Its funny how most people think chickens are somehow adorable. They smell bad, behave badly and they smell bad.
That said they are tasty when fried. The kosher restaurant near my work has a great shnitzel sandwich on challah bread. Its a shame they arent open for lunch any more.
Chick-fil-a happened after I left the US and it doesnt exist in Japan and in any case since I’m very strict about kosher meats I have no idea how it tastes as fast food chicken. Even I moved back to the US and somehow didnt keep kosher, I’m not sure I’d boycott the place simply because I dont agree with their religious values. I’m kind of careful about that since I am a member of a minority religion which depends on my values being tolerated. I might not eat there but that wouldnt be a personal boycott either.
It’s not so much disagreeing with their religion; In-N-Out Burger is an example of a fast food chain which is openly Christian-owned, and who prints Bible verses on their packaging, but nobody (to my knowledge) boycotts them because of it.
Chick-Fil-A was caught funneling money directly from their restaurants’ profits to the nonprofit group run by their owner, Dan Cathy, which was set up specifically to fight same-sex marriage laws. So buying food at Chick-Fil-A was quite literally sending money to political causes battling gay rights.
They have stopped doing so, they say, but then again, they lied about their politics in the first place, so I have no reason to trust them or purchase their food.
Since I missed the news on that, was it done in an illegal way? If not is the problem in your eyes that a company donated to a political cause or that they donated to a political cause you dont agree with?
Note I’m not trying to pick at the scab about same sex marriage in particular, that isnt germane to this thread.
No – to the best of my knowledge, they did it entirely legally, but deftly hid the fact that Dan Cathy’s personal political organization was being funded by his restaurant’s profits.
The problem in my eyes is that they were supporting political causes set up to fight existing same-sex marriage laws. I don’t personally want to support a fast food chain which does that. It’s not a “problem” that they’re donating to a political cause. It’s a problem for me to support it.
Politics take a back seat when we’re talking about ‘actively sponsoring and supporting legislation and groups that make the lives of a minority group extra difficult based on nothing more than how they love as consenting adults’ (or their faith, or any other thing that’s harmless to others)
There may be a political aspect, but it’s not a ‘Democrat vs. Republican’ or ‘Conservative vs. Liberal’ thing.
It’s one thing to provide for you and yours, another entirely to fight to cause others to suffer.
It shouldn’t require “clearing up” to explain that as a thinking adult I don’t want to support an organization that’s trying to prevent equal rights laws or marriages from existing. This isn’t me speaking as a liberal or a bleeding heart, it’s me not wanting people to be hurt by the personal bigotry of Mr. Dan Cathy.
I respect your stance and wont argue it. From the previous post which I asked about, I wanted to know if there was an illegal aspect to it and if that was your objection.
I actually assume that Mr. Dan Cathy is also a “thinking adult” but that doesnt mean I agree with his politics or religious stance on this matter.
I tried not to assume anything about you even we’ve interacted some in the past.
Just to clarify there. Legality never came up. This is a moral/principle issue.
Lots of people believe things I don’t agree with. That’s not the criteria here.
People are upset because he was using his money and power to attack people who are in a position of weakness from his position of strength.
I for one find that kind of … well … evil. (that part’s an opinion) and it’s certainly uncivil, unreasonable, and unnecessarily disruptive (that’s fact from a definition standpoint)
That was originally between me and @nungesser and my question was based on not knowing the incident and asking for their understanding of the thing.
Would it have been different if it was regular middle class or lower income people funding the same initiative?
For example people on BB like to hate the Koch brothers and Koch industries for the reasons you mentioned but does that mean that people will actively object to using suitcases or bacpacks made of Cordura fabric?
The last part was understood But it would have been OK if Mr Dan Cathy funded some cause that aligns with your moral compass but others found deeply objectionable?
This whole thread started out because @TobinL takes issue with one branch wearing shirts showing support for local LEOs as a reason to avoid doing business with Chick-Fil-A. I’m not clear if that means OP has an issue with the actions of that branch (franchise?) or LEOs.
I think in general when somebody uses their excessive power to attack ANY minority then we should be frowning upon it.
