Ship of Fools: Eat fast food for Jesus

Thread: Eat fast food for Jesus Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028648

Posted by catthefat (# 8586) on :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/us-news-blog/2012/aug/01/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day
I am truly amazed by this.
What on earth is it all about?
What has eating high fat, low fibre fast food got to do with Christianity? I mean, if it were bread and fishes I might understand.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

They've clearly done their homework on this -- drawn up some venn diagrams and spotted a significant demographic intersection of religious fundamentalists ∩ fat idiots too stupid to see they're being targeted by a crass marketing campaign. I've never heard of Chick Fil A, but I appreciate the inclusion of the Wendy's pic among the commentaries. That's a place I can recognise and avoid.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I posted elsewhere about gluttony being rated a long way down the sin ladder. Are we providing feature writers with leads?

eta: Drunkenness too: Visit Cheltenham during the March racing festival. It isn't exactly a Father Jack convention, but it's a pilgrimage for some.

[ 02. August 2012, 12:14: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

[Disappointed]

Now everyone has heard of their horrible brand [Disappointed]

So, It worked!

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I have a theory that a lot of social activism these days is done out of facebook spite. I knew plenty of people who wouldn't eat at that restaurant because of its conservative politics before the CEO went and made his franchisees cringe by pissing off half of America. But then he opens his mouth, and my facebook feed explodes with newly minted activists who want you to know that they are not going to eat any more chicken sandwiches (never mind that most of them didn't eat there all that often in the first place- it was just rather convenient that their inaction could become a moral stand). But as happens whenever a social movement gets turned into a million memes and someEcards that get plastered all over facebook, people on the other side who ordinarily wouldn't have gone out of their way to eat there get mad, and go there out of spite.

Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :

quote:
Originally posted by catthefat:
What on earth is it all about?

Chick-fil-a recently went on record as officially, as a company, being against gay marriage. When the original statement was made, lots of people who disagree with Dan Cathy's statement were calling for a boycott of Chick-fil-a.

Some people believe that it is a Christian's duty to be anti gay marriage. Some such people want to show their support for the announcement by visiting an establishment with policies like this.

[ 02. August 2012, 13:57: Message edited by: Amorya ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amorya:

quote:
Originally posted by catthefat:
What on earth is it all about?
Chick-fil-a recently went on record as officially, as a company, being against gay marriage. When the original statement was made, lots of people who disagree with Dan Cathy's statement were calling for a boycott of Chick-fil-a.

Well, it's not so much about Dan Cathy's statements as about the revelation that Chick-fil-A (which sounds like an euphemism for pegging) has been bankrolling groups like the Family Research Council (considered a hate group by the SPLC), which actively works to harm gays and gay families through the political process.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

This is huge here, with long lines outside all the outlets. I didn't even know we had this chain in our area!

The issue for the people I've talked to is the effort to stamp out the restaurant chain just becuase the owner gave an opinion.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The issue for the people I've talked to is the effort to stamp out the restaurant chain just becuase the owner gave an opinion.

Businesses are boycotted all the time - that's kind of a consumer right - to choose who you seek to do business with.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

Sometimes the best thing that can happen to you is to be busted by the liberal thought police.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Let's hope that they all die from the extra calories.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The issue for the people I've talked to is the effort to stamp out the restaurant chain just becuase the owner gave an opinion.
Businesses are boycotted all the time - that's kind of a consumer right - to choose who you seek to do business with.

Yes they do. It is a perfectly normal thing.

What got people going in my area is the statements of government officials, quoted in the links given above:

quote:
At least four Democratic officials in three major northern U.S. cities spoke against Cathy's views, some essentially telling the Atlanta-based restaurant chain not to try to expand in their cities.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald last week he doesn't want Chick-fil-A in his city. The company is considering opening a location there.

"Chick-fil-A doesn't belong in Boston. You can't have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population," he said.

Menino also wrote to the company, urging Chick-fil-A officials to "back out of your plans to locate in Boston."

Philadelphia City Councilman James Kenney sent a letter to Cathy, telling him to "take a hike and take your intolerance with you" and vowing to introduce a resolution at the next council meeting condemning the company.

These are typical of the kind of things that get people to protest and boycott. So it's nothing that unusual but it is still pretty notable.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Sometimes the best thing that can happen to you is to be busted by the liberal thought police.

My guess is that this is false, at least in this case. It seems considerably more likely that the show of support will last for a few days, while folks who hold a grudge can do so for years.

I think this is part of why corporations ought to have to reveal their political activity in general. Fictional people ought to have less say in politics than real people, and corporations are using this anonymous crap to manipulate the marketplace of ideas the same way they manipulate buying habits. It is a danger to democracy, and if they aren't even willing to be known for their intrusion into governance, they shouldn't get any say at all.

It is precisely the threat to their commerce that is the only control on their manipulations. It appears that the SCOTUS recognizes that and is on-board with the idea of requiring actions of this sort in the public square to be publicly traceable. Good on them.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
[qb] Sometimes the best thing that can happen to you is to be busted by the liberal thought police.
My guess is that this is false, at least in this case.

It depends on whether or not the Chic-Fil-A dude becomes a leading poster child for the liberal hypocrisy that rears its ugly head on a routine basis.

The dude has an opinion. So what? So does Ben and Jerry. The real question is whether or not you like Chic-Fil-A sandwiches and/or Ben and Jerry's ice cream.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It depends on whether or not the Chic-Fil-A dude becomes a leading poster child for the liberal hypocrisy that rears its ugly head on a routine basis.

The dude has an opinion. So what?

The "so what" comes from the fact that the corporate entity he represents is funnelling money to hate groups like the Family Research Council and grifters like Exodus International. These are organizations that seek to do real harm to people. There are a lot of ways I could describe not wanting to contribute to groups doing active harm to others, but "hypocrisy" isn't a word that comes to mind.

In a sideshow of this whole circus, the Jim Henson company has decided it doesn't want to be associated with Chick-fil-A anymore (apparently there was a line of Muppet-based promotional toys). Chick-fil-A has responded by calling it a "recall" and implying that the toys are dangerous. Way to stay classy, guys!

