Chik-Fil-A

[Kaa]

If your age differs from mine by more than five years, I'll eat my lunch.

:-D That's an excellent bet :-D And if by less, I'll eat mine?

Kaa

[Flying Orca]

Something like that, yes.

[John Smith]

I hate to say it, John, but I think you seriously misunderstand the principle of free speech. It is most certainly not about speech without consequences.

Actually, the entire reason that part of our first amendment is to protect unpopular speech from the tryanny of the majority.

There is a difference between speech and action. You have a perfect right to decide not to watch a tv show. When you take action to get others to take action to get that show off the air, I think you are doing exactly what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect us from.

And I'm still interested where you draw the line. This guy sells sandwiches. You can get sandwiches many places. If he ran a pharmaceutical company and offered a cancer curing pill, would you still suggest no one take his pill?

There wass no legal reason to prevent that Muslim Center from being built where they wanted to build it, but they fell victim to the tyranny of the majority.

The concept of freedom of speech is that I, or you, have the right to say something that is not popular, and perhaps offensive, without suffering consequences from the government or organized religion, or any other organized efforts to hurt our business.

I've long been a proponent of the difficult concept that we can recognize Pete Rose for what he did on the field and for what he did off the field. One does not negate the other.

The only time it matters to me what opinions a man holds, basically, is when that man is running for office or is donating a lot of money to a candidate.

If the guy running this, or any chain of restaurants was donating a lot of money to Romney, I would consider my eating there as a contribution to Romney's election. I think we should have the right to know who's contributing, but aside from that people are absolutely entitled to their opinion free of organized consequence, or the 1st Amendment means nothing.

Alarge part of the government's role here is not to enforce the will of the majority, but to protect the rights of the minority.

Any man who feels he has the right to impose consequence on another man's opinions is violating the principle of free speech.

Possible exceptions: An employer might have a case of some merit when an employee, who represents the company, does or says things that might cast the company in bad light. The individual employees, who incidentally don't get asked, may decide to quit if they don't like the actions of the boss. If they learned he was donating money to candidates/causes they disagree with, but generally speech with consequences is not free. That's simply a contradiction of terms.

[John Smith]

Maybe I should word this differently. Where do you get the right to organize any sort of action that will hurt my business because you don't agree with my opinion on something?

This is simply, Agree with me or else. Does that sound right to anyone?

[Flying Orca]

Where do you get the right to organize any sort of action that will hurt my business because you don't agree with my opinion on something?

I think under the rule of law, actions are permitted unless otherwise prohibited. Are you suggesting that boycotts are or should be prohibited?

[John of Phoenix]

Remember what the reds did to the Dixie Chicks?

[BrianY]

Maybe I should word this differently. Where do you get the right to organize any sort of action that will hurt my business because you don't agree with my opinion on something?

This is simply, Agree with me or else. Does that sound right to anyone?

Yes, it souds EXACTLY right - as long as it's private citizens and not government officials doing the organizing and taking the actions.

"Free speech" means "freedom of expression" which means that you as a private citizen are free to state your opinions and to try to convince other like-minded people to take action to advance your interests/POV. That includes organizing a boycott of a business for any reason that you can dream up. Freedom of expression is NOT limited to individuals. Groups of individuals can express their collective views too. Our legal system is supposed to prevent that collective expression from becoming "the tyrrany of the majority".

[Bobby of Tulsa]

Maybe we can get heart patients to protest.

[John Bell]

There is a difference between speech and action. You have a perfect right to decide not to watch a tv show. When you take action to get others to take action to get that show off the air, I think you are doing exactly what the 1st Amendment is supposed to protect us from.

The first amendment protects speech not allowing Congress to make laws to limit speech by individuals that could lead lead to action, as long as that action is not egregiously unlawful. You cannot, for instance, incite a lynch mob. The only entity the 1st amendment applies to is the government, it does not apply to the people.

The concept of freedom of speech is that I, or you, have the right to say something that is not popular, and perhaps offensive, without suffering consequences from the government or organized religion, or any other organized efforts to hurt our business.

Strike the phrase "or organized religion, or any other organized efforts to hurt our business" and you're right. You absolutely can suffer consequences from your speech from any entity or private individual. Government can't make laws that make you suffer legal consequences for your protected speech.

