CFA - is the punishment valid or illegal?

[HYHYBT]

i think i know what bothers me about the thread title. it's saying that people puling out of doing business with, or not wanting Chick-Fil-a in their towns, is a "punishment".
maybe i'm in the minority, but i just see it as people with a stance on an issue diffrent than other people, and choosing not to associate with those people.
henson didnt say they were in disagreement with Chick-Fil-A and donated money to GLAAD to "punish" chick-fil-a. chicago isn't telling chick-fil-a it's not welcome as a "punishment". they jsut don't want to be associated with people they think are bigots.
it's like kicking creepy uncle bob out of the house because he things the FBI is run by lawn gnomes. it's not a punishment, it's a refusal to accociate with.

People not wanting to do business with them is one thing; the government telling them they cannot conduct business is quite another. And a mayor threatening to block them from opening stores in his city is the latter.

[siead_lietrathua]

People not wanting to do business with them is one thing; the government telling them they cannot conduct business is quite another. And a mayor threatening to block them from opening stores in his city is the latter.

but, again, if they had proclaimed they were financially+ morally supporting something like dogfights, NO ONE (sane) would care if they were banned from every major city in america. yet they are trying to suppress human rights, but that's ok?

[PepperElf]

wait but what about the aclu

First off, i find it interesting that this discussion has now included suggestions that CFA is discriminating against their workers.

I see no evidence of this. A google search of Chick Fil A "fires gay employees" gave me ONE link only - and that link was to a chat transcript where one person made the claim. And that looked more like a jab than a fact.

Yet according to Discovery News CFA does not use gay as criteria for firing.


So um... okaaay.


And here's something interesting from the ACLU.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-...b_1715548.html

The American Civil Liberties Union -- a favorite target of conservatives -- came out fighting. Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the Illinois ACLU said "government cannot... punish someone for their words." He noted that Alderman Joe Moreno is "practicing viewpoint discrimination" when he "refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint that the government disagrees with."

And this is coming from the Huffington Post nonetheless.

It doesn't matter if someone says "but it's over civil rights" - the fact still remains that even in matters of civil rights (or even if someone says "it's civil rights") you CANNOT use the government to punish someone for a 1A statement - or donation.


The Constitution is not suppose to be a "obey only the parts we like" document. Nor is it a "it only protects citizens we agree with" kind of document.


And this is why... if individual citizens chose to patronize or boycott that's not an issue. They have that right. Even Hensons' company has a right to renegotiate their contract.

But using government offices to retaliate against citizens for their personal opinions or donations is not democracy, it's dictatorship.

[Tanasi]

As I said before Chicago politicians won't let a little thing like the Constitution stand in their way of doing what they want.

[HYHYBT]

but, again, if they had proclaimed they were financially+ morally supporting something like dogfights, NO ONE (sane) would care if they were banned from every major city in america.

Why do you say that?

[Duelist925]

Why do you say that?

Probably because dogfights are

A: Out and out illegal (it'd be promoting a crime, and thus a criminal activity in and of itself)

And B: There arent that many standard people who are pro dogfights in general.

[siead_lietrathua]

^^that, basically. people rage over the idea of fluffies being made to fight eachother, yet so many human rights and priviges are denied based on what someone does with their genitals. sigh.

[Dreamstalker]

First off, i find it interesting that this discussion has now included suggestions that CFA is discriminating against their workers.

I was simply trying to point out a reason for Menino's stance against CFA (CFA values run counter to those of the state). Not saying outright that CFA does do it...although my point that they could fish for info and craft it into a non-obvious termination is valid.

[PepperElf]

I was simply trying to point out a reason for Menino's stance against CFA (CFA values run counter to those of the state). Not saying outright that CFA does do it...although my point that they could fish for info and craft it into a non-obvious termination is valid.

iirc you weren't the only one who claimed that tho.

However when it comes to suggesting non-obvious terminations... why just them? We have as much proof on them doing that as we have on any other company. So pretty much you could put ANY company's name in their spot, make the same claim, and it wouldn't be any more or less real. Except that perhaps it serves as a means to discredit.

