Hey hey hey, Timmay's got something to say!

[SLY]

I'm Gay and I support Chick-fil-A - CNN iReport

My name is Matt. I'm approaching 20 years old. I am a liberal and a supporter of Barack Obama in 2012. What's more is that I am gay and I support Chick-Fil-A.

Within the last two weeks the fast food chain has undergone renewed controversy for it's stance on same sex marriage. I've noted that many liberals frame the issue as Chick-Fil-A being a organization that supports anti-gay hate groups and the conservatives frame it as liberals and gays attacking a organizations' right to freedom of speech merely because the company doesn't share the same beliefs. In a sense both parties are wrong. Here's what happened: Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A recently said his organization was "guilty as charged" in that they support the biblical definition of a marriage, between a man and a woman. This sparked many people to come out and call for the boycott of Chick-Fil-A. Numerous mayors of prominent cities in America announced that Chick-Fil-A was no longer allowed in their city because they didn't share their beliefs. Former Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee proclaimed August 1st a day of appreciation for the fast food chain.

The first issue to address is the First Amendment rights. Everyone these days is a constitutional scholar so I think it goes without saying that our constitution guarantee's us the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion in that section. The issue becomes, where do you draw the limits on the two. It is my strong belief that corporations are not people and thereby they do not have entitlements under the regular Constitution of the United States unless it specifically says this applies to businesses (which it doesn't). However, those running the corporations (like Dan Cathy CEO of Chick-Fil-A) have a right to express their beliefs. It has always been an area that causes me to respect Chick-Fil-A when they close on Sundays for the only purpose of retaining personal convictions over profit motives. Mr. Cathy has been unfairly attacked for his statement that he doesn't support same-sex marriage. As a gay man I say let him not support gays. When the gay community and gay activist groups push on anti-gay people and organizations to change their minds and opinions via bullying or forced involvement I fear it would make whatever accomplishments taste cheap like a greasy coin.Ultimately the acceptance of the gay community and the right of gays to marry will not be achieved through violent means, physical and verbal, but through peaceful and honest negotiations.

The term "marriage" holds a significant value to most people and is seen as sacred based on it's religious usage. The bible often refers to marriage as between a man and a woman. I think it would be fair to term the "marriage" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman as something different but also to ensure that they receive the same responsibilities and benefits. Sometimes we have to accept small gains so that ultimately larger ones can be made. The old argument of "If we allow gays to marry then there will be sex between people and animals and people will marry their dogs" has been exhausted and proven false.

Chick-Fil-A has a right to do business in any city they want. It is the right of the people of that city to boycott the company if they don't believe in it's practices. For example I don't agree with Wal-Mart's treatment of it's employees so I don't shop there, the same should be applied to Chick-Fil-A if people have a problem with them. I would ask this of my fellow gays, How would you feel if Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, a well known Republican and Christian, told all gay business owners and workers that they could not get a job in the state because their beliefs did not match the beliefs of the state? We would call it unfair and a violation of our civil rights. Why then is it okay for a mayor to tell a company they cannot open business in the city simply because our beliefs differ?

No. I'm a gay man. I love Chick-Fil-A as a place to get good tasting food. I do not support their beliefs and disagree with their funding of groups that are well known to be anti-gay activists. Personally they have never treated me any different as a gay man and I will continue to do business with them so long as that holds true.

 

[elocomotive]

That is certainly a different opinion than pretty much every single gay friend I have.

Again, nobody is attacking the Cathy's right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion, which is what some people seem to want to make this about instead of what it is actually about.

 

[elocomotive]

I really just don't understand the Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day thing.

Gay people and their supporters have created a boycott of the restaurant because it openly supports organizations (in word and money) that seek to DENY them equality under the law.

The "Chick-Fil-A Appreciators" are supporting a restaurant that NOBODY has sought to deny equality under the law. Nobody is questioning their right to support causes they want or not say what they want. Nobody. They have a right to find it offensive and take action. That is not infringing on Chick-Fil-A's rights.