[pefjr]

:-D That's an excellent bet :-D And if by less, I'll eat mine?

Kaa

May I suggest the Chick-Fil-A for your lunch?

[Ted Hoppe]

I worked as a 16 y/o kid at Chick-Fli-A for a month in the summer. Nearly 35 years ago, they only hired blond and blue eyed kids. The owner told it was their policy to hire Christians whom they could trust. Skin color and a natural all fair skinned american look was important to them. I lasted right before i started working for the volkswagon/fiat dealer as a new car jockey.

I enjoyed frying things other than chicken in the fryers... Started with cheese, then pens and finally moved to a palmetto bug the last few day of employment. Not my finest moment but my friend and I thought it was funny right before we changed the oil for the next day.

[John Smith]

The first amendment protects speech not allowing Congress to make laws to limit speech by individuals that could lead lead to action, as long as that action is not egregiously unlawful. You cannot, for instance, incite a lynch mob. The only entity the 1st amendment applies to is the government, it does not apply to the people.



Strike the phrase "or organized religion, or any other organized efforts to hurt our business" and you're right. You absolutely can suffer consequences from your speech from any entity or private individual. Government can't make laws that make you suffer legal consequences for your protected speech.

It would be the government's job to protect you from a lynch mob if your speech simply voiced an opinion on homosexuatlity, abortion, etc. It should have been the government's job to protect the right of the Muslim community to build their community center.

That public did not, under my interpretation of the 1st Amendment have the right to force it not to be built there.

The price we pay for this freedom is people have the right to voice opinions we disagree with and/or find offensive.

The trouble, I believe, with this country is we get all over the this guy for giving a stupid opinion. We got all over Limbaugh for language he used to describle Sandra Fluke, but we accepted his total misrepresentation of her testimony as free speech. We accept people running for office outright lying to us as free speech. Inciting a riot is not free speech. Neither is fraud, libel, or slander.

Voicing an opinion is free speech. When we make an organized effort to silence that speech, it's the same as a lynch mob. It's organizing an effort to prevent someone from voicing his opinion simply because we don't like his opinion.

I may have missed it (wouldn't be the first time). but I remain curious as to how far you or the others here take this idea. If this guy made the same statements but ran a different business, would you suggest not being his customer?

If he ran a drug company that marketed the only cancer curing drug on the market, would you organize cancer patients to boycott his pill? If he owned a baseball or football team would you boycott the games?

To even suggest there should be a denial of a permit by a mayor is insane, IMO. For people to think they'll make him pay for holding his opinion, to my mind, violates the entire concept of freedom of speech.

Why don't those who propose intimidating this guy into changing his opinion put some efforts into intimidating Beck or Limbaugh for their opinions? Many of which are formed on the basis of facts that are not true, but lying is acceptable. Voicing an offensive opinion is not.

That just doesn't sound like the America I learned about.

[John Smith]

I worked as a 16 y/o kid at Chick-Fli-A for a month in the summer. Nearly 35 years ago, they only hired blond and blue eyed kids. The owner told it was their policy to hire Christians whom they could trust. Skin color and a natural all fair skinned american look was important to them. I lasted right before i started working for the volkswagon/fiat dealer as a new car jockey.

I enjoyed frying things other than chicken in the fryers... Started with cheese, then pens and finally moved to a palmetto bug the last few day of employment. Not my finest moment but my friend and I thought it was funny right before we changed the oil for the next day.

That would consitute action; implementing his beliefs in his hiring practices. There should be consequences for what one does; not so much for what one says.

We have the right to peaceful assembly and can use such to make our views known; counteracting speech with more speech.

[Bobby of Tulsa]

I worked as a 16 y/o kid at Chick-Fli-A for a month in the summer. Nearly 35 years ago, they only hired blond and blue eyed kids. The owner told it was their policy to hire Christians whom they could trust. Skin color and a natural all fair skinned american look was important to them. I lasted right before i started working for the volkswagon/fiat dealer as a new car jockey.

I enjoyed frying things other than chicken in the fryers... Started with cheese, then pens and finally moved to a palmetto bug the last few day of employment. Not my finest moment but my friend and I thought it was funny right before we changed the oil for the next day.

