-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
- Status
Daydream Sequence
Banned
Interesting that the ad running on this page is telling me to join Sarah Palin tomorrow to show my support for traditional marriage and Chik-Fil-A. Boooooooo
ElectricBlue187
Member
The "with us or against us" attitude ive seen on facebook doesn't win people over
Devolution
Member
Right, that's why I said a few posts ago that now I understand.
Well said, instead of insulting me for not being so knowledgeable on the subject or not caring that much, putting me in my place with truth. I like it.
Nothing really, just replying to the last few residual posts about me before I move on to the next topic. Is that ok with you?
speculawyer
Member
Look at 2004 . . . that was the year of "Let's make sure Bush wins by getting voters to the ballot box to hate on gays!". :-( Fuck you, Ken Mehlman.
gutter_trash
Banned
as i said a few pages back,
huge business mistake
huge business mistake
The initial state-level mini-DOMAs (and DOMA itself) and state constitutional amendments were essentially responses to what happened in Hawaii in 1993 and 1996.
So actually right on time.
It will be interesting to see the fall out from this misstep. It's crazy how the donations report keg powder was ignited by comments made toward a Baptist website during an interview.
Sonned himself.
Even though this was addressed to me, I didn't see it originally.
The last part is really, really unsettling.
MIMIC, looking at your post from earlier in the topic, I am not sure how you could be unaware that there is a right to marriage when you are certainly no stranger to these topics, that is not a new argument for you, and I can't imagine you haven't been corrected in the past by someone over the years. It just seems bizarre to me.
But since I am apparently mistaken:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
- Loving v Virginia
And nor is this the first case holding this to be the case, though I can't be arsed to go through the Proposition 8 trial court transcripts and find when it was mentioned. But trust me! Or look it up yourself; either works.
People have a right to marriage. While there are reasonable restrictions on the basis of, for instance, age or mental capacity, there are no reasonable arguments for restricting marriage to being solely between members of the opposite sex, any more than there are arguments for restricting marriage to being solely between members of the same race. Each and every single one of the purported arguments was utterly dismantled during the Proposition 8 trial, to the extent that one of the only expert witnesses which the defense presented, David Blankenhorn, now supports marriage equality.
So there you are.
But since I am apparently mistaken:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
- Loving v Virginia
And nor is this the first case holding this to be the case, though I can't be arsed to go through the Proposition 8 trial court transcripts and find when it was mentioned. But trust me! Or look it up yourself; either works.
People have a right to marriage. While there are reasonable restrictions on the basis of, for instance, age or mental capacity, there are no reasonable arguments for restricting marriage to being solely between members of the opposite sex, any more than there are arguments for restricting marriage to being solely between members of the same race. Each and every single one of the purported arguments was utterly dismantled during the Proposition 8 trial, to the extent that one of the only expert witnesses which the defense presented, David Blankenhorn, now supports marriage equality.
So there you are.
Is there anyway to check which one of my facebook friends have RVSP'd to Huckabee's CFA appreciation day?
Fuck you, Ken Mehlman indeed.
Fuck you, Ken Mehlman indeed.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Mass defriending incoming?
Yup.
Also who's the male sales associate at Forever 21 who rvsp'd to this, I mean come on.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Let's not jump to conclusions. That's a damn good way to meet women (both customers and coworkers).
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
Here's the thing, you can't blame individual franchise owners for the CEO being a piece of shit. You'd probably have to avoid practically all restaurants and retail outlets (besides JC Penny's of course) if you wanted to live like that.
I think Obama, would in fact, eat at Chick-Fil-A if the opportunity presented itself. Just to show that he holds no grudges toward the honest people running individual restaurants.
I mean, this is more about blaming the wrong person than doing the right thing..