These two actions are not on equal footing. One makes sense, one doesn't. One is related to actual persecution, one is related to perceived persecution that doesn't exist. One side is right, one side is wrong. History will work it out and the civil rights train will continue to steamroll the biggots, prejudiced, and racist people of this country that stand against things like gay marriage and equal rights for homosexuals.

 

[SLY]

That is certainly a different opinion than pretty much every single gay friend I have.

Again, nobody is attacking the Cathy's right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion, which is what some people seem to want to make this about instead of what it is actually about.

Not gonna lie, I see it as 50/50. I am for neither side... Really doesn't affect me. But there are wrongs and rights on both sides.

 

[dare2be]

While I agree with most of your post, eloco, I think you miss the mark on what the uproar is. It isn't about First Amendment rights, and it isn't about religious persecution (though many erroneously grandstand about those). It's the fact that some mayors in some cities made comments saying in effect "stay out of my city"...again, excercising their first amendment rights just as the owners of CFA did. Because no laws were enacted or proposed to keep them out, and many of the Mayors even said they really couldn't legally do anything to carry out their statements, it's a non-issue. As Americans, we are free to boycott or support a company as we see fit, thus expressing our own first amendment rights.

 

[SLY]

A mayor, acting as a mayor, should not be openly saying this though. That is a problem. Given the state of our economy, and unemployment rates being pretty shitty, business should not be turned away because someone is exercising their rights. Had the mayor been in casual clothes, and not acting as a government official, then fine... But that wasn't/isn't the case. The government should have no say in this matter. While I disagree with the LBGT community "occupying" (the new planking?) Chick-Fil-A's in protest, that is their right.

 

[elocomotive]

Not gonna lie, I see it as 50/50. I am for neither side... Really doesn't affect me. But there are wrongs and rights on both sides.

Yeah...not really. What harm has befallen Chick-Fil-A aside from their customers making a free choice not to patronize them? What wrongs have the gay community made in protesting their inequitable status in society?

Someone not having equal rights isn't really a 50/50 situation. You either are for them having equal rights, or you identify a reason why rights should not be bestowed upon them.

 

[elocomotive]

While I agree with most of your post, eloco, I think you miss the mark on what the uproar is. It isn't about First Amendment rights, and it isn't about religious persecution (though many erroneously grandstand about those). It's the fact that some mayors in some cities made comments saying in effect "stay out of my city"...again, excercising their first amendment rights just as the owners of CFA did. Because no laws were enacted or proposed to keep them out, and many of the Mayors even said they really couldn't legally do anything to carry out their statements, it's a non-issue. As Americans, we are free to boycott or support a company as we see fit, thus expressing our own first amendment rights.

Exactly. That's exactly why it's a non-issue. If cities were proposing blocking them, I'd agree there was a problem. But there isn't.

 

[elocomotive]

A mayor, acting as a mayor, should not be openly saying this though.

A mayor has the right to free speech just like any citizen.

I wrote a whole post pages ago specifically on that matter and what the mayors actually said.

 

[SLY]

Yeah...not really. What harm has befallen Chick-Fil-A aside from their customers making a free choice not to patronize them? What wrongs have the gay community made in protesting their inequitable status in society?

Someone not having equal rights isn't really a 50/50 situation. You either are for them having equal rights, or you identify a reason why rights should not be bestowed upon them.

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs. I am not really for or against it.

 

[SLY]

A mayor has the right to free speech just like any citizen.

I wrote a whole post pages ago specifically on that matter and what the mayors actually said.

Perhaps... I am not too familiar with the difference between a government official and a citizen. But it is my personal opinion that a government official who represents an entire city that is definitely comprised of people on both sides of the issue taking a side against a company. If they are in favor of same-sex marriage, that is fine, that is an issue, they should be pushing that stance... Not trying to bring down a company.

 

[dare2be]

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs. I am not really for or against it.

So a CEO of a company is allowed to express his beliefs by donating money to political organizations that fight for his beliefs, but customers shouldn't withhold their money from said company to express their beliefs? That's fucked.

 

[SLY]

So a CEO of a company is allowed to express his beliefs by donating money to political organizations that fight for his beliefs, but customers shouldn't withhold their money from said company to express their beliefs? That's fucked.