Gah, really hard to think of good examples because I’m pro-equal-respect-for-humanity…but maybe we could use dudebros as an example? I don’t like them, but it’d still be worse if Elon Musk was on the attack than if there was some sort of social group of middle class people trying to have their consoles taken away, right?
You would be SUPER within your rights to call me out on that if my own cognitive biases caused me to miss something like this if it fell on that same ‘power used against the weak’ axis (I don’t think the flipside of that moral axis is terribly credible)
That’s a bias that’s VERY hard to keep on top of because we can be blind to such things, so while I can’t safely state that I’d always catch my brain if it’s tricking me in those scenarios (it can create blind spots), I’d hope you’d call me out because that means I’m being betrayed by my brain and need an outside perspective to kick me in the butt.
Well I already don’t go there because I don’t want my money going to the bigot and the causes he funds. But the whole bluelivesmatter because ‘being a cop is dangerous’ is crap as it as been repeatedly shown here that as far as dangerous life threatening jobs go the popo is pretty damn far down on the list and as far as the actual risk goes that has been going down for decades. Not to say it isn’t but maybe we are all just tired of them claiming ‘it’s is a dangerous job’ when so many times it seems to be more along the lines of ‘I was afraid of the big mean black man’ when it comes to excessive use of force.
While I personally have had good relations with the police but I am also white and male and the times I have been ticketed I know I was totally in the wrong and was just yeah it’s a fair catch so why be a jerk to them about it.
Seems to be conflating two different matters but I’ll allow that I might be reading you wrong.
Personally I dont see an issue with essentially saying “black & blue lives matter”. I’m certainly against excessive use of force by LEOs and “ready, fire aim” cant go on but OTOH, what just happened in Dallas notwithstanding, I do remember when violent crime in the US was much higher and when for example NYPD & NYFD very regularly dealt with loss of life and limb in doing LEO duty. I cant say LEO lives “dont matter”.
Yeah, I find religious male-dominated polygamy to be extremely distasteful … but it’s totally fair for everybody in those relationships to have all the same benefits that people are fighting to give same sex couples! And if their relationships are coercion free and consensual then they should be treated with dignity…far more than they’re given now to be honest.
My first instinctive reaction was in the other direction, but that’s my bias and it’s unfair to impose my bias on their lifestyle or to use it to deny them dignity.
I’m morally obligated to oppose Chris Pratt’s imaginary attempt to deny them rights (I think he’s a pretty neat guy, figured he’d be a fun one to throw in there).
It’d be wonderful if Chick-Fil-A were helping to promote (through funding or otherwise) the sort of police reform that would benefit a PD’s local community and result in more effective, less petty policing (e.g. Dallas PD). Phrases like ‘Go Blue or Go Home’ suggest that they’re either overlooking this glowing opportunity or flat-out blind to it.
Either way, someone needs to gently nudge them and point out how they could be helping rather than hindering the healing process.
If Chick-fil-a didn’t have the well known history of well in comedy terms punching down it probably wouldn’t be a such an attention getter. The thing is the police have the power and authority and I am okay with that, it is a needed job but I am not okay with the behaviour of late and more importantly the thin blue line covering it up.
It’s like the Catholic church with their problem priests. If they did like other churches and said hey Father Diddler you dun fucked up, get the fuck out of the church and the sheriff is waiting at the door they would not get the grief they get.
FWIW I agree. My own idea (probably not original) is that the State should get out of the “marriage” business entirely but rather have something like a “family corporation” registry process instead. I’ll admit that I’m somewhat influenced here by ideas from my religious system whereby there is a marriage contract which specifies rights and obligations and penalties for dissolving the contract. This would allow same sex and multi sex families all to be equally happy and miserable.
Id go further in borrowing from Jewish law in that the articles of family incorporation would have to specify limits on how the family entity could be expanded, what “voting shares” are required for an expansion or contraction. In Jewish law, a man was limited to a maximum of four wives and to even take on one after the first it was required to provide proof of being able to support n+1 usually providing her with her own household or the equivalent. Of course allowances should be made in civil law for however the contract should be structured for any living arrangement, etc.
To me that is a bit of a red herring in regards to legal polygamist unions as not all hetero or homosexual unions are in any way guaranteed to be free of those same issues.
But it would have been OK if Mr Dan Cathy funded some cause that aligns with your moral compass but others found deeply objectionable?