|
Post by jklinders on Jul 26, 2012 12:53:41 GMT 1
Well the amusing part to me, which you just let me know about Buch I had not heard about the toys or PR gaffe, is that it turns out that the owners of the chain have very little integrity after all. I'm more annoyed with them for lying about the souring of their relations with the Jim Henson's company in a pathetic attempt at damage control than I would have been at their owner being anti-gay. I already knew he was anti-gay seeing as the company is run by fundamentalist conservatives. Until recently they stayed out of the politics of the issue. Now that he has dipped his toe into the politics and drew out a bloody stump, he is incapable of handling it properly. So he lies. Pretty sure that's a breach of one of the laws of Moses there. I'll have to look it up.
Anyway, I disagree strongly with his beliefs on this matter but zi am OK with him having them as long as A) he does not actually violate anyone's rights in having these beliefs, B) uses the political process legally to make their point and C) does not join the chorus line of assholes who can't make their point without lying about it.
He fails on at least 2 and possibly all three of these counts on this so therefore their supposedly moderately better than average fast food will be off my menu should I ever travel in the small slice of the US that they exist in.
|
|
|
Post by Battlechantress on Jul 26, 2012 13:02:32 GMT 1
I don't know why Henson's company was surprised about Chik-Fil-A (it's pronounced "Chick-Fill-Ay", Buch) being against gay marriage and so forth. They have *never* supported gay rights, and if memory serves, they have funded right-wing PACs and anti-gay groups for years.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 26, 2012 13:30:51 GMT 1
I may have set you all up here... Two thoughts on the Chik-Fil-A drama: Before that, the exact words the Company President, Dan Cathy, said (The easier to base our replies upon): "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in article published Monday by the Baptist Press. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." (Source: www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271)1) How many protests of equal vitriol have been organized by evangelicals when company owners supported issues they disagreed with? I think some consideration needs to be given to "Fair is Fair." So to the evangelical side, calm down! It'll blow over and something else will be a more outrageous abuse of tolerance. 2) On that note, it is really no surprise that the owner holds this view. After all, all franchises are closed on Sunday at the express wish of the founder. This implies a religious base, and gay marriage is a hot-button religious issue right now. So to the progressive side, cool down! Don't act like you had no idea that such a political stand was going on. And if you appreciate the employees at your local chik-fil-a, don't show up on August 1. They'll have enough protest eaters that it will be a madhouse in there.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 26, 2012 14:03:07 GMT 1
What, like 'fillet'??
I really can't abide this deliberately spelling things wrong and making it more comple in the process business.
Interesting fact - in England we pronounce 'fillet' as 'fill-it' instead of 'fill-ay'.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 26, 2012 14:51:44 GMT 1
Oh god, me and my girlfriend and her family got in so many arguments about chicken fillets... It;s pronoucned FILL-AY FFS! The entire Continent says it!
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jul 26, 2012 14:56:54 GMT 1
I may have set you all up here... Two thoughts on the Chik-Fil-A drama: Before that, the exact words the Company President, Dan Cathy, said (The easier to base our replies upon): "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in article published Monday by the Baptist Press. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." (Source: www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271)1) How many protests of equal vitriol have been organized by evangelicals when company owners supported issues they disagreed with? I think some consideration needs to be given to "Fair is Fair." So to the evangelical side, calm down! It'll blow over and something else will be a more outrageous abuse of tolerance. 2) On that note, it is really no surprise that the owner holds this view. After all, all franchises are closed on Sunday at the express wish of the founder. This implies a religious base, and gay marriage is a hot-button religious issue right now. So to the progressive side, cool down! Don't act like you had no idea that such a political stand was going on. And if you appreciate the employees at your local chik-fil-a, don't show up on August 1. They'll have enough protest eaters that it will be a madhouse in there. Not quite as he also said this "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." source So if we are going to talk about inflammatory let's get the whole story shall we? For the last time, marriage in it's infancy was a financial contract between 2 families that involved an exchange of property which at the time included daughters. The State has always had authority of the laws of marriage which is why we get a marriage license from the state not the church. i respect the wishes of chuches that do not want to hold marriage ceremonies for gays as that is their prerogative based on their beliefs. They have no business meddling in the laws of the land in this regard though outside the walls of their own faiths. I am going to work now so I cannot discuss further but If I do not injure myself terribly on the job tonight I may be in a position to debate this further. But it's not as if we have not danced this dance enough. And no Clint you did not set me up. I had these facts before your post, I just chose not to raise them because there is little point in lighting this bonfire yet again.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 26, 2012 20:31:53 GMT 1
Hmm. Thought I had the original article. My bad.
