Chick-Fil-A anti-Gay?

[monsnoleedra]

It's less about having a giant effect - the fact that Boston's mayor banned a Chick-Fil-A franchise over the company's homophobic attitudes will have a huge impact that my own personal boycott, alone, cannot - and more about where I'm putting my energy.

Money is energy. It's time, it's effort, it's the physical outcome of someone's labor. The food I put into my body is energy. I can choose where my energy goes, and where my energy comes from. Do I want my energy, however small it may be, to go to a company that acts against my interests? I'm a genderqueer Pagan lesbian. Somehow I don't think Chick-Fil-A HQ really has my best interests at heart. (That's not to say other fast food joints are run by saints. Just that McDonald's isn't actively hating against part of my identity like Chick-Fil-A is.)

Do I want to take in energy tainted by homo- and transphobia? Do I want to be part of the cycle, however small a part it may be, of intolerance, hatred, and greed?

Not really.

It's not about changing the entire world. That's what huge activist groups are for. That's what movements do. My actions are about choosing to give and receive energy in a way that helps the world more than it harms it.

I do not disagree at all.  Myself I haven't eaten at a Chic-Fil-A since I left Florida back in 1988 near as I can recall.  Seem's I recall that was the only thing we had on base at the time as far as fast food.

It's definately a two edged sword issue.  I support thier right to believe and practice as they choose yet I also support other's rights as well for thier beliefs.

[Melamphoros]

I do not disagree at all.  Myself I haven't eaten at a Chic-Fil-A since I left Florida back in 1988 near as I can recall.  Seem's I recall that was the only thing we had on base at the time as far as fast food.

It's definately a two edged sword issue.  I support thier right to believe and practice as they choose yet I also support other's rights as well for thier beliefs.

 
I see it more as "Sure, they have the right to believe and do whatever they want.  But I have the right to not give these people any of my money if their beliefs harm me in any way."

[HeartShadow]

I do not disagree at all.  Myself I haven't eaten at a Chic-Fil-A since I left Florida back in 1988 near as I can recall.  Seem's I recall that was the only thing we had on base at the time as far as fast food.

It's definately a two edged sword issue.  I support thier right to believe and practice as they choose yet I also support other's rights as well for thier beliefs.

There's no two edged sword.  No one is saying they can't believe.  People are just saying they refuse to subsidize those beliefs.

Believe any damnable thing you want.  Don't expect me to ignore it when it comes to my choices.  Beliefs acted upon have consequences.

[sailor]

I see it more as "Sure, they have the right to believe and do whatever they want.  But I have the right to not give these people any of my money if their beliefs harm me in any way."

 
Of course there is more to the story.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/media-invents-story-chik-fil-head-condemned-gay-marriage_648913.html

Oops, the head of the company didn't say that.

[monsnoleedra]

There's no two edged sword.  No one is saying they can't believe.  People are just saying they refuse to subsidize those beliefs.

Believe any damnable thing you want.  Don't expect me to ignore it when it comes to my choices.  Beliefs acted upon have consequences.

For me it is a two edged sword issue.  On one hand is their right to believe and act upon that belief and supporting it if I expect my beliefs to be supported and recognized On the other hand is supporting the rights and beliefs of those who stand opposed to thier beliefs.

Makes it seem as if one straddles the fence on the issue yet its not that straight forward and clear cut.

To use your example its fine for you to refuse to ignore it but then don't expect any of your beliefs to be supported either.  After all if you expect to act upon your beliefs then you have to allow that they also have the right to act upon thiers.

[Sage]

Of course there is more to the story.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/media-invents-story-chik-fil-head-condemned-gay-marriage_648913.html

Oops, the head of the company didn't say that.

Doesn't get the company off the hook. They've given money to anti-gay groups in the past, to the tune of $2 million dollars and more. Sources: Allbusiness.com, The Salt Lake Tribune, and The Huffington Post.

[HeartShadow]

For me it is a two edged sword issue.  On one hand is their right to believe and act upon that belief and supporting it if I expect my beliefs to be supported and recognized On the other hand is supporting the rights and beliefs of those who stand opposed to thier beliefs.