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

To be fair, I think there is a difference between having/expressing an opinion and using your money to further its political progress.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The dude has an opinion. So what? So does Ben and Jerry. The real question is whether or not you like Chic-Fil-A sandwiches and/or Ben and Jerry's ice cream.

I seriously doubt that you are that unsophisticated. I'm confident that Ben and Jerry aren't. The plain fact is that most folks define themselves through their purchases. That is the very essence of consumerism.

This may be dismaying to Christians (and perhaps a legitimate basis for boycotting any company that insists on providing anything more than a product for a price -- anyone up for an Apple boycott?), but it is central to most companies' marketing strategies -- buy an overpriced mobile phone, and we'll throw in an identity at no extra charge...

--Tom Clune

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The plain fact is that most folks define themselves through their purchases.

I could see maybe two of my three daughters thinking that when they were teenagers.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The plain fact is that most folks define themselves through their purchases.
I could see maybe two of my three daughters thinking that when they were teenagers.

Try chatting about cars with a BMW owner.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

What's shocking about it?

Some people used not just economic muscle but political power to try and damage a business because the CEO has the temerity to express an opinion that, outside political elites, is actually quite widely held.

Those who agree with him try to support the business. It's democracy in action, what's the biggie? It only doesn't happen in the UK because evangelicals aren't a big enough market share for anybody to care.

I like the idea of buying loads of Chick-fil-A and sharing it with people who can't afford it as a more genuinely Christian response. But still, I like it.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
It depends on whether or not the Chic-Fil-A dude becomes a leading poster child for the liberal hypocrisy that rears its ugly head on a routine basis.

Where is the hypocrisy?

quote:

The dude has an opinion. So what? So does Ben and Jerry. The real question is whether or not you like Chic-Fil-A sandwiches and/or Ben and Jerry's ice cream.

People make all sorts of consumer choices for all sorts of reasons - not always to do with superiority of the product. That's the market economy, deal with it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

Some people used not just economic muscle but political power to try and damage a business because the CEO has the temerity to express an opinion that, outside political elites, is actually quite widely held.

This is what saddens me. That such views are so widely held. [Disappointed]

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I'm too lazy to read Leviticus, but is eating fried chicken even kosher?

Would Jesus, upstanding Jewish boy, even eat at Chick-Fil-A's?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I don't get the hypocrisy either.

No one has told Chick-Fil-A that they don't have a right to hold a corporate opinion. No one has advocated putting the CEO in jail for saying what he said. Even those eastern mayors can't actually bar them from setting up restaurants in their cities (though they may not be on hand to cut the ribbon.) No one has advocating infringing on Chick-Fil-A's so-called "free speech" rights.

But free speech works in both directions. Gay activists, liberals, and many Christians and even conservatives have every right to critique Chick-Fil-A's position on gay rights, spend their money elsewhere and advocate that others do the same.

So how exactly is it hypocritical? The Southern Baptists boycotted Ford and Disney for many years for being too gay friendly. Does that make conservatives and Christians hypocritical too? Or does it mean that groups can organize and protest the actions of other groups in a free society?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Some people used not just economic muscle but political power to try and damage a business because the CEO has the temerity to express an opinion that

The CEO doesn't just express an opinion. He donates millions of dollars to groups that raison d'être is to marginalize a portion of the population. He is using his political power to suppress others himself.

Substitute "African Americans" for "gays" and "KKK" for "Family Research Council" and see how it feels.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Substitute "African Americans" for "gays" and "KKK" for "Family Research Council" and see how it feels.

Well, more like the White Citizens Councils, which used laws and the regulatory apparatus to suppress African Americans, than the Kluxers, who used terrorism.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Point taken.

To quote from a friend:

quote:
1. Two organizations that work very hard to roll back any protections that [gay people] may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations. Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work. Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

2. This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue because Dan Cathy is spending millions to very specifically NOT let me live. I’m not trying to do that to him.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

And to follow up on that second point: If the day ever comes when gay people organize and donate money to organizations that seek to invalidate Dan Cathy's marriage, criminalize what he does in the bedroom and remove job, housing and other protections because of his self identity, then let's talk about the hypocrisy. But I don't see that happening.

[ 02. August 2012, 16:50: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
And to follow up on that second point: If the day ever comes when gay people organize and donate money to organizations that seek to invalidate Dan Cathy's marriage, criminalize what he does in the bedroom and remove job, housing and other protections because of his self identity, then let's talk about the hypocrisy. But I don't see that happening.

But the proper analog to working against sexual freedom for a conservative is working to take away their tax breaks...

--Tom Clune

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Possibly to conservatives who like non sequiturs perhaps.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Some people used not just economic muscle but political power to try and damage a business because the CEO has the temerity to express an opinion that
The CEO doesn't just express an opinion. He donates millions of dollars to groups that raison d'être is to marginalize a portion of the population. He is using his political power to suppress others himself.

Substitute "African Americans" for "gays" and "KKK" for "Family Research Council" and see how it feels.

As you well know, many African Americans don't accept that as a like for like substitution. For
example: this one.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

That's changing. Catch up.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

The gay African Americans accept it as a like-to-like substitution though and they are in the best position to understand it (or are we supposed to pretend that gay people are all White and wouldn't understand racial sensitivities, now?)

[ 02. August 2012, 17:53: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

And even if it weren't changing, prejudice among African Americans against gays and lesbians doesn't make that prejudice acceptable.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

Good to see a firm standing up for what it believes, If only more would do so.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I'm too lazy to read Leviticus, but is eating fried chicken even kosher?

Would Jesus, upstanding Jewish boy, even eat at Chick-Fil-A's?

Get over your laziness, start ay the begining and work your way through, but remember that as Christians we are no longer under law.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Yet these same Christians advocate using the coercive power of the state to force others to obey their moral code and deny them equal protection under the law using commands from the very same book - Leviticus. Oh the hypocrisy!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Good to see a firm standing up for what it believes, If only more would do so.

Almost all firms do this. It's just that for most of them "what they believe" has to do with profit margins, tax codes, pro rata billing, etc.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Good to see a firm standing up for what it believes, If only more would do so.

My guess is that the corporation is not capable of belief of any sort. But, if it is a publicly traded corporation, its shareholders are quite possibly capable of suing the sh*t out of overreaching management for spending company profits to ride managerial hobby horses.