That must have been your proudest moment, Something your friends would pat you on the back for. To bad you didn't get jail time.

[Ted Hoppe]

That must have been your proudest moment, Something your friends would pat you on the back for. To bad you didn't get jail time.

At nearly 16, i would have done 10 hours of community service if at all. I lived in a fine house in a rich part of a southern town.

I am sure you have done things as a kid which go unmentioned... drinking and driving, pouring oil down the drain, watching a bully beat up another, witnessing cruelty without comment or intervention. We all make a mess. How we go forward, are better men and raise & teach our children is how we live in a better world.

[Bobby of Tulsa]

At nearly 16, i would have done 10 hours of community service if at all. I lived in a fine house in a rich part of a southern town.

I am sure you have done things as a kid which go unmentioned... drinking and driving, pouring oil down the drain, watching a bully beat up another, witnessing cruelty without comment or intervention. We all make a mess. How we go forward, are better men and raise & teach our children is how we live in a better world.

I don't brag on the www about it.

[hanleyclifford]

From what I see on the news it looks like the mayors' attacks on Mr. Cathy's company have totally backfired.

[Ted Hoppe]

I admit my mistakes. There was no bragging but some shallow embarrassment.

[ccmanuals]

You may be right. I think some boycotts, for example the entertainment industry's boycott of Sun City, also had an effect.





Er, long enough ago to have been formative to my opinions? (There's gotta be a fish for that answer.)

Anyone remember the Susan G. Komen foundation flap?

[pefjr]

If the media wanted, I am almost certain there is some chick-a -shinola on Mr Cathy that they could expose, and may yet. When and if this occurs, it will even the score, and then life will continue to evolve in the direction toward the day when a gay person can enjoy a piece of chicken again, and not necessarily the butt end.

OK, OK, ..... that was totally unnecessary.... butt... I just wanted to throw some humor on the issue. Let us all evolve together and along with our Prez., amen.

[hanleyclifford]

Plenty of humor already on Freakin' Tom here in Massachusetts.

[Keith Wilson]

I expect Lester Maddox saw an increase in business after his stunts with ax handles at the door of the Pickrick restaurant in Atlanta too, and he could no more turn back the tide than can Dan Cathy. Maddox eventually sold the restaurant rather than serve black customers. I'd bet quite a lot that in twenty or thirty years, pretty much everybody will look on Mr. Cathy's ideas much like we now look on segregationists.

[Chris Coose]

It is written in Exodus that if you eat chicken 4 times per week your traditional marriage will last 3/7ths of eternity and homosexual marriage will never be a problem in America.

[Durnik]

>your traditional marriage will last 3/7ths of eternity

but will it _feel_ like eternity? ;-)

& Keith, as I'm sure you well know, quite a few folks look on the loss of official segregation with sad eyes.. plus, it has taken the force of law to get us this far.

enjoy
bobby

[John Smith]

>your traditional marriage will last 3/7ths of eternity

but will it _feel_ like eternity? ;-)

& Keith, as I'm sure you well know, quite a few folks look on the loss of official segregation with sad eyes.. plus, it has taken the force of law to get us this far.

enjoy
bobby

That is true. I'm old enough to remember those days and how the government passed laws and stepped in to protect the rights of the minority. The Arkansas 9 is a good thing for the younger folks to Google. I remember friends of my brother and friends of mine coming to our home after school to listen to records, as their parents wouldn't let them listen to Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, etc.

It is important to note laws are passed that make actions illegal; not words. Where I once worked there was a small eatery next door. The guy who owned it didn't believe God meant for man to fly. The food was good, the prices reasonable, and the location convenient: why would I not eat there simply because I disagreed with is opinions on some things?

Please consider how this sort of thing can spread. If your a Giants fan, do you refuse to eat in a restaurant run by an Eagles fan?

Opinions are not actions. I believe people have an absolute right to hold opinions I disagree with. Even the KKK has the right to peacefully congregate and/or march. It does not have the right to burn down a building.

I acknowledge my opinion is unpopular, but you either believe in free speech or your don't. If you believe you have the right to take actions that harm someone, be it physically or financially, because he holds an opinion at varience with yours, you do not believe in free speech.