I personally am not opposed to gay marriage, so long as any ruling that sets it up also provides for the rights of those who do not wish to support it (i.e. churches who disagree don't have to provide the ceremony). Why I'm bringing it up is that I think the outrage is overplayed, on both sides. "You don't have the right to say what you want / boycott people you disagree with" Um... yes he does, and yes they do!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 26, 2012 20:41:47 GMT 1
I have to agree with that part. I'm very worried about how many people I see getting fired or shut down because they voiced an opinion that's racist or homophobic or sexist. While I (and apparently the staus quo) happen to hate those prejudices, that doesn't make voicing them an offence. I really applaud the Henson company and ordinary diners for boycotting the company, but I don't see why they deserve any punishment beyond that. Was anyone really outraged or hurt by the revelation that a Baptist, conservative businessman is homophobic? I was mildly annoyed. And even if people were offended to the point that they became ill, this is not Cathy's responsibility. We can call him a bastard, but it's his right to be a bastard. I also just read that the Greek triple-jump champion has just been banned from the Olympics, on account of making a racist tweet. Her philosophical, ethical and political opinions, now matter how lousy, should not be getting her fired from the god-damn triple-jump. Or any job that they do not directly compromise. The right to free speech, along with every human right, is free-er and stronger in our countries than it ever has been. It's a great time to be alive, never mind a great time to be gay. We're getting relatively less abuse from everyone. But there's an odd hitch in the freedom we have now, in that opposing freedom is strictly forbidden. Public figures are flat-out punished for being bigots, which is against everything we non-bigots are standing for in the first place. They have the right to speak. It wasn't long ago when speaking out in favour of gay, black or women's rights would get you fired. A few years back, arrested. In some countries right now, executed. So a vengeful liberal might feel a bit of selfish satisfaction when a racist is fired for her beliefs. But that could easily have been us, and it wouldn't be any less wrong. I'm glad the Westernised public opinion seems to be entirely on my side right now in terms of human rights, but I fear the day when it isn't. Because apparently I'll get fired a lot.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 26, 2012 21:08:02 GMT 1
I think the issue with the triple jumper was more political than racist. Her post (About west nile mosquitoes getting food from home on all the west africans in greece) as well as other links were from the right wing viewpoint, while the party in charge of the olympic team is predominantly left wing.
THIS
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 26, 2012 21:10:45 GMT 1
Yeah, but the clash in their political viewpoints has nothing whatsoever to do with the triple jump.
No employer has the right to fire employees because they don't share politics. Obviously there is an argument here that Olympic athletes are respresentatives of their country. But that's crap. They are athletes, not ambassadors.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 26, 2012 21:11:25 GMT 1
Also - gather 'round people.
This is me and Clint.
Agreeing.
About politics.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 26, 2012 21:17:59 GMT 1
One of the signs of the Apocalypse. Be afraid folks, be very afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 26, 2012 21:39:26 GMT 1
Also - gather 'round people. This is me and Clint. Agreeing. About politics. *Shock & Awe*
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 26, 2012 23:50:33 GMT 1
I may have set you all up here... Two thoughts on the Chik-Fil-A drama: Before that, the exact words the Company President, Dan Cathy, said (The easier to base our replies upon): "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said in article published Monday by the Baptist Press. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that." (Source: www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271)1) How many protests of equal vitriol have been organized by evangelicals when company owners supported issues they disagreed with? I think some consideration needs to be given to "Fair is Fair." So to the evangelical side, calm down! It'll blow over and something else will be a more outrageous abuse of tolerance. 2) On that note, it is really no surprise that the owner holds this view. After all, all franchises are closed on Sunday at the express wish of the founder. This implies a religious base, and gay marriage is a hot-button religious issue right now. So to the progressive side, cool down! Don't act like you had no idea that such a political stand was going on. And if you appreciate the employees at your local chik-fil-a, don't show up on August 1. They'll have enough protest eaters that it will be a madhouse in there. Not quite as he also said this "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,'" Cathy said. "I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about." source So if we are going to talk about inflammatory let's get the whole story shall we? For the last time, marriage in it's infancy was a financial contract between 2 families that involved an exchange of property which at the time included daughters. The State has always had authority of the laws of marriage which is why we get a marriage license from the state not the church. i respect the wishes of chuches that do not want to hold marriage ceremonies for gays as that is their prerogative based on their beliefs. They have no business meddling in the laws of the land in this regard though outside the walls of their own faiths. I am only going to say a little bit about this, as the whole gay-marriage topic is a very sensitive topic for me, and I have on occasion been known to actually cry over it... I find that man's comments about arrogance and audacity to be highly offensive. We are not being arrogant and audacious to expect fair treatment and equal rights for gay and bisexual people. If a gay couple loves each other enough to want to marry each other, then why should they be denied that right? This world needs more love in it and I think it is unfair to deny two men or two women the right to marry and have a family. That is not arrogance, that is the basic human right to equality. Also, I have to wonder, why would a straight person be offended about a gay couple wanting to marry, when one person's marriage has absolutely no impact whatsoever on another person's life? And that is all I will say at the moment, as I don't want to get anyone mad at me for saying anything too emotional, and I don't feel like crying tonight.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on Jul 27, 2012 1:55:51 GMT 1
Hmm. Thought I had the original article. My bad. I personally am not opposed to gay marriage, so long as any ruling that sets it up also provides for the rights of those who do not wish to support it (i.e. churches who disagree don't have to provide the ceremony). Why I'm bringing it up is that I think the outrage is overplayed, on both sides. "You don't have the right to say what you want / boycott people you disagree with" Um... yes he does, and yes they do! I disagree. Not to be contrary or anything but just hear me out. This gentleman finances lobby groups whose sole purpose it is to limit the rights of people in the gay demographics. This is a matter of public record and admission. Since he is putting pressure on the government to limit people's rights he leaves himself and his business fair game to similar tactics by those he opposes. This is what you get for sticking your foot into politics in America. He currently drawing out a bloody stump mostly because he couldn't not oppose people getting rights. I'm very sorry he is getting fallout for speaking his mind, but he is not just speaking his mind. He is actively involved. I already said that if he was more honest about why Jim Henson Company parting with him I would have had more respect for him. But he obviously skipped the Exodus Chapter of Bible study because his PR team with his blessing took a piss all over "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" Be honest, don't be such a pussy and more people will like you in the end. In the end he is just another liar who does not practice what he preaches. Lastly, he got involved in the politics of his own free will. His employees will do just fine. there is always another fast food joint. Seriously. Walk 10 feet and there is another job waiting for you. HE will suffer because he chose to get involved without heed to the consequences. Now I'm done.
|
|