CHICKEN BRUHAHA GETS BIGGER

@DrewDad,

I did not go to CHICK-FI-A yesterday. And will not be going there in the future. Period. I do not support bigotry, intolerance, and hate. I am just funny that way.

1 Reply

@jcboy,

That gives them little incentive to change, though.

If they've lost you as a customer forever, then they needn't try to win you back.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

What you do, Drew, is have everyone send Chik-Fil-a an email everyday saying

"Hi, Have you opened your heart yet? Because I'd love a chicken sandwich but can't come by until you start living your life in Christina love for all of God's children. "

100,000 emails a day for one month at $7.80 each equals about $23 million in lost business.
Every month for a year is about $276,000,000.00 .

It shouldn't be that hard to get that many people to Facebook a campaign like that.

Joe(get going)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Why would you only harass Christina?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I pretty much agree, although i think both sides smell bad in this one.

That's pretty much how I think about it, too. Chick-Fil-A's owner uses his revenue to support bigoted causes, so I don't intend to contribute to his revenue. But he does have a civil right to speak out against gay marriage. And when mayors hurt someone's business for saying things they disapprove of, they violate the speaker's right to free speech. They can't do that.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The company, which has been sued twelve times since 1988 for discrimination,

Other companies of this size would kill for that few number of discrimination suits....

Also, getting sued is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing. Getting convicted is. How often did they get convicted for discrimination?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Smoochin' Day tomorrow!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

the chicken joint seems to prefer to pay out before things get into the courts (and the numbers are reportable)

more suits since the article I linked

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

getting sued is not in itself evidence of wrongdoing

the evidence of wrongdoing (in my eyes) is the scale of the donations to Focus on the Family - that would be the purpose of any boycott I'd consider - I don't want any more money going to that wicked wicked group

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

And when mayors hurt someone's business for saying things they disapprove of, they violate the speaker's right to free speech. They can't do that.

How is that a violation of free speech?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You are shutting down a person's right to do business because you don't agree with what they said.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Who is doing that?

0 Replies

@Lash,

Specifically, it is a government official taking action against a law abiding citizen due to their speech. If I want to boycott CFA, that is my business but the government can't take action against them becaues they don't like its CEO.

0 Replies

Open question: if I had an organization that I ran, who specifically gave part of our profits to fund the KKK and other hate groups, would any entity at any level have any moral or legal basis to bar that organization from doing business within their jurisdiction?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

A bit of a slippery slope don't you think?

Nevertheless, it's people freedom to choose whatever they wish to do with their money. Morality and a sense of right can be a bit twisted from some people.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
And when mayors hurt someone's business for saying things they disapprove of, they violate the speaker's right to free speech. They can't do that.

How is that a violation of free speech?

I admit that my phrase "hurt someone's business" was vague. When the mayor of Boston tells Chick-Fil-A that "you're not welcome here", that alone is not enough to qualify as a free-speech violation. To the contrary: it's the mayor exercising the very core of his own free-speech rights.

But if a city backs up such messages with official actions, that's different. A city can't, for example, refuse to issue licenses, building permits, etc, if other restaurants get them with no problem and the only difference is what the owner said. That would be viewpoint discrimination, subject to strict scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and probably unable to pass such scrutiny.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I think if the mayor is acting in his role as mayor then it is hurting CFA's business. Potential licencees from the Chicago or Boston areas might feel that they can't do business in those cities and not seek to do business. It seemed to me that both of those mayors were speaking in their capacity as mayor making it a first amendment issue.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Open question: if I had an organization that I ran, who specifically gave part of our profits to fund the KKK and other hate groups, would any entity at any level have any moral or legal basis to bar that organization from doing business within their jurisdiction?

Any private citizen might have moral objections and oppose (at city hearings. for example,) the authorizing of permits to operate. It's very common. A local bar wants a license for a new bar that will seat 1000 people, the neighborhood objects on the grounds that such an establishment would impact on the peace of the neighborhood. The city can reduce the number to, let's say, 500, or deny the application or table it.

A person or persons who have been injured or deprived of property by the hate group could sue both the hate group itself and your organization if it could be conclusively shown that the funds you gave to the hate group provided them with the means to attack that same person or persons.

Without your help, they were just another bunch of griping whiners, with your help, they became an operational terrorist group.

Joe(lawbook people? Am I right?)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

No you're wrong.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. You may not agree with it, but if you want to claim they don't have a right to an opinion, that makes you no better than the organizations they are supporting that want to claim certain people don't have the right to marry.
Everyone has the right to an opinion, no matter how misguided the opinion may be. They still have a right to it.
As long as gay people are not treated differently in the restaurant, you can't sue them. As far as I've heard, chick-fill-a does not discriminate customers based on their sexual orientation, you can't sue them. They'll still serve you chicken if you're gay, straight, or bi.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

But if a city backs up such messages with official actions, that's different. A city can't, for example, refuse to issue licenses, building permits, etc, if other restaurants get them with no problem and the only difference is what the owner said. That would be viewpoint discrimination, subject to strict scrutiny under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and probably unable to pass such scrutiny.

I agree, but then I also don't see any of that going on in this case.

1 Reply

CHICKEN BRUHAHA GETS BIGGER

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know