[hanleyclifford]

I expect Lester Maddox saw an increase in business after his stunts with ax handles at the door of the Pickrick restaurant in Atlanta too, and he could no more turn back the tide than can Dan Cathy. Maddox eventually sold the restaurant rather than serve black customers. I'd bet quite a lot that in twenty or thirty years, pretty much everybody will look on Mr. Cathy's ideas much like we now look on segregationists.

Good spin, Keith, but I think the Professor would call that "false equivalence".

[hokiefan]

That is true. I'm old enough to remember those days and how the government passed laws and stepped in to protect the rights of the minority. The Arkansas 9 is a good thing for the younger folks to Google. I remember friends of my brother and friends of mine coming to our home after school to listen to records, as their parents wouldn't let them listen to Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, etc.

It is important to note laws are passed that make actions illegal; not words. Where I once worked there was a small eatery next door. The guy who owned it didn't believe God meant for man to fly. The food was good, the prices reasonable, and the location convenient: why would I not eat there simply because I disagreed with is opinions on some things?

Please consider how this sort of thing can spread. If your a Giants fan, do you refuse to eat in a restaurant run by an Eagles fan?

Opinions are not actions. I believe people have an absolute right to hold opinions I disagree with. Even the KKK has the right to peacefully congregate and/or march. It does not have the right to burn down a building.

I acknowledge my opinion is unpopular, but you either believe in free speech or your don't. If you believe you have the right to take actions that harm someone, be it physically or financially, because he holds an opinion at varience with yours, you do not believe in free speech.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Bobby

[Chris Coose]

There is a guy who runs a laundromat in my neighborhood. He went off on me about me being a liberal (some rumor he'd heard, I guess) when I entered his place a few years ago. I went home and installed a coin op washer and dryer for the tenants using that incident as the only motive.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

http://now.msn.com/funny-or-die-take...-a-controversy

[Norman Bernstein]

*shrugs* I'm certain that any efforts to 'organize' a boycott would be meaningless. Whether organized 'protests' at Chik-Fil-A locations would be effective would be only slightly less questionable... and most likely, just as meaningless.

I have made a personal decision not to patronize Chik-Fil-A, but it's a meaningless gesture, since there are no Chik-Fil-A restaurants anywhere near me.... but I do endorse the notion of a 'personal' boycott, and not as a symbolic gesture (since nobody other than my close family would know of my decision), but just a personal ethical decision to not contribute to the pockets of a bigot.

Yes, I know, the franchisees will pay a price... but THEY made a personal decision to engage in commerce with Chik-Fil-A, so they have to assume not just the benefits, but the liabilities, as well. I can understand and sympathize people who work for less than honorable or ethical companies, because they HAVE to, so I can't blame them. Some franchisees would be in the category.... but if you dance with the devil, some of the crap is going to rub off on ya.

[Kaa]

I have made a personal decision not to patronize Chik-Fil-A, but it's a meaningless gesture, since there are no Chik-Fil-A restaurants anywhere near me.... but I do endorse the notion of a 'personal' boycott, and not as a symbolic gesture (since nobody other than my close family would know of my decision), but just a personal ethical decision to not contribute to the pockets of a bigot.

LOL. I guess all the Bilge rats should feel honored for being included in Norman's "close family" :-)

In other news today, I have made a personal ethical decision to boycott Muller face food and not to contribute to the pockets of the corrupt Chinese nouveau riche. I hope you join me in commemorating the solemnity of this occasion.



Kaa

P.S. It is highly convenient that there are no Muller face food places anywhere within a few thousand miles of me...

[hanleyclifford]

This whole affair has given Chick fil A the kind of advertising you cannot pay for. The rhetoric on this subject here shows how far out of touch the lefty Bilge is with reality.

[pefjr]

LOL. I guess all the Bilge rats should feel honored for being included in Norman's "close family" :-)

In other news today, I have made a personal ethical decision to boycott Muller face food and not to contribute to the pockets of the corrupt Chinese nouveau riche. I hope you join me in commemorating the solemnity of this occasion.



