Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters

Everyday I find myself drifting closer and closer to Agnosticism or atleast living a much more secular life because of shit like this. Religion is fine and I do like to focus on the positive aspects, but when people want to use religion as an excuse for their own prejudices (read: homophobia) to oppress other people... Makes me question, y'know?
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but I'm going to attempt to boil down the argument as concisely as possible:
  • Chik-fil-A absolutely has the right to make such comments. They even have the right to refuse service to particular customers if they wish (as far as I know).
  • People absolutely have the right to boycott them.
  • Chik-fil-A does NOT have the right to use their profits to fund advocacy groups that advance laws supportive of THEIR religious doctrines, as that is an outright violation of a core principle this country was founded on.
This is a simplification (perhaps oversimplification), so feel free to correct me as needed, but as some point the discussion effectively enters filler stage, which is usually marked by a bunch of pro-insert-religious-dogma-angle-here.

Please note I am BORED AS SHIT at work, so while I haven't read the thread, I'm legit just trying to get something to pop up on my CAG User control panel just to keep sane.[/QUOTE]

Strell - the first amendment only applies to "state actors" (government) so Chik-fil-A can donate to whoever they want (the donations are probably considered "speech" under the first amendment). Things get trickier with refusing service because even though Chik-fil-A isn't a "state actor" they are subject to regulation through the interstate commerce clause of the constitution which gives the federal government the right to prohibit discrimination against minority groups by otherwise private businesses.... or something like that. It's been a while since Con Law.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']I think comparing the disapproval of the ability for homosexuals to marry to hating someone based on the color of their skin is ridiculous and distasteful as well as offensive to people who actually fought for something in the civil rights movement as apposed to just being a dick on an internet video game forum.[/QUOTE]

To me your bias is already standing out when you use the word Homosexual instead of Gay. Do you have a problem with Gay people?
I still find it funny that I don't think I was being a terrible dick on my passage and roe completely glosses it over. Why the fuck should I recognize a God, at least how I was taught, was called "The King Of Kings" especially note that word, king.
Roe you do know the basis for the New Testament was Ancient Greek? If I remember correctly.

I thought it was Mycea, Myke.

Myke as for your co-opted argument doesn't that almost always happen whenever a movement is Charismatically led?
Lastly, for those making the MSG comments a few notes. Most of these people are fucking hypocrites. Sam Brownback is against Human Cloning but do you hear the man being actively against genetically modified food? No.
For MSG itself a few things to note. If some food doesn't have every component of MSG in it, they don't have to label it. Say, for instance, if it says it has Glutamate then they can cover that up by saying "natural flavors", "spices" and other such ambiguous words.
 
Appreciate the knowledge, J skrillz.

I shouldn't have used the word "right" up there. I meant it in a more generalized "here's you specifically taking measures to legally infringe on another group's rights," since I see it as less a venue toward exercising speech and more toward installing legal restrictions. This is somewhat analogous to the Mormon church heavily funding anti-Prop 8 measures in California a few years ago.

This might not change anything in terms of my argument, in which case, fair enough, and I appreciate the correction.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']For MSG itself a few things to note. If some food doesn't have every component of MSG in it, they don't have to label it. Say, for instance, if it says it has Glutamate then they can cover that up by saying "natural flavors", "spices" and other such ambiguous words.[/QUOTE]

Huh? Chick-fil-a lists MSG. It's not some left-winged conspiracy. And all I meant was MSG tricks our mind that food taste better than it is. So if they cut it out of their recipe, people won't think it's as good. I don't even know where genetically engineered foods came into play.
 
[quote name='elessar123']And all I meant was MSG tricks our mind that food taste better than it is.[/QUOTE]
can't you say the same thing about salt?
 
[quote name='Javery']Dammit - myke mentioned burritos a few posts back and now I want one.[/QUOTE]

You're a healthy dude. I swear that GNC's banana cream whey protein, mixed w/ plain soy milk, is fuckin' *identical* to Jello Banana Pudding Pops (which ceased production, I think, around 25 years ago.

Try it, I swear you'll like it. Unless you have that faux banana flavor, in which case you're an agent of satan.

