*d we trust". cant separate a state from its supposed church when the money that state uses references said church, yanno?

Article - US Treasury Archive

[Soon]

Originally Posted by Nomad

one of the messiest of those messy lines is the one written on government issue paper money - "in G*d we trust". cant separate a state from its supposed church when the money that state uses references said church, yanno?

Article - US Treasury Archive

Canada also has references to God on their money and national anthem, and we seem to have a very clear separation b/w religion and politics as opposed to the USA. Politicians here do not need to profess a certain religious affiliation or belief in god in order to make office; in fact, we get a bit squeamish if one is too public with their faith.