[daleduke17]

When it's used consistently over an entire, multi-paragraph post, I don't tend to assume sarcasm or facetious usage. While she might be exaggerating for effect, I don't think it's a stretch to think that Tanasi actually believes that Rahm Emanuel is a high-order criminal.

The bad part, he probably is. Years in the Chicago political machine. Was in the White House with Obama (another Chicago Political alumnus). And (IIRC) got into the mayor race on a "technicality" (he didn't live in Chicago, but kept an apartment in town as a second residence - so he was considered a resident).

[violiav]

I'm just tired of all the nonsense. Stupid CFA day. Is it just me or are people growing more apt to make mountains out of molehills these days (it would have surprised me if CFA Head had been pro-gay marriage.).

[Tanasi]

On the way to work today the lines at CFA were out the door, the parking lot was full, the nearby Lowe's parking lot was filling, and the drive-thru line was all the way around the building and out into the street. I find it amazing that, that many people want over cooked and over priced "chicken."

[Fuzzykitten99]

I am a conservative. Fiscally. Socially... more libertarian.

Even so, I support changing the legal marriage definition to be Same Sex.

However, I am not going to outwardly and overtly offend those who don't believe the same as I do, nor will I advocate acting out against those people.

Why?

Because it isn't just Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin.

Muslims, Jews, and Catholics (large population of which is Latino) do as well. Many of the more prominent religions have very similar base belief system.

I don't see anyone advocating a boycott against Muslim-owned businesses and the like.

I really dislike seeing truly good people -law abiding, honest, hardworking, and many who are generous and kind - being lumped in this 'let's target Christianity' movement that I see more often than anything.

I don't consider myself a Christian (I identify more with Pagan than anything, though I am unsure of my path), but much of my family is as well as MANY of my friends and neighbors. They are NOT, however, hatemongers, biggots, racists, homophobes, and all those other untrue labels they get pegged under if they say what they are, moreso if they are proud of it.

The CFA opinion that homosexuality is wrong and their support of groups trying to work against it is no different than my opinion and support of the opposite.

It is just that. An opinion.

Doing things like this, such as the Chicago mayor is doing, really doesn't help the cause to help those who are against S-S marriage possibly change their beliefs.

I believe actions such as this, and going out and protesting right at the restaurants, really hurts the cause. Please tell me the reasoning behind the thinking that if you offend someone by telling them what they think and believe is wrong, then call them names or lump them in with the nutjobs that exist in every religion, somehow they will actually be willing to take ANYTHING you have to say in regards to that topic, into consideration to giving you what you want? I don't blame them for not wanting to crumble under the social pressure.

Like it or not, much of this country's residents are Christian or other denomination. While you may not adhere to the same beliefs, to insult and brow-beat someone over it and then asking them to support what you want instead of what they were raised to believe, is not going to end well. It only results in situations like this.

If you want to change the minds of people in this country... maybe show a bit of respect for those who differ in opinion and stop trying to FORCE them to change their feelings on the matter via the law books.

It will take time to change minds. Be patient. Be respectful. And you might be surprised by the very people who you labeled 'homophobe'.

That said... if there were a CFA here where I live, I would easily go support them today with buying lunch or whatever. Because I support the 1st Amendment, and their right to believe as they wish, and their guts in saying it in public without government interfering. Just as those businesses who support S-S marriage can say so in public without government interfering.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't see anyone advocating a boycott against Muslim-owned businesses and the like.

I'm not boycotting CFA because of their anti-gay stance. I'm boycotting CFA for the fact that some of the profits the company makes are then donated to hate groups.

The company, not just those that make money from it, donates to groups that want to put people in jail or deport them for being gay. Why would you support a company that does this? The Declaration of Independence declares "that all men are equal." It's depressing that we had to pass amendments to note that "all men" includes blacks and women and we'll have to pass another to note that gays are part of that equation, too.

It baffles me that anybody would support a group so against American ideals while waving a banner claiming to support American ideals. >_<

Article at Huffington Post

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Honestly, I wish the discussion could move away from CFA and focus on the activities of groups like Focus on the Family. How can organizations that seek to harm other people be considered charities? Why do they have non-profit status?