(it's not a burrito, but it is my current fixation.)

Back to talking about MSG, then, I suppose.
 
I remember those banana pudding pops. Things were pretty good, actually I could go for one right now. Damn you Myke....
 
This whole story seems like much ado about nothing to me.

Private company owners can say what they want and make whatever donations they see fit. As customers we can choose not to spend our money with companies who's views we oppose.

I already generally avoided Chick-Fil-A due to not wanting to give my money to such a religiously driven company. Occasionally gave in as there's shit for food near my campus office and there's one in the food court. Now I'll totally pass due to this.

Conversely, I'm even more apt to continue spending money at Amazon after their CEO donated $2.5 million to promote legalizing gay marriage in Washington.

Companies, and their owners, have free speech rights. And I have the freedom to not support companies who's views oppose my own. So I just don't see an issue worth all the outrage in some circles.
 
I have to wonder how much I can trust a company to not discriminate against employees/potential employees when their founder and leader thinks they're basically evil. It's like saying "I think you and your kind invite god's wrath down upon us, but we're an equal opportunity employer!"
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']This whole story seems like much ado about nothing to me.

Private company owners can say what they want and make whatever donations they see fit. As customers we can choose not to spend our money with companies who's views we oppose.

I already generally avoided Chick-Fil-A due to not wanting to give my money to such a religiously driven company. Occasionally gave in as there's shit for food near my campus office and there's one in the food court. Now I'll totally pass due to this.

Conversely, I'm even more apt to continue spending money at Amazon after their CEO donated $2.5 million to promote legalizing gay marriage in Washington.

Companies, and their owners, have free speech rights. And I have the freedom to not support companies who's views oppose my own. So I just don't see an issue worth all the outrage in some circles.[/QUOTE]

That's my exact same stance on all of this. I get tweaked by seeing both sides politicize this. There is nothing that says a person can't have a bigoted opinion, and even profess it loudly. There is nothing that says a person can't criticize that person or avoid doing business with them. All the rest is just grandstanding.

There was a coffee shop in Portland, OR who's anarchist owner refused to serve uniformed police (may have even said they couldn't enter his store). It got some attention because of the odd stance, but the cops said sure, that's his right, we'll go elsewhere, and the issue faded fast.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're a healthy dude. I swear that GNC's banana cream whey protein, mixed w/ plain soy milk, is fuckin' *identical* to Jello Banana Pudding Pops (which ceased production, I think, around 25 years ago.

Try it, I swear you'll like it. Unless you have that faux banana flavor, in which case you're an agent of satan.

(it's not a burrito, but it is my current fixation.)

Back to talking about MSG, then, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

Ummm why not just use milk? To me it seems like a waste of Soy Milk to mix it with milk protein.

I remember Dole's Chocolate pudding out of the can tastes nothing like it out of the cup. To this date I've never tasted anything matching it. Seems to me Dole must've changed their recipe and fucked the quality in the process.
 
[quote name='Clak']I have to wonder how much I can trust a company to not discriminate against employees/potential employees when their founder and leader thinks they're basically evil. It's like saying "I think you and your kind invite god's wrath down upon us, but we're an equal opportunity employer!"[/QUOTE]

That's an optional question on the Chickfila application:

Will you be likely to invite God's wrath upon us?

_ Yes
_ No
_ Prefer not to say
 
Actually confoosius I believe the questionnaire asks about your relationship status and I don't mean the married or single one. Pretty fucking nosy if you ask me.
 
[quote name='confoosious']That's an optional question on the Chickfila application:

Will you be likely to invite God's wrath upon us?

_ Yes
_ No
_ Prefer not to say[/QUOTE]
You know, this is actually a very interesting point despite being a joke. Asking a question like that would obviously be illegal, but they could ask optional self-identification questions to legally weed out applicants under the guise of being an EOE.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Actually confoosius I believe the questionnaire asks about your relationship status and I don't mean the married or single one. Pretty fucking nosy if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

I thought asking even marital status wasn't legal?
 