--Tom Clune

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Good to see a firm standing up for what it believes, If only more would do so.
Almost all firms do this. It's just that for most of them "what they believe" has to do with profit margins, tax codes, pro rata billing, etc.

I guess that you are right there.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
That's changing. Catch up.

That article says that more black people support gay marriage than four years ago, but doesn't document why. Learn to read sources before you post them.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

She doesn't need to document why (though the article actually says why - more exposure to gays and lesbians). She just needed to note that it was changing.

[ 02. August 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
She doesn't need to document why (though the article actually says why - more exposure to gays and lesbians). She just needed to note that it was changing.

To prove that more African Americans accept the redefinition of marriage is akin to the civil rights issue?

She doesn't adduce any evidence for people thinking that, but trots out her own opinion.

I'm quite sure many more African Americans support gay marriage than 5 or 10 years ago because larger percentage of all people do. It seems to me that many of the people who were central in the civil rights movements, particularly churches, do not accept that it is the same as the civil rights battles of the twentieth century.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
... (though the article actually says why - more exposure to gays and lesbians).

The article is all about why! Sheesh.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
She doesn't need to document why (though the article actually says why - more exposure to gays and lesbians). She just needed to note that it was changing.
To prove that more African Americans accept the redefinition of marriage is akin to the civil rights issue?

Do you understand what civil rights means?

Obviously if more (heterosexual) African Americans support increasing civil rights protections for gay people WRT marriage they would see it as a civil rights issue. They would also, logically, be opposed to those groups who are actively trying to strip the gay community of civil rights protections like the Family Research Council, etc.

And as I mentioned, a significant percentage of gay people are also African American. These classifications are not mutually exclusive by any means, as you seem to keep implying.

quote:
It seems to me that many of the people who were central in the civil rights movements, particularly churches, do not accept that it is the same as the civil rights battles of the twentieth century.

Of course not. It doesn't affect them. People often don't see things as having the same importance and gravity when it doesn't affect them. Also there is still quite a bit of ignorance and misinformation in churches about the nature of sexual orientation and identity, so that isn't surprising either. What's your point?

[ 02. August 2012, 19:00: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Of course not. It doesn't affect them. People often don't see things as having the same importance and gravity when it doesn't affect them. Also there is still quite a bit of ignorance and misinformation in churches about the nature of sexual orientation and identity, so that isn't surprising either. What's your point?

My point is that your over-simplistic, crass and well-poisoning attempt to make the Chick-fil-A chief exec sound morally equivalent to a racist is not a comparison that a huge number of people who actually have to deal with racism would accept. Trying to bootstrap the struggle to redefine marriage to the battles of desegregation of the past is disrespectful to those people, much as it may win cheap points.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Of course not. It doesn't affect them. People often don't see things as having the same importance and gravity when it doesn't affect them. Also there is still quite a bit of ignorance and misinformation in churches about the nature of sexual orientation and identity, so that isn't surprising either. What's your point?
My point is that your over-simplistic, crass and well-poisoning attempt to make the Chick-fil-A chief exec sound morally equivalent to a racist is not a comparison that a huge number of people who actually have to deal with racism would accept. Trying to bootstrap the struggle to redefine marriage to the battles of desegregation of the past is disrespectful to those people, much as it may win cheap points.

Go back and read the thread for comprehension this time. This isn't just a debate over gay marriage. He is sending millions of dollars to organizations that not only want to invalidate gay marriage but criminalize gay people, both in the U.S. and abroad. People like me would be thrown in prison if they win. Of course it is a battle akin to desegregation.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It seems to me that many of the people who were central in the civil rights movements, particularly churches, do not accept that it is the same as the civil rights battles of the twentieth century.

I'm not sure that it's possible to hold a coherent position that Loving v. Virginia is a civil rights case, but that same sex marriage isn't. Care to expand?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

What do gay Chick Fil A employees feel about their boss's position?

Here is one report.

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The plain fact is that most folks define themselves through their purchases.
I could see maybe two of my three daughters thinking that when they were teenagers.
Try chatting about cars with a BMW owner.

--Tom Clune

My latest vehicle purchase is a 2004 Kia Rio which set me back $2600 and change.

I am therefore pleased to be defined as a 'cheap bastard'.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

This is a worthwhile discussion and I hope it continues. But it will continue in its proper home.

Moving to Dead Horses.

John Holding
Purgatory Host

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I think this is part of why corporations ought to have to reveal their political activity in general. Fictional people ought to have less say in politics than real people, and corporations are using this anonymous crap to manipulate the marketplace of ideas the same way they manipulate buying habits. It is a danger to democracy, and if they aren't even willing to be known for their intrusion into governance, they shouldn't get any say at all.

I actually agree TC here. People should know where the money goes and Dan Cathy should be accountable for that. If that is what this is all about, then fair enough.

However, I think it is also important to stress what Crœsos said early on - this has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal views on SSM because he has not made them public. There is amazing amount of lazy journalism going on using cut-and-paste to make out this is about his chick-a-fil's stance on this issue. That stuff is simply untrue. He has made in comments on radio about being pro-traditional marriage but he has never gone on record saying that he is against SSM.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

To quote from a friend:

quote:
1. Two organizations that work very hard to roll back any protections that [gay people] may have are the Family Research Council and the Marriage & Family Foundation. For example, the Family Research council leadership has officially stated that same-gender-loving behavior should be criminalized in this country. They draw their pay, in part, from the donations of companies like Chick-Fil-A. Both groups have also done “missionary” work abroad that served to strengthen and promote criminalization of same-sex relations. Chick-Fil-A has given roughly $5M to these organizations to support their work. Chick-Fil-A’s money comes from the profits they make when you purchase their products.

Where does your friend get that information about FRC from? I'd never heard of them before this kicked off but there is nothing on their website (that I can find) that even hints at this.

According to their website they are fighting any political attempts to treat homosexual partnerships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is what saddens me. That such views are so widely held.

This is what saddens me. That some people are saddened that everyone does not share their enlightened views.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is what saddens me. That such views are so widely held.
This is what saddens me. That some people are saddened that everyone does not share their enlightened views.