Makes it seem as if one straddles the fence on the issue yet its not that straight forward and clear cut.

To use your example its fine for you to refuse to ignore it but then don't expect any of your beliefs to be supported either.  After all if you expect to act upon your beliefs then you have to allow that they also have the right to act upon thiers.

 
And they have the right to NOT buy my book.  *scratches head* I'm not seeing a contradiction here.

[Lokabrenna]

Doesn't get the company off the hook. They've given money to anti-gay groups in the past, to the tune of $2 million dollars and more. Sources: Allbusiness.com, The Salt Lake Tribune, and The Huffington Post.

 
I've never heard of either Chick-Fil-A or Cracker Barrel. I guess they don't have restaurant chains in Canada? (If so, I've never heard of them.)

[monsnoleedra]

And they have the right to NOT buy my book.  *scratches head* I'm not seeing a contradiction here.

Perhaps just a failure on my part today to express myself clearly.  To many mundane issues on my mind I suppose.

I suppose the easiest is if I do not support thier right to things then I can not expect to have my rights supported either.

[Sage]

I've never heard of either Chick-Fil-A or Cracker Barrel. I guess they don't have restaurant chains in Canada? (If so, I've never heard of them.)

 
You're not missing much. They're pretty prevalent down here in the South - a chicken restaurant and a restaurant known for country homecooking do pretty good business here. And sadly, not all of my neighbors down here would be perturbed if they knew these companies' loyalties lay with the anti-gay crowd.

I don't understand. You guys don't have Chick-Fil-A or Crackle Barrel... but you get Tim Horton's. How is that fair?

[Sage]

I suppose the easiest is if I do not support thier right to things then I can not expect to have my rights supported either.

 
I think I'm just in a bitter mood, but my first reaction to that was "...well, I'm used to expecting that my rights won't get supported as a queer person." I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A for me because that's the only person I know who will definitely, always, stand up for my rights.

And I guess they do have a right as a private business to invest their money where it goes, but... dangit, man, they don't think I should get married because I like people with the wrong private parts. Why don't they just go back to segregating marriages while they're at it?

[monsnoleedra]

I think I'm just in a bitter mood, but my first reaction to that was "...well, I'm used to expecting that my rights won't get supported as a queer person." I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A for me because that's the only person I know who will definitely, always, stand up for my rights.

And I guess they do have a right as a private business to invest their money where it goes, but... dangit, man, they don't think I should get married because I like people with the wrong private parts. Why don't they just go back to segregating marriages while they're at it?

Oh I'm definitely not saying they are right in it as far as I am concerned.  That's why I say its a two edged sword for me.  I strongly disagree with thier position but I also have to support thier right to take such a position if I expect to have mine supported with any sense of equality.

Oh I wouldn't even bring that option up I know of a number of people who still think marriage between the races is evil.  Well what they say in private anyway.

[Sage]

Oh I'm definitely not saying they are right in it as far as I am concerned.

 
Sorry if I came off prickly. This issue is a little too close for home for me to be anything close to unbiased about it. And I think I can see where you're coming from. I would prefer Chick-Fil-A to change its policies or go out of business due to customer pressure, rather than because the government stepped in to take care of things.

[RandallS]

I've never heard of either Chick-Fil-A or Cracker Barrel. I guess they don't have restaurant chains in Canada? (If so, I've never heard of them.)

You aren't missing anything with Chick-Fil-A -- their "food" isn't very good IMHO, not even when compared to other fast food.

[Darkhawk]

For me it is a two edged sword issue.  On one hand is their right to believe and act upon that belief and supporting it if I expect my beliefs to be supported and recognized On the other hand is supporting the rights and beliefs of those who stand opposed to thier beliefs.

 
No matter what you believe, you are not entitled to have other people give you their money.  "Not giving you money" is not persecution.

Nobody has any right to expect their actions to be subsidised, and treating someone not giving someone money as some kind of 'two-edged sword' when the default condition of everything is not giving someone money is really, really odd.