I've been asked plenty of illegal things in interviews, usually verbally though, hard to prove those.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but I'm going to attempt to boil down the argument as concisely as possible:
  • Chik-fil-A absolutely has the right to make such comments. They even have the right to refuse service to particular customers if they wish (as far as I know).
  • People absolutely have the right to boycott them.
  • Chik-fil-A does NOT have the right to use their profits to fund advocacy groups that advance laws supportive of THEIR religious doctrines, as that is an outright violation of a core principle this country was founded on.
This is a simplification (perhaps oversimplification), so feel free to correct me as needed, but as some point the discussion effectively enters filler stage, which is usually marked by a bunch of pro-insert-religious-dogma-angle-here.

Please note I am BORED AS SHIT at work, so while I haven't read the thread, I'm legit just trying to get something to pop up on my CAG User control panel just to keep sane.[/QUOTE]

Yeah #3 is wrong, CFA does have that right.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah #3 is wrong, CFA does have that right.[/QUOTE]

What I should have said is that:

People can have an issue with this since it's a corporation influencing law based on their religious leanings. I shouldn't have used the word "right."

Basically, Christians are acting like no one should have a problem with this, because it's THEIR religion, with THEIR one true god, who is THE ONLY truth out there.

It's not far from the "(any event, person, place, thing, etc) doesn't matter because the Rapture and end times are going to happen soon" argument, which has been made since...about the day after Jesus died. It's just a flat refusal to meet any kind of discussion on a subject that can be refuted by simple "your argument doesn't match up with my faith, therefore you are wrong."

They can have the right to do this, sure. But it's a total, complete, absolute attack on a core principle of this country's foundation.
 
I was a little taken aback by that article, but then I realized every company I've applied to has gauged interest-level and potential loyalty. But Chick-fil-A takes it to a whole new level. I've heard of multiple interviews but not like that.

But hey, they've got managers and operators so people do go through it.
 
[quote name='Strell']I wonder if the turnover rates take into account that one type of employee Chik-Fil-A is known to hire.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean? Here's the actual turnover rates.

Cathy, 86, credits the company's success to 975 franchisees and 600 employees who are unusually dedicated in an industry known for grumpy operators and high turnover among hourly workers. The turnover among Chick-fil-A operators is a low 5% a year. Among hourly workers turnover is 60%, compared with 107% for the industry. "We tell applicants, 'If you don't intend to be here for life, you needn't apply,'" says Cathy, who opened his first restaurant in 1946.
Click to expand...
 
If you've been to a Chik-fil-A, you know what I mean, and you know it's a valid question, but somehow I imagine the context will be lost on a message board post.
 
[quote name='roedaniel19']The ONLY one, the King James version. If you will read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Bible is very clear on God's opinion of homosexuality.[/QUOTE]

The real bible wasn't written in old English genius. The point he is trying to make is that is has been rewritten by man many times over. You prove his point of "faith through exclusion" even more by saying there is one true one.

Also, perhaps if you didn't read the Cliff Notes version, you'd realize God was going to spare Sodom & Gomorrah if he could find righteous people within it. The city was comprised of thieves, prostitutes, and more ne'er-do-wells. It wasn't Fire Island. The egregious part was that the homosexuals wanted to rape the angels which showed how depraved the people in those adjoining cities were, which is why those places were destroyed. It's also why Pat Robertson likened Hurricane Katrina's damage of New Orleans to it.

I'm not like most in that I don't blaspheme God and listen to Slayer, but it's obvious with all the prejudice that has existed since the beginning of time and with how many revisions of the Bible that there have been, that its transcription has had human influence. The best example is when the Pharisees blasphemed Jesus himself and they were supposedly the most educated and the keepers of the law.
 
[quote name='Strell']If you've been to a Chik-fil-A, you know what I mean, and you know it's a valid question, but somehow I imagine the context will be lost on a message board post.[/QUOTE]
I'd love to hear what you have to say in plain English.
 
Just to clarify what was being said earlier about what the Bible says about eating certain foods and polygamy, Jesus revised both of those doctrines in the New Testament. If you're angry about that stuff, its Jews, not Christians, you're after.
 