Kaa

P.S. It is highly convenient that there are no Muller face food places anywhere within a few thousand miles of me...

..r...o...l..l..i..n..g

[John Bell]

LOL. I guess all the Bilge rats should feel honored for being included in Norman's "close family" :-)

In other news today, I have made a personal ethical decision to boycott Muller face food and not to contribute to the pockets of the corrupt Chinese nouveau riche. I hope you join me in commemorating the solemnity of this occasion.



Kaa

P.S. It is highly convenient that there are no Muller face food places anywhere within a few thousand miles of me...

LOL. Too funny.

I'm reminded of this scene from a motion picture that I love, and not just like:

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic... but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!

Bluto: We're just the guys to do it!

[hanleyclifford]

This guy gets the poster chump award.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/03...ets-him-fired/

[John Bell]

This guy gets the poster chump award.http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/03...ets-him-fired/

It doesn't matter what side you are on, I think we can agree that getting a free cup of water in the drive through just so you can berate the girl in the window is nearing the pinnacle of asshattery. And how much of a narcissist do you have to be to post it to YouTube?

[Durnik]

It doesn't matter what side you are on, I think we can agree that getting a free cup of water in the drive through just so you can berate the girl in the window is nearing the pinnacle of asshattery. And how much of a narcissist do you have to be to post it to YouTube?

I haven't seen the video & probably won't - no need to. It is _never_ polite nor even correct to castigate a worker (who may just be ecstatic they have a job!) for that over which they have no control. While I consider the owner of the company to be 'part of the problem', our antagonist lacked the awareness (or fortitude) to approach he & not counter help he happens to employ (once removed, even!) - NTM, employ in a capacity having nothing to do with the 'complaint'.

Two 'thumbs down' to the rude fellow with the cam.

On second thought, he used the drive thru.. Rude, Chicken S_it and Lazy! Add a Bronx Cheer to that order.. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[Keith Wilson]

[John Bell]

All day yesterday as I was toiling away at what I do all day I was thinking about how much cooler it would be to be the guy who was getting paid to play with his brand-new remote controlled car on ANOTHER PLANET in OUTER FREAKING SPACE. Clearly I made the wrong choices in school!

[Kaa]

Will Wilkinson is a smart guy: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...=Google+Reader

Notable quote:

"It's my view that this sort of skirmish in the culture wars is an inevitable consequence of trends in "ethical consumption" and "corporate social responsibility". Conservatives sceptical of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement have often charged that CSR is a stalking horse for liberal causes that have failed to get traction through ordinary political channels. This charge finds some support, I think, in the fact that few in the media seem to see Chick-fil-A's Christian-influenced culture and business practices as an example of CSR, though obviously it is. Doesn't the demand that corporations act responsibly in the interests of society, in ways other than profit-seeking, directly imply that corporate leaders who find same-sex marriage socially irresponsible should do something or other to discourage it? ...

Matters of moral truth aside, what's the difference between buying a little social justice with your coffee and buying a little Christian traditionalism with your chicken? There is no difference. Which speaks to my proposition that CSR, when married to norms of ethical consumption, will inevitably incite bouts of culture-war strife. CSR with honest moral content, as opposed to anodyne public-relations campaigns about "values", is a recipe for the politicisation of production and sales."

tl;dr -- You want corporations to have a social conscience? This is it.

Kaa

[John Bell]

Pursuing Status through Ethical Consumption?

Abstract
On one level ethical consumerism is concerned with a collective effort to make the
world a better place for all its inhabitants. Status consumption, on the other hand, is a
mechanism for elevating some individuals above the common herd. That these two
forms of consumption can coexist is something of an oxymoron. This paper argues that,
for some consumers, so called ‘ethical’ products serve as a means of positioning
themselves as part of an elite. If true this raises issues for advocates of ethical
consumerism as a means of achieving real change.http://www.duplication.net.au/ANZMAC...AC2009-278.pdf

Emphasis added. It makes sense to consider one's motives when one publically announces they are boycotting a company that doesn't even do business anywhere near their community.

Thinking about this further: ethical non-consumption doesn't have a cost, so perhaps it's the cheapest status of all? You get to feel like an elite and it didn't cost you a damn thing. That's a bargain at twice the price!