Much like how I can choose to stop eating at CFA because their CEO is a turbo-bigot, franchisees can elect to franchise a different chain. Nobody forced them to license CFA.
you'd have to be insane to be a guy working at forever 21 anyways. yippee, you get a staff discount on the worst quality (and smallest mens selection) clothes ever.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
Well yeah Gaborn brought that to my attention the other day. Before then, I was never aware of Loving v Virginia. I mean, marriage never prevented anyone from progressing any further in life than any single person so I just figured that it wasn't a "right".
But like I said before, I still think marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I personally don't care if gay marriage were legal; it's just not something I would ever vote for but I'm not going to vote against it either. If it happens, it happens and I'd be fine with the outcome.
Devolution
Member
Yeah this is news to me too although I haven't been inside of one in forever.
metalslimer
Member
This just doesn't make sense to me though. It doesn't affect you and makes others happy. Why wouldn't you vote for it? And why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman exactly without using the religious argument because religion doesn't nor never has owned marriage.
I don't like it at all. I don't like the position either - it just won't affect whether or not I eat there. I'm just being honest about it - corporate funds do all kinds of things I disagree with at many companies.
It is a bit tough because I realize that money is what talks - my business. But this is not really going to be a direct correlation. My money supports good food when I buy food....it doesn't mean I am directly voting for agreeing with all positions regarding the people that made it.
Maybe I am being obtuse, I think people should bitch about it, but a viewpoint that doesn't actually affect the product doesn't affect my purchase.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Yeah though I think this is one of those issues that has exponentially started to shift each year since the turn of the new millennium. I feel like we've come a fuck ton farther than most would have ever dreamt of in terms of public acceptance of things LGBT in just the say year or two.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
If you see it again, grab the URL it links to and send it off to EvilLore.
He can, and may be interested in filtering the ad.
People base their votes on their opinions, not whether or not it directly affects them.
It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be between a man and a woman, which is why I said I would never vote against it. I can live in a world with gay marriage; I wouldn't fight it. But like I said, I wouldn't favor it.
Someone might believe a kid should have a father and mother and marriage being the tool to promote families.
Might be a different kind of bigotry but not entirely religious.
In that case we should make it illegal for there to be single parents. Unless you are to assume that two same sexed parents is worse than one. I however take a more measured approach and believe that the more positive adult influences in the raising of a child the better.
This argument comes up time and again, and I don't understand why, because it doesn't make a damn bit of sense.
Blake'sGrave
Member
"Why the fuck would I blow up Chick-fil-A, it's fucking delicious"
At the risk of sounding rude when I'm really just genuinely curious... why do you feel this way? Do you believe that there is some inherent benefit to society for all marriages to only be between a man and a woman? Is it a personal comfort thing? Whatever qualm you have with gay marriage is significant enough to prevent you from supporting it with a vote if you had the chance.
Sorry, but you cannot ask people to risk their jobs in the middle of a great depression for a cause, no matter how right it is. Don't get me wrong, Chick-Fil-A deserves every single ounce of criticism, gay marriage is something that we shouldn't be debating in the XXIth century and I cannot wait for this PPRR debacle to be studied in universities, but focusing the protest in the lower echelons of the company is really unfair, and a counterproductive tactic (which kind of preassure and influence can exert a fast food grunt, in their company, then again?).
could you link to the hoax sign?
Here is the Snopes article (yep, already, that was quick) to the hoax McDonald's sign...
http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/chickfila.asp
I have a feeling that the folks at my local Wendy's saw that online, assumed it was real, and decided to follow what they thought was a real sign.
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
If this is true whoever is the manager there will get sacked. Unless Wendy's are outing themselvs bigots as well.
Take a picture and send it to a local news outlet. Also post the picture here.
freenudemacusers
Member
Even if it were true, it's not difficult to skip eating at a fast food restaurant
Alligatorjandro
Banned
Businesses should stay out of politics
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
"Oh no what will we eat instead" is not even close to being what the issue is.
Yeah, I don't get it at all. If you're anti-gay why not just keep your bigotry to your personal life? Terrible business sense to alienate potential customers and cut into your profits for no reason.
I think he meant that as an answer to the "now try to boycott us" thingy.
- Status