To be inclusive, to believe that gay people are truly equal to heterosexual people in every way, included in law - this shouldn't be considered enlightened. It should be mainstream.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is what saddens me. That such views are so widely held.
This is what saddens me. That some people are saddened that everyone does not share their enlightened views.

This is what saddens me. That some people are so wrapped up in some warped sort of conservative v liberal identity war that they can't even see how far these nasty, malicious attitudes are from the gospel they preach.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Where does your friend get that information about FRC from? I'd never heard of them before this kicked off but there is nothing on their website (that I can find) that even hints at this.

According to their website they are fighting any political attempts to treat homosexual partnerships as equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Do I have to do everyone's fucking homework for them? What is up with the fucking attitude that "If I don't know about it it doesn't exist." Do you really think that because you can't find it on their website it isn't in the public record? I am really disgusted with fucking Christians' wilful ignorance right now.

The Family Research Council is a recognized hate group that has repeatedly published "studies" linking homosexuality to paedophilia. The group has been behind efforts to criminalize homosexuality in parts of Africa. They lobbied Congress to stop Congress from passing a condemnation of the Uganda "Death to Gays" law. Their leader, Tony Perkins, is constantly on the U.S. media (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) arguing against the expansion of job and housing protections for gays. When homosexuality was decriminalized throughout the U.S. after the Supreme Courts "Lawrence vs. Texas" the FRC condemned the decision and promised to work to pass a Constitutional Amendment to recriminalize it. More recently, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg, said that gay behaviour should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour" should be enforced.

Really, Google is your friend. Use it sometime.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I think it is also important to stress what Crœsos said early on - this has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal views on SSM because he has not made them public. There is amazing amount of lazy journalism going on using cut-and-paste to make out this is about his chick-a-fil's stance on this issue. That stuff is simply untrue. He has made in comments on radio about being pro-traditional marriage but he has never gone on record saying that he is against SSM.

I'm not quite sure why you think we don't know Dan Cathy's views about SSM--for anyone in his own culture (Southern Evangelicalism) the words "Traditional Marriage" and the phrase "redefining marriage" are very clear. It's a very safe assumption to make, and requires a really tin ear to American speech not to think he has made his postion on SSM very clear.

Also, to clear up a few other things, CFA is NOT a publicly-traded company--it is a privately-owned corporation. Whether Dan Cathy speaks for himself or for the corporation, the two are much more closely linked than they would be if he were the CEO of IBM.

It's made a little more complicated by the fact that the individual stores are franchises, owned by other people. At least one store in Decatur GA with a large clientele of gay-friendly customers placed a sign on their window that Dan Cathy did NOT speak for the owners of that particular store. Nonetheless, their franchise fees obviously go to feed his personal wealth, from which the donations in question have been made.

There is a certain amount of political rhetoric from elected officials which hasn't been that helpful. There's no question, though, that they will not be able to keep CFA out of someplace that is properly zoned (and I've heard one of them admit as much). They'll have a little more trouble in a places if they want something from an unfriendly local authority--e.g., zoning variances. You might think that is a bit unfair, but it's the same sort of tactics neighborhood associations use to keep sex stores in someone else's backyard.

In spite of Wednesday's mad rush on CFA stores, I think in the long run Dan Cathy's remarks will hurt the franchise owners slightly. Enthusiasm wanes, but grudges last a long time. Most gay people have known about Cathy's contributions for a long time, and have eaten there as little as possible. Gay people not eating there will be nothing new. The long term effect, if any, will come from those who could be termed "gay-friendly" who weren't plugged in enough to know about Cathy's donations before.

Posted by Izdaari (# 12432) on :

I can neither support nor boycott CFA, since their closest store is 500 miles away in Boise. But I would do neither in any case: IMO food, fast or otherwise, is all about the food and not about the politics. Politics don't taste good, taste tastes good. So, whether I eat at CFA, assuming I get near one, depends on how good their fried chicken is, not on the opinions of the company president.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Izdaari, they don't really do "proper" fried chicken--they do sandwiches with a fried chicken breast in them.

Their basic chicken sandwich with nothing extra has 440 calories, 16 g of fat, 1400 mg of sodium, and 42 g of carbohydrates. That's before the waffle fries or the milkshake.

Bon appetit.

People who make a point of eating there more frequently in a show of support for Dan Cathy are not doing their bodies any favors.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Can we please get over the "it's about the owner's opinion" lie? It's about the owner's donations to hate groups. See the difference? I can. Why can't you all?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I think it is also important to stress what Crœsos said early on - this has nothing to do with Dan Cathy's personal views on SSM because he has not made them public. There is amazing amount of lazy journalism going on using cut-and-paste to make out this is about his chick-a-fil's stance on this issue. That stuff is simply untrue. He has made in comments on radio about being pro-traditional marriage but he has never gone on record saying that he is against SSM.

Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.

And just imagine how surprised he'll be when he discovers that it does invite G-d's judgement on our nation, and that judgement is positive, while G-d's judgement on corporate greed and its takeover of our political process isn't...

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.

He didn't though.

He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's judgment. In the interview that quote allegedly comes from he doesn't mention SSM once.

Now, I appreciate that the quote you gave is a fair deduction from that so I'm not disputing his views. My point is that there is something disturbing about this story in the way that commentators are doing the editing for us and then putting the words back into his mouth.

Still, as you said, this has nothing to do with his own views but everything to do with corporate lobbying - and that issue should be in the limelight. I agree.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Do I have to do everyone's fucking homework for them? What is up with the fucking attitude that "If I don't know about it it doesn't exist." Do you really think that because you can't find it on their website it isn't in the public record? I am really disgusted with fucking Christians' wilful ignorance right now.

The Family Research Council is a recognized hate group that has repeatedly published "studies" linking homosexuality to paedophilia. The group has been behind efforts to criminalize homosexuality in parts of Africa. They lobbied Congress to stop Congress from passing a condemnation of the Uganda "Death to Gays" law. Their leader, Tony Perkins, is constantly on the U.S. media (MSNBC, CNN, etc.) arguing against the expansion of job and housing protections for gays. When homosexuality was decriminalized throughout the U.S. after the Supreme Courts "Lawrence vs. Texas" the FRC condemned the decision and promised to work to pass a Constitutional Amendment to recriminalize it. More recently, the Family Research Council's Senior Researcher for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg, said that gay behaviour should be outlawed and that "criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour" should be enforced.

