No Chick-fil-A

[bjs]

"Popular fast food chain Chick-fil-A has reportedly been barred from opening a new location in the San Antonio, Texas, airport.

The San Antonio City Council on Thursday voted 6-4 to pass a new concessions agreement that excludes Chick-fil-A, citing the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history."

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... anti-lbgtq

Personally, I am horrified by this. If you don't like what a restaurant chain does then don't eat there. When a government official uses his power to prevent a restaurant from opening then that goes of against fundamental American values of neutrality and the separation of church and state.

For debate: Is banning Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history and acceptable practice?

[bjs]

If Chick-Fil-A management is guilt of hate or not is a side note to me. What I am deeply concerned about is a government official, acting in his capacity as a state representative, acted to repress a business because of something the owner said.

If you don’t like something Dan Cathy said, or if you don’t like the food his restaurant serves or his hair or anything else, then don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A. Tell your friends not to eat there. Start a boycott. But the government does not have the right to make that choice.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 11 by bjs]

It's more about what the company has done than what the owner has said though. The government does not only have the right to, but a duty to protect the rights of its citizens against discrimination.

[bjs]

[Replying to post 11 by bjs]

It's more about what the company has done than what the owner has said though. The government does not only have the right to, but a duty to protect the rights of its citizens against discrimination.

But it is not about what the company has done.

There is no evidence that the company has discriminated in its employment or refused service to anyone.

The owner, Dan Cathy, said he supports “the biblical definition of marriage,� and he made a sizable donation of his own money to the group Focus on the Family, a group which says that marriage is designed to be for one man and one woman.

If the company had a history of discrimination that would be a different situation. In this case it is about what he owner has said, not what the company has done.

[Elijah John]

Is supporting traditional values "hate" now in this day and age? How so?

Yep, the "traditional values" in question is hateful because it discriminate against same sex couples.

If a person does not accept the newest, most fashionable agenda of the Left, are they too, "haters"?

Depends on how they act.

Again, the restaurant chain does not discriminate in hiring or in service, so how are they "haters"?

By discriminating in other ways, funding anti-LGBT groups is particularly hateful.

This is my point. CFA does NOT discriminate against anyone, in hiring or in service. That is how they act, that is how they behave. Non-discrimination.

So, how exactly does CFA discriminate in "other ways" as you say. How are any of the groups they fund "anti"-anyone??

You and many on the Left seem to be saying by extension, that most cultures and generations have been "hateful" in the past by not embracing the whole LGBTQIA+ agenda. That would include Obama, who was up until a few years ago against homosexual marriage.

So, JFK was a "hater"? FDR as well? Was LBJ in favor of homosexual marriage? I doubt it. And he especially was a liberal.

Are you saying that only very, very recently, (within the past decade or so) humanity has achieved enlightenment? Or how is it they say now, "woke"?

And said enlightenment is confined only to the "cutting edge" on the Left, (Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, college students and professors etc) who are self-appointed to police our thoughts, to police our words and show the way of enlightenment to the rest of us primitives?

No thanks.

[Bust Nak]

But it is not about what the company has done.

There is no evidence that the company has discriminated in its employment or refused service to anyone.

No? What about its tax returns and it's zero score on 2015 Corporate Equality Index, as outline in the article you linked to?

This is my point. CFA does NOT discriminate against anyone, in hiring or in service. That is how they act, that is how they behave. Non-discrimination.

Surely you understand there is more to a company than who they hire and who they serve? Especially when we aren't exactly sly about what our grievances are, re: the question in the OP, "the company's anti-LGBTQ donations and history."

So, how exactly does CFA discriminate in "other ways" as you say.

One example is failing to protect their LGBT+ employees from discrimination in the workplace.

How are any of the groups they fund "anti"-anyone??

Examples include supporting gay conversion therapy; discrimination against transgender individuals from their services; limiting gay people from leadership positions and lobbying for "religious freedom" legislations.