I didn't say that. That IS how the people should be protesting the company. Not creating "Kiss Days" outside the establishment or whatever the fuck they're doing.

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs. I am not really for or against it.

I think they absolutely should.

And I'm not speaking about Chick-Fil-A specifically, but companies in general.

The CEO of any company has to know that, while he/she has the right to express a personal opinion, both they and the company they run can face a significant backlash if people don't like what they have to say.

A semi-hypothetical example. If we moved Henry Ford, who had strong anti-Semitic views and spoke about them publicly, to the current era of 24 hour news and social media, Ford Motor Co. would take a huge hit to their profits, despite Ford exercising his right to express his opinion. And you most certainly wouldn't have a mainstream media outlet like Fox promoting Ford Appreciation Day on their broadcast.

 

[dare2be]

I didn't say that. That IS how the people should be protesting the company. Not creating "Kiss Days" outside the establishment or whatever the fuck they're doing.

Still, it's a first amendment right to protest. You are advocating taking away their right to do so.

 

[elocomotive]

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs.

So you are against people boycotting something and Americans exercising the free speech of their dollars?

That doesn't make any sense, Jeff. And that's not really an answer to my question.

Nothing more American than protest. Well, maybe hamburgers. Appropriate then, I suppose.

 

[SLY]

So you are against people boycotting something and Americans exercising the free speech of their dollars?

That doesn't make any sense, Jeff. And that's not really an answer to my question.

Nothing more American than protest. Well, maybe hamburgers. Appropriate then, I suppose.

lol

I am not against people exercising their rights. They are and should be protesting by not eating there and not supporting the company. I am also in favor of protests, always have been, but I feel protests should never interfere with a companies everyday function as a business. Again, it is just my personal opinion, not how I think it is, or ever will be.

 

[loki604]

I feel a company shouldn't have its business profits gang banged for the CEO of the company expressing his beliefs. I am not really for or against it.

So this freedom only applies when the CEO of Chick-fil-a espouses his views? I shouldn't get the freedom to choose what to do with my money? That's all people are doing. It's like people think this is the first boycott for a social issue in the history of the world. This is not a new concept.

People personally boycott shit ALL the time for various reasons when businesses piss them off. This business just pissed a lot of people off in one fell swoop.

If I want to organize a Facebook event rallying around how much I hate Olive Garden because I think their logo is stupid, I am perfectly within my rights to do that and encourage a boycott. Of course, I'm unlikely to gather a fuckton of support for such a cause. If profits are "gangbanged", then that just means a lot of people find this cause worthwhile.

Have you read about boycotts before? You seem to think this is some tragedy; it's the goddamn point. I don't have to spend at a business for whatever arbitrary reason I decide. There's a purpose to why companies pour millions upon millions of dollars into their reputations. There are infinite reasons why people choose where to buy things - price, quality, atmosphere, customer service, and a lot of people want to feel good about where they spend their money. It's not the top reason most consumers buy, but it's not exactly difficult for people to go to one of the hundred other fastfood chains within a 20 mile radius.

I'm curious as to how you think you I should spend my money. Design a wheel with every fastfood place listed near me and spin every time so it's nice and fair for all those poor struggling CEO's?


Ps. I have no problem with Olive Garden's logo. I don't eat there because I hate the food (another consumer option that I get to exercise).

 

[dare2be]

lol

I am not against people exercising their rights. They are and should be protesting by not eating there and not supporting the company. I am also in favor of protests, always have been, but I feel protests should never interfere with a companies everyday function as a business. Again, it is just my personal opinion, not how I think it is, or ever will be.

An abortion clinic has an everyday function as a legal business. So in your mind should people not be allowed to picket outside an abortion clinic either?

 

[sabresfaninthesouth]

The first amendment right to protest doesn't have anything to do with this situation I don't think.

If the protests are taking place on say the sidewalks outside of a Chick-Fil-A (public property), sure, but the Constitution does not protect the right to protest on private property. So Chick-Fil-A would be within their legal rights to deny service to the protesters (unless they are in a state or locality that has added LGBT as a protected class, which they are not at the federal level) or request that they leave the premises.

Also, if those people are not ordering anything, they can be asked to leave as non-customers.