Really, Google is your friend. Use it sometime.

The reason why I asked is that google is not my friend. By that I mean that I know precious little about America. I'd never even heard of the FRC until this new story. And I would never make a judgment call on them based on what google could tell me. For that I need help from people in the US to tell me about the biases and trustworthiness of sources.

I think this story is a classic example of just how much damage google can do. I love the ship and have learnt a lot from it over the years and one of the reasons is that several shipmates have strong BS detectors.

And for all those reasons I've got to say that I'm disappointed in your links. Your definition of them as a 'recognised hate group' comes from a body whose aim is to promote gay rights. Your last link is to a story 'playing hardball with Chris Matthews' that doesn't even mention the story. The story from the Washington Post looks pretty good but I can't access the report that the story says it is basing it's direction on.

I'll carry on looking into the Washington Post story since that seems a good place to start but your reaction seems to confirm my initial thoughts about how the US is discussing SSM - neither side is listening at all.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
And for all those reasons I've got to say that I'm disappointed in your links. Your definition of them as a 'recognised hate group' comes from a body whose aim is to promote gay rights. Your last link is to a story 'playing hardball with Chris Matthews' that doesn't even mention the story. The story from the Washington Post looks pretty good but I can't access the report that the story says it is basing it's direction on.

The Southern Poverty Law Center was actually set up to combat racism and the growth of white supremacist groups but expanded to combat all forms of hate. You can read about it more about its history and mission here..

Now sure what story you were expecting to see on the Chris Matthews. The show interviewed the spokesman from the FRC who said that homosexuality should be criminalized. It's there in black and white. Perhaps you should go back and read more carefully.

Funny how you completely ignore the link from the FRC's own website that says that tries to link gay men to paedophilia, since that is the most damning of all. Perhaps in your little world implying that gay men pose a particular threat to children or that gay culture "celebrates paedophilia" doesn't constitute hate, but the fact that you don't seem to regard that as hateful at all certainly sets of my B.S. detector. All of this certainly goes beyond your assertion that the FRC is just a innocent Christian group that happens to oppose gay marriage.

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your definition of them as a 'recognised hate group' comes from a body whose aim is to promote gay rights.

Really, the only gay rights SPLC is promoting are the rights to be employed, to have housing, to not get beaten up or killed and to not have their kids taken away. They're hardly ACT!Up.

SPLC (the Southern Poverty Law Center) is a well-regarded nonprofit in the US- they have done valuable work against the historical disadvantages that many Southerners have grown up with. Their original aim was to monitor and pursue legal action against organized racism, both in government and in groups like the Klan. I would certainly trust their research.

[eta cross-posted with ToujoursDan]

[ 04. August 2012, 01:28: Message edited by: Antisocial Alto ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well he did say allowing persons of the same sex to marry "invites God's judgment on our nation." Other than that, no.
He didn't though.

Yes he did say that. It's a direct quote, FFS.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your definition of them as a 'recognised hate group' comes from a body whose aim is to promote gay rights.
Really, the only gay rights SPLC is promoting are the rights to be employed, to have housing, to not get beaten up or killed and to not have their kids taken away. They're hardly ACT!Up.

SPLC (the Southern Poverty Law Center) is a well-regarded nonprofit in the US- they have done valuable work against the historical disadvantages that many Southerners have grown up with. Their original aim was to monitor and pursue legal action against organized racism, both in government and in groups like the Klan. I would certainly trust their research.

[eta cross-posted with ToujoursDan]

The FBI trusts their research. They use the SPLC as a primary resource to track and monitor hate groups in this country.

Johnny S. said:

quote:
The reason why I asked is that google is not my friend. By that I mean that I know precious little about America. I'd never even heard of the FRC until this new story. And I would never make a judgment call on them based on what google could tell me.

You've been making judgment calls (based on things you admit you know nothing about) since you started posting on this thread.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... He said something along the lines of children needing a mother and a father and if society redefines marriage then it invites God's judgment. In the interview that quote allegedly comes from he doesn't mention SSM once. ....

Of course, the main reason children might not have a mother and a father in his society is because heterosexual couples split up, but that's not what he's talking about. (Or what God is busy judging, apparently.) He doesn't have to mention SSM because that "mother & father" crap is a dog-whistle, a code. A modest proposal: If he really wanted every child in his society to have a mother and father, divorcees would automatically lose custody and their children would be fostered or adopted by a "traditional family". OliviaG

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes he did say that. It's a direct quote, FFS.

TourjoursDan has kind of beaten me to it, but here's a citation from the Christian Post:

quote:
Dan Cathy, the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A, was invited to appear on the "The Ken Coleman Show," during when he revealed that those advocating for same-sex marriage will in turn bring "God's judgment" upon us.

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

I think this is an outrageous, bigoted, unloving thing to say; as if we Christians should aim to become the 'high priests of Caesar's court'. (Phrase nicked from Greg Boyd's blog. More of my thoughts on this here.)

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

Edited as it could be interpreted as jr. hosting.

[ 04. August 2012, 02:34: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes he did say that. It's a direct quote, FFS.

No, he didn't. It is not a direct quote.

Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.

Ken Coleman show

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

The drama continues: Gone too far?

quote:
Adam Smith, then the CFO of a medical supply firm, created a wave of interest on the Web when he posted a video of himself berating a Chick-fil-A worker at a drive-through window in Tucson, Ariz. Smith, who said he "just couldn't stand all the hate," wasn't exactly showing his sweet side.

Smith tells the employee, who offers him free water and wishes him a nice day, "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here. I don't understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better." Smith's employer, Vante, was not impressed, stating in a press release that Smith no longer works for the company.

Tit-for-tat.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Yes he did say that. It's a direct quote, FFS.
No, he didn't. It is not a direct quote.

Listen to the interview for yourself (it starts around the 20 minute mark). The context of the quote is 'children growing up without a mum or dad'. If anything he seems to have single parent families in his sights.