You and many on the Left seem to be saying by extension, that most cultures and generations have been "hateful" in the past by not embracing the whole LGBTQIA+ agenda.

It seems that way to you because you are still under the impression that it's about what they believe as opposed to what they do.

That would include Obama, who was up until a few years ago against homosexual marriage.

That's his own thoughts and it's fine, it's about how he acts. From what I've seen, he knows to separate his religious views from his responsibilities as the leader of secular country.

So, JFK was a "hater"? FDR as well? Was LBJ in favor of homosexual marriage? I doubt it. And he especially was a liberal.

I guess we will never find out.

Are you saying that only very, very recently, (within the past decade or so) humanity has achieved enlightenment? Or how is it they say now, "woke"?

Well, more enlighted than a decade ago, sure.

And said enlightenment is confined only to the "cutting edge" on the Left, (Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, college students and professors etc) who are self-appointed to police our thoughts, to police our words and show the way of enlightenment to the rest of us primitives?

No, I mentioned those on the right who are also "enlightened." Log Cabin Republicans is an organisation that springs to mind.

[bjs]

But it is not about what the company has done.

There is no evidence that the company has discriminated in its employment or refused service to anyone.

No? What about its tax returns and it's zero score on 2015 Corporate Equality Index, as outline in the article you linked to?

By “tax returns� are you referring to the fact that own gave his own money to a group that that supports the traditional definition of marriage? How exactly do you equate that with the company practicing discrimination?

The Corporate Equality Index is put out by an advocacy group, not a regulatory body.

[RightReason]

[Replying to bjs]

For debate: Is banning Chick-fil-A because of the company’s anti-LGBTQ donations and history and acceptable practice?

Of course not. Should I be able to say, “Well the owner’s of company X gave money to Planned Parenthood which I consider an anti-life position and therefore the state should be able to refuse them a license to operate their business here. Good grief! Unless they were exercising their anti-life position by killing their patrons, I would have no right to prevent them from holding the views they do.


I find Bust Nak’s comments intolerant, illogical, and scary.

Chick-Fil-A is not discriminating against same sex couples. Please cite when and where. The owners of the company said they believe homosexual acts are immoral. They do not treat any person who has a same sex attraction any differently than anyone else. They do not refuse to serve homosexuals, nor do they refuse to hire homosexuals.

You just don’t like that they believe something different than you.

For someone to discriminate against Chick-Fil-A as a business just because the business owners do not share the same worldview as them is the epitome of intolerance – not to mention religious persecution.

You don’t get to tell someone what to think. Or to where they can donate. Or how they can spend their time or money. LOL!

It is amazing to me that Bust Nak seriously do not see the problem with his position.

This my friends is the illogic of the left! I’d laugh if it wasn’t so scary.

[Bust Nak]

By “tax returns� are you referring to the fact that own gave his own money to a group that that supports the traditional definition of marriage?

No, I am referring to specifically to the Chick-fil-A as a company that gave money to anti-LGBT organisations.

The Corporate Equality Index is put out by an advocacy group, not a regulatory body.

Right, which means what exactly? Their score doesn't count?

Should I be able to say, “Well the owner’s of company X gave money to Planned Parenthood which I consider an anti-life position and therefore the state should be able to refuse them a license to operate their business here.

No, because abortion is a right, where as discrimination against LGBT is the opposite of a right.

Chick-Fil-A is not discriminating against same sex couples. Please cite when and where.

Again, see donations to anti-LGBT groups.

The owners of the company said they believe homosexual acts are immoral. They do not treat any person who has a same sex attraction any differently than anyone else. They do not refuse to serve homosexuals, nor do they refuse to hire homosexuals.

But paying money for others to do so is fine?

You just don’t like that they believe something different than you.

What is it with the reducing of our greviences to mere disagreement? It's the thrid time in the same thread.

For someone to discriminate against Chick-Fil-A as a business just because the business owners do not share the same worldview as them is the epitome of intolerance – not to mention religious persecution.