Ken Coleman show

Yes it is a direct quote and you're being very disingenuous by asserting that he isn't saying anything about SSM. I opened a hell call for you because of this.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

According to this there is going to be a demonstration outside.

[ 04. August 2012, 17:49: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The drama continues: Gone too far?

quote:
Adam Smith, then the CFO of a medical supply firm, created a wave of interest on the Web when he posted a video of himself berating a Chick-fil-A worker at a drive-through window in Tucson, Ariz. Smith, who said he "just couldn't stand all the hate," wasn't exactly showing his sweet side.

Smith tells the employee, who offers him free water and wishes him a nice day, "I don't know how you live with yourself and work here. I don't understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values. You deserve better." Smith's employer, Vante, was not impressed, stating in a press release that Smith no longer works for the company.
Tit-for-tat.

Yes, because the comments of one customer are exactly the same as Candy donating millions to anti-gay hate groups.

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

Take out your frustration/annoyance with the corporation on a minimum-wage slave. Classy.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
your reaction seems to confirm my initial thoughts about how the US is discussing SSM - neither side is listening at all.

Could you expand on that? What is it that the anti-SSM side are saying that isn't being heard and understood? And how is that pro-SSM side at fault for not listening? What should we be doing in order to empathise better? What sort of mutually acceptable resolution should we be looking for?

I will admit to feeling no small amount of contempt and loathing for the other side on this issue, but, unless I have utterly deceived myself, practically all of that is the result of having listened to them, read their petitions, looked at their websites, considered their arguments, and found absolutely nothing of substance except ignorance and dumb tribal loyalty being led by the nose by hate.

I didn't start off despising the other side. I started off thinking that it was rather sad and shocking that gay people couldn't marry, and thinking that the legislative moves in that direction were encouraging - but, being straight, I'm ashamed to say that it wasn't an issue that affected me that deeply. It was only when I started listening to my fellow Christians' lies and vitriol that I started wishing that they would die of the pox. Or (in my more charitable moments) that God would strike them dumb. That isn't because I was unwilling to listen. It's because I did listen, and everything I heard was vile.

If you know of a non-vile argument against SSM*, I'd like to see it.

(*as a basic minimum, this would include: not using the word "abomination", not putting homosexuality on a slippery slope to paedophilia, incest, polygamy and bestiality, not lying about how churches will be forced to marry gays, not implying that SSM will lead to hets rushing to the divorced courts to end their 'undermined' marriages, or forgetting how babies are made, not arguing (explicitly or implicitly) that non-Christians should be forced to follow (conservative) Christian sexual ethics, not cajoling Christians into opposing civil SSM by presenting it as necessary to defend Christian values, not misrepresenting the other side, and especially not employing the spectaculrly dense trick of saying that they are trying to redefine marriage, not telling lies about gay people, and not scare-mongering, sneering or showing prejudice. All of which have been done by the anti-SSM side, most of them on the Ship. See, I listened.)

[ 04. August 2012, 22:01: Message edited by: Eliab ]

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Eliab, you are a blessing.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

[Overused]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
recognized hate group

What the rubbery fuck..?
I knew there were some who came up with stuff like that, but I thought they were virtually all in Westboro with Phred Phelps, and I honestly had no idea there were so many, and of some of the stuff that is cited there...
I don't understand - I really, honestly, genuinely don't - how they can come out with those things, and how someone would publicly associate themself with any of it.

I had no idea I was so naiive.

[ 05. August 2012, 01:26: Message edited by: luvanddaisies ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
recognized hate group
What the rubbery fuck..?
I knew there were some who came up with stuff like that, but I thought they were virtually all in Westboro with Phred Phelps, and I honestly had no idea there were so many, and of some of the stuff that is cited there...
I don't understand - I really, honestly, genuinely don't - how they can come out with those things, and how someone would publicly associate themself with any of it.

I had no idea I was so naiive.

But remember, it's the gay community that are the mean, nasty, whiny bullies for protesting this and trying to make it stop. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Izdaari:
IMO food, fast or otherwise, is all about the food and not about the politics.

And that attitude is why the USA continues to employ hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants to do jobs on farms that no US citizen would be allowed to because if they did they would sue the bollocks off of any employer who treated them like they treat the illegals.

Of course food is about politics because the production of food is about work and about land and about who owns the land and what could be more political than who owns the land?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

My apologies. INVITING God's judgment. I should have put "invites" in square brackets. What a great way to avoid actually discussing the REAL TOPIC, to pick on a slight and non-meaning-changing inaccuracy in a quote. Mea maxima culpa.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is huge here, with long lines outside all the outlets. I didn't even know we had this chain in our area!

The issue for the people I've talked to is the effort to stamp out the restaurant chain just becuase the owner gave an opinion.

From the American Christian friends with whom I've talked on the issue, it does indeed seem to be about liberals bullying someone exercising their constituional freedom of speech rather than the issue of the donations ie: just another example of "when I state your opinion, it's freedom of speech, when I state my opinion, it's bigotry"; the funding of FRC doesn't seem to register on their radar.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

The Constitutional Freedom of Speech only involves government interference in speech (viz., stating a political opinion can never lead to prosecution.) It has never meant that someone can say whatever they want without scrutiny, criticism or ridicule, or without personal or professional consequences.

It's quite bizarre that so-called conservatives who often treat the Constitution like it was handed down by God to America's prophets - the founding Fathers, can't understand this basic principle.

[ 06. August 2012, 13:59: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
From the American Christian friends with whom I've talked on the issue, it does indeed seem to be about liberals bullying someone exercising their constituional freedom of speech rather than the issue of the donations ie: just another example of "when I state your opinion, it's freedom of speech, when I state my opinion, it's bigotry"; the funding of FRC doesn't seem to register on their radar.

As TjD pointed out, the First Amendment isn't a "get out of criticism free" card. This seems another example where pointing out when someone says something hateful is considered worse manners than saying hateful things in the first place.

And just exactly who are these "friends" who consider it worse to say something mean than to send someone to jail?

As an interesting read here's an account by a (closeted) gay Chick-fil-A employee of the sales rush last Wednesday. Bear in mind that she works in the kitchen, so most of the anti-gay comments cited came from her co-workers.

[ 06. August 2012, 14:33: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I guess that one man's meat is another's poison and never the twain shall meet. It's partly, as I see it, about terminology used, whether it be 'abomination' on one side or 'bigotry' and 'hate crime' on the other. Whilst both sides persist in such polemic language, there is little or no opportunity for real dialogue.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess that one man's meat is another's poison and never the twain shall meet. It's partly, as I see it, about terminology used, whether it be 'abomination' on one side or 'bigotry' and 'hate crime' on the other. Whilst both sides persist in such polemic language, there is little or no opportunity for real dialogue.

I'm not sure there's a compromise position between "homosexuals should be sent to jail" and "homosexuals shouldn't be sent to jail". What does the middle ground between those positions even look like? Gays should be sentenced to community service?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Er...I didn't mention anything about jail.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Did you miss the bit about the FRC?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

No. Did you miss the bit where I referred to 'abomination'? [Confused]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No. Did you miss the bit where I referred to 'abomination'?

Yes, we all saw you trying to change the subject from attempts to change the laws of the U.S. to how everything would be peaches and cream if only people would use nice language about criminalizing homosexuality (or in reaction to others attempts to redefine them as criminals).

I'm not sure why this "why can't you be polite about my attempts to harm you?" rhetoric is so popular, but it does crop up frequently.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

Someone calling me an abomination doesn't really bother me very much. Someone working to put people like me in another country to death--that concerns me a bit. Someone working to re-criminalize homosexuality in my own country--that concerns me a bit, too.

I think that was Croesos' point. It's not just the rhetoric that matters--it's the actions. As I said on the Hell thread, Dan Cathy could preach his views all he wants and I wouldn't have a problem eating at a CFA franchise. When a portion of the money I would spend (admittedly a minuscule portion) goes to his massive grants to an organization which promotes evil, I won't eat there.

For all the complaints some American Christians have made about the concept of a boycott when used against CFA, they haven't had any problem using it against companies they consider gay-friendly. That is their right--they can spend their money where they wish. They can then hardly complain if I do the same.

x-posted with Croesos, who made his own points clear very nicely without any help from me.

[ 06. August 2012, 15:44: Message edited by: Organ Builder ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
No. Did you miss the bit where I referred to 'abomination'?
Yes, we all saw you trying to change the subject from attempts to change the laws of the U.S. to how everything would be peaches and cream if only people would use nice language about criminalizing homosexuality (or in reaction to others attempts to redefine them as criminals).

I'm not sure why this "why can't you be polite about my attempts to harm you?" rhetoric is so popular, but it does crop up frequently.

WTF?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Whilst both sides persist in such polemic language, there is little or no opportunity for real dialogue.

I don't think there can be much dialogue between people who want to be left alone and treated like everyone else, and those who are actively working to marginalize them through words and actions.

It's a bit like an traumatized wife that if only she was nicer to her abusing husband, the violence would stop.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Dunno. ISTM that Side A is wanting Side B to change the way it acts and Side B is wanting Side A to change the way it thinks and believes. That for me is what it boils down to; donations to the likes of the FRC, deplorable as they are in their misguided way to try to achieve the former, are a spin-off (albeit an important and contemnible one) from that major issue.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sorry for double post but, for the record, I agree that (a) FRC seem like a bunch of bastards and (b) that we straights were busy 'redefining marriage' long before Teh Gayz came along to have a go; as a divorcé I have a small timber forest in my eye there....

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Dunno. ISTM that Side A is wanting Side B to change the way it acts and Side B is wanting Side A to change the way it thinks and believes.

Hang on a bit - let's stop dealing in broad-brush generalisations. Side A is trying to criminalise consensual adult sex. Side B is telling them that's vile and intolerant. I'm not seeing a whole lot of equivalence there.

quote:
That for me is what it boils down to; donations to the likes of the FRC, deplorable as they are in their misguided way to try to achieve the former, are a spin-off (albeit an important and contemnible one) from that major issue.

A spin-off? You think it's a spin-off that Cathy's giving money to a backward, bigoted group like the FRC? If someone wanted to make it illegal for you to sleep with your wife, I doubt you'd view it as a mere spin-off, important or not.

Here's the deal, conservatives. If you don't want to be called bigots, stop supporting bigoted actions. Don't create this false equivalence between bigots and the people who point out their bigotry. If their views and actions are so contemptible, actually speak out against them rather than brushing them aside so you can criticise people for their intolerant response to bigotry.

The real issue here is the tribalism that leads conservatives to cast around for ways to deflect criticism for even outright and unambiguous bigots like FRC, because they're on the right side. I've seen quite a lot of that recently, including on this thread.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Those in Side A who are supporting FRC are wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day and you are correct, there is no equivalence there. But there are also those in Side A who are wanting to say to Side B that they believe that what Side B are doing is wrong. There's far more equivalence there to my mind.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Here's the deal, conservatives. If you don't want to be called bigots, stop supporting bigoted actions. Don't create this false equivalence between bigots and the people who point out their bigotry. If their views and actions are so contemptible, actually speak out against them rather than brushing them aside so you can criticise people for their intolerant response to bigotry.

The real issue here is the tribalism that leads conservatives to cast around for ways to deflect criticism for even outright and unambiguous bigots like FRC, because they're on the right side. I've seen quite a lot of that recently, including on this thread.

This kind of thing has been dubbed NALT Christianity, where NALT stands for Not All Like That. Basically Christians who spend a lot of time lecturing those who point out how heinous groups like the FRC are that "Not All Christians are Like That". For whatever reason, NALTs spend a lot less time lecturing folks like the FRC in this way.

An example:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Those in Side A who are supporting FRC are wronger than a wrong thing on a wrong day and you are correct, there is no equivalence there. But . . .

There's always a "but", isn't there? There doesn't seem to be any way to condemn the FRC without also including some kind of backhanded condemnation of their critics.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
. . . there are also those in Side A who are wanting to say to Side B that they believe that what Side B are doing is wrong. There's far more equivalence there to my mind.