Framing Chick-Fil-A's discriminatory practices as mere disagreement aside, you are referring to the paradox of tolerance, we are no under any obligation to torrate intolerance. "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper.

You don’t get to tell someone what to think. Or to where they can donate. Or how they can spend their time or money.

But we do get to limit where they can operate on the basis of where they donate and spend their time or money.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

No, I am referring to specifically to the Chick-fil-A as a company that gave money to anti-LGBT organisations.

It is your opinion that where they donated is anti-LBGT. As a Christian myself, we teach and believe love for all of God’s children.

Also, if you are referring to the fact that if some group supports the idea that if a person has a same sex attraction and does not want those feelings he/she must be forced to identify as gay and be prevented from attempting to change his/her thoughts and behavior, I would suggest it is that which is cruel and not respecting a person’s self autonomy.

Quote:
The Corporate Equality Index is put out by an advocacy group, not a regulatory body.

Right, which means what exactly? Their score doesn't count?

It means they have an agenda. It would be like the NRA putting out a list of company’s or organizations that they felt displayed proper attitude and behavior regarding the 2nd Amendment.

No, because abortion is a right, where as discrimination against LGBT is the opposite of a right.

No discrimination against LGBT has occurred. Holding the belief that same sex relations are immoral is not discriminatory. I also hold the belief that sex outside of marriage is immoral. And I have the right to hold that position. Just having that view is not discriminatory. How do you not get that?

Quote:
Chick-Fil-A is not discriminating against same sex couples. Please cite when and where.

Again, see donations to anti-LGBT groups.

I see no anti-LGBT group. I see a pro family group and a group that actually wants to help/support/love the LGBT community. It’s a shame you or your biased Corporate Equality Index group has a different opinion. If I donate to a chastity awareness program that does not mean I am discriminating against those who have sex outside of marriage. I can spend my money how I would like.

Quote:
The owners of the company said they believe homosexual acts are immoral. They do not treat any person who has a same sex attraction any differently than anyone else. They do not refuse to serve homosexuals, nor do they refuse to hire homosexuals.

But paying money for others to do so is fine?

What group did they give money to that refused to serve or hire homosexuals?

Quote:
You just don’t like that they believe something different than you.

What is it with the reducing of our greviences to mere disagreement? It's the thrid time in the same thread.

Oh, I am hardly reducing your comments to a mere disagreement. I am highlighting the hypocrisy and danger of your comments. You are discriminating against someone just because they don’t agree with you. You can dislike them, but you can’t prevent them from operating a business and you certainly cannot prevent them from exercising their freedom to think how they want and give money to who they want. It doesn’t work that way. Because that in fact makes you the discriminatory and intolerant one.

Quote:
For someone to discriminate against Chick-Fil-A as a business just because the business owners do not share the same worldview as them is the epitome of intolerance – not to mention religious persecution.

Framing Chick-Fil-A's discriminatory practices as mere disagreement aside, you are referring to the paradox of tolerance, we are no under any obligation to torrate intolerance.

Exactly. So stop being intolerant toward those who don’t share your ideas. You are attempting to force others to agree with you. You think it is ok to threaten a person’s livelihood if they don’t share your beliefs. That is scary.

Quote:
You don’t get to tell someone what to think. Or to where they can donate. Or how they can spend their time or money.

But we do get to limit where they can operate on the basis of where they donate and spend their time or money.

No. Actually you do not.


Your entire premise/argument is fascinating. Only the left is incapable of seeing their own intolerance. Your words are very telling. You really don’t see it – amazing.

[Bust Nak]

It is your opinion that where they donated is anti-LBGT. As a Christian myself, we teach and believe love for all of God’s children.

Then you should be on my side calling out Chick-Fil-A on their behavior.

Also, if you are referring to the fact that if some group supports the idea that if a person has a same sex attraction and does not want those feelings he/she must be forced to identify as gay and be prevented from attempting to change his/her thoughts and behavior, I would suggest it is that which is cruel and not respecting a person’s self autonomy.