See, Not All Christians are Like That! Some just want to lecture you on how you're doing sex wrong. And you know what? Moral scolds with some variant of that line have been around (and ignored) since before the missionary position got its nickname. This usually gets a big "so what?" from whoever they're lecturing, but that doesn't feed the persecution complex these scolds usually have, so they translate ignoring them as some kind of oppression or hate.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

OK, it seems we have to go one stage further then and talk about two completely different mindsets...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, it seems we have to go one stage further then and talk about two completely different mindsets...

"We have to"? I'm not convinced we do. It seems perfectly possible to talk about the Family Research Council, their agenda, and their financial backers without necessarily also discussing other people/groups who are sort of sympathetic to their agenda of making life tough for gay folks while still feeling vaguely uncomfortable about actually doing anything along those lines. If these are, as you claim, "two completely different mindsets", then it's perfectly possible to discuss one without having to discuss the other. If they're not completely different but rather just two variations on the same theme, then there's a natural conversational bridge there.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
From the American Christian friends with whom I've talked on the issue, it does indeed seem to be about liberals bullying someone exercising their constituional freedom of speech rather than the issue of the donations ie: just another example of "when I state your opinion, it's freedom of speech, when I state my opinion, it's bigotry"; the funding of FRC doesn't seem to register on their radar.

In which case it's a tempest in a teacup. People are just as free to say he's a bigot as he is to spout bigoted opinions. Where's the problem? I'll tell you where the problem is. When these Christians boycott (say) Home Depot because of their stance on LGBTQ issues, that (they claim) is free speech. When people boycott CFA because of their stance on LGBTQ issues, that (they say) is a violation of Cathy's first-amendment rights.

One could be forgiven if one thought (these) Christians were up their own arses, or just fucking stupid.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

MT--

It's simply a matter of:

I'm doing the Lord's work;

You are exercising your constitutional right to free speech;

They are destroy civilization and pissing God off, and we're all going to die!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK, it seems we have to go one stage further then and talk about two completely different mindsets...
"We have to"? I'm not convinced we do. It seems perfectly possible to talk about the Family Research Council, their agenda, and their financial backers without necessarily also discussing other people/groups who are sort of sympathetic to their agenda of making life tough for gay folks while still feeling vaguely uncomfortable about actually doing anything along those lines. If these are, as you claim, "two completely different mindsets", then it's perfectly possible to discuss one without having to discuss the other. If they're not completely different but rather just two variations on the same theme, then there's a natural conversational bridge there.

I meant the liberal and conservative mindsets are so different that it would be appear that they are condemned to by and large talk past each other in mutual misunderstanding.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
From the American Christian friends with whom I've talked on the issue, it does indeed seem to be about liberals bullying someone exercising their constituional freedom of speech rather than the issue of the donations ie: just another example of "when I state your opinion, it's freedom of speech, when I state my opinion, it's bigotry"; the funding of FRC doesn't seem to register on their radar.
In which case it's a tempest in a teacup. People are just as free to say he's a bigot as he is to spout bigoted opinions. Where's the problem? I'll tell you where the problem is. When these Christians boycott (say) Home Depot because of their stance on LGBTQ issues, that (they claim) is free speech. When people boycott CFA because of their stance on LGBTQ issues, that (they say) is a violation of Cathy's first-amendment rights.

One could be forgiven if one thought (these) Christians were up their own arses, or just fucking stupid.

Well, there are probably people like that out there. But what kicked it for me was the bloviating politicians saying that they were going to deny permits, etc, blatantly unconstitutional knee-jerk stuff. & not that there hasn't been plenty of knee-jerk stuff on the conservative side. To build on what Matt Black said, probably 90% of the "dialog" is gas bags talking past one another.

FWIW.

Tom

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I agree re. the politicians. They should have kept out of it.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well, to clarify what I said, nobody I know said that a boycott of Chick-Fil-A would be a violation of Dan Cathy's first amendment rights. What everybody I know (across the spectrum) said was just that - politicians denying him permits, when in fact his firm abides by all non-discrimination practices in hiring and selling, would indeed be a violation of his first amendment rights. I really think that's what cranked most people up.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, to clarify what I said, nobody I know said that a boycott of Chick-Fil-A would be a violation of Dan Cathy's first amendment rights.

Nobody here. It has been said repeatedly in the news cycle.

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

<Sigh>... indeed...

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Well, to clarify what I said, nobody I know said that a boycott of Chick-Fil-A would be a violation of Dan Cathy's first amendment rights. What everybody I know (across the spectrum) said was just that - politicians denying him permits, when in fact his firm abides by all non-discrimination practices in hiring and selling, would indeed be a violation of his first amendment rights. I really think that's what cranked most people up.

If it is, they're fussing about nothing. Regardless of any political gum-flapping, there's no realistic possibility that Chicken-Filler would EVER be denied a business permit in any jurisdiction. So this is a manufactured outrage about a hypothetical-never-gonna-happen hindrance of a corporation's business activities. Gays and lesbians being harassed and persecuted is a reality, and Dan Cathy wrapping himself in freedom of speech while trying to try to roll back what few rights and protections they may have is also a reality. I agree, those mayors are an embarrassment and need a slap upside the head, but they're no danger to anyone's business or freedoms. OliviaG

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
MT--

It's simply a matter of:

I'm doing the Lord's work;

You are exercising your constitutional right to free speech;

They are destroy civilization and pissing God off, and we're all going to die!

If the chicken restaurant is not left alone, at least we will know who to blame for the next natural disaster.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

It seems that there has now been a shooting at the FRC's offices. [Votive]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Great. Well, there was no doubt that looniehood doesn't reside all on one side of the aisle.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

This fracas has had its costs on the god fearing

Billy Graham defends Chick Fil A

Billy Graham hospitalized-

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
This fracas has had its costs on the god fearing

Billy Graham defends Chick Fil A

There are some who have noted that a lot of the recent statements being released by "Billy Graham", who is suffering from Parkinson's and living in seclusion, sound a lot more like his son Franklin than they sound like Billy's older writings. Billy Graham, it should be remembered, avoided most "culture war" issues for most of his career, in part because he claimed it distracted from his evangelism but also because the one previous time he did so he ended up feeling used by the Nixon administration.

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Billy Graham hospitalized-

Because there's no other possible explanation for a ninety-three year old man in declining health suddenly needing hospitalization? [Roll Eyes]

[ 22. August 2012, 14:33: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0