He can do what he wants, as no one is forcing him to identify as gay. We are talking about the so called gay conversion therapy here, i.e. torturing the gay out of someone.

It means they have an agenda. It would be like the NRA putting out a list of company’s or organizations that they felt displayed proper attitude and behavior regarding the 2nd Amendment.

And that would be problematic because...? Are you implying that the NRA's score of a company's attitude and behavior regarding the 2nd Amendment, would then somehow be untrustworthy?

No discrimination against LGBT has occurred.

Again, see their donations.

Holding the belief that same sex relations are immoral is not discriminatory. I also hold the belief that sex outside of marriage is immoral. And I have the right to hold that position. Just having that view is not discriminatory. How do you not get that?

Loaded question cannot be answered. Again you are reduce the harm they are doing to a mere disagreement. Quit it. It's not about what they believe, it's about what they are doing.

I see no anti-LGBT group. I see a pro family group and a group that actually wants to help/support/love the LGBT community.

Again see my list of examples: gay conversion therapy; discrimination against transgender individuals from their services; limiting gay people from leadership positions and lobbying for "religious freedom" legislations.

These are not mere disagreement on beliefs, these are tangible actions with real life negative effect on people.

If I donate to a chastity awareness program that does not mean I am discriminating against those who have sex outside of marriage.

First of all those who do not practice chastity is not a protected class so it's somewhat moot.

As for your point, you might well be discriminating though, it depends on the specifics, on what the organisers of this chastity awareness program actually do. Does it for example lobby for legislations that allow employers to sack those with an extramarital sex life? Do you still donate to said organisation knowing that's what your money will be used for?

What group did they give money to that refused to serve or hire homosexuals?

Fellowship of Christian Athletes for example, it requires its employees to refrain from gay sex.

Oh, I am hardly reducing your comments to a mere disagreement. I am highlighting the hypocrisy and danger of your comments. You are discriminating against someone just because they don’t agree with you.

But I am not though, I am discriminating against someone because they act in a way that harms the LGBT community. That's not a mere disagreement.

You can dislike them, but you can’t prevent them from operating a business and you certainly cannot prevent them from exercising their freedom to think how they want and give money to who they want. It doesn’t work that way.

Sure, however I can (at least collectively) prevent them from opening a business in a certain location, like the students and San Antonio City Council mentioned in the articles here.

Because that in fact makes you the discriminatory and intolerant one.

I am okay with that. Again, I am under no obligation to tolerate the intolerant.

Exactly. So stop being intolerant toward those who don’t share your ideas.

But it's not about ideas, its about their actions.

You are attempting to force others to agree with you.

No. I am attempting to force others to treat LGBT community with the same basic respect that everyone deserves. Just to hammer the point about it's not beliefs but about how they act, I again mentioned Obama, he is (was?) anti same-sex marriage due to his Christian beliefs, but as long as he doesn't put those beliefs into action by making it illegal, I am fine with that.

You think it is ok to threaten a person’s livelihood if they don’t share your beliefs.

I don't believe that, however I do think it is okay to threaten a person’s livelihood if they put said disagreeable beliefs into practice harming other people. I think it's okay to do a lot worse then merely taking their livelihood away depending on how far they go with that harm.

No. Actually you do not.

I don't? Then why isn't Chick-Fil-A opening a branch in San Antonio airport or on the campus of Trinity University?

Your entire premise/argument is fascinating.

I guess equality might be an alien concept to some people. What is it that this Jesus fellow once said? Something about treating others the same way you want to be treated? Fascinating, right?

Only the left is incapable of seeing their own intolerance. Your words are very telling. You really don’t see it – amazing.

That's an odd thing for you to say when I've clearly stated I am under no obligation to tolerate intolerance in my last post. I know I am intolerant, I am proud to be intolerance of hate. I mean, can't you just feel the righteousness flowing from my post?