Jeez that's fucking creepy as shit, the invasiveness into one's personal live by Chik-Fil-A is fucking disgusting. Even if I was a flaming Christian I really would find it uncomfortable at their invasion of privacy.

You're "In for life." almost reminded me of the mob thing or a gang thing. Jeez. Interviewing people over a YEAR?! fucking aye.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If it wasn't for the fact this guy ended up getting terminated from his job (which I don't really understand), I'd think someone was doing this to make the anti-Chick-fil-A movement look bad...[/QUOTE]Sick of people getting fired for stupid shit like this.

I know California has protections for employees engaging in political speech but I have no idea if it has teeth or if this would even fall under it if it happened in California. Asking someone questions on videotape is not harassment. As long as he leaves when told to, there is nothing wrong with this.

Gutfield also says some stupid shit in his condemnation of the man. "Bullying is now sanctioned!" No, he got fired so at least at the private level for this Arizona firm, bullying is not sanctioned. It's like saying Don Imus said some racist shit and that's proves we are still a racist country. No, he was fucking fired and that proves we are not a racist country and also a very politically correct country.
 
fuck that guy. You can't put someone on the spot like that who doesn't deserve to be. You also can't say shit like "I don't see how you can work here."

It's a job, you fucking idiot.

So glad he got fired.
 
You can put anyone on the spot like that. For people saying Chick-fil-A is so cult-like, this Arizona firm sure did enjoy punishing an employee for his stunt off company time and not in the company's image. To fire someone for this and support it is to basically say a firm owns not a limited block of time you voluntarily sell them but your entire life. I wonder if a company should fire you for even showing up and purchasing food yesterday or showing up to protest.

The balance of power between employee and employer will have a chilling effect on speech, albeit at the private level, and it gets even worse with mandatory arbitration.
 
[quote name='Spokker']You can put anyone on the spot like that. For people saying Chick-fil-A is so cult-like, this Arizona firm sure did enjoy punishing an employee for his stunt off company time and not in the company's image. To fire someone for this and support it is to basically say a firm owns not a limited block of time you voluntarily sell them but your entire life. I wonder if a company should fire you for even showing up and purchasing food yesterday or showing up to protest.

The balance of power between employee and employer will have a chilling effect on speech, albeit at the private level, and it gets even worse with mandatory arbitration.[/QUOTE]

Employment at will has been around for a while. Don't want to get fired? Don't embarrass yourself with a dumb stunt like this.

Your actions might cost your company money. You're welcome to do anything you like. And they're welcome to terminate you.

People don't really understand how the 1st amendment works.

As for putting someone on the spot like that, I said you can't. Not from a legal standpoint but from a "hey how about not being an assshole standpoint."
 
Yeah, and I never said anything about the first amendment. I said, don't fire someone just because you can, but refuse to fire someone in a, "Hey, how about not being an asshole standpoint." All I can do is try to convince people to internalize some of the ideas of the first amendment and freedom of speech into their private lives.

Actions like this could only damage companies because we too often buy into this idea of guilt by association. It would be stupid reasoning to believe that anything this guy did is condoned by his employer.

Mandatory arbitration, on the other hand, is a very serious issue and it violates an employee's right to due process. The court opinions on this are currently a work in progress. I want to make that part clear.
 
Here's the thing. This video makes him look like an idiot.

Would you do business Wih a company that employs an idiot as CFO? I wouldn't. It's not that they condone his actions, it's that they look foolish for hiring him.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']Just to clarify what was being said earlier about what the Bible says about eating certain foods and polygamy, Jesus revised both of those doctrines in the New Testament. If you're angry about that stuff, its Jews, not Christians, you're after.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should read the Bible yourself instead of listening to the church, because neither are actually true.
 
[quote name='confoosious']Here's the thing. This video makes him look like an idiot.

Would you do business Wih a company that employs an idiot as CFO? I wouldn't. It's not that they condone his actions, it's that they look foolish for hiring him.[/QUOTE]

His actions would've most likely brought the press to their workplace, causing a lot of problems for them. The sort of problems companies don't want since it wastes time and money.

He deserved to get fired because he thought he had nothing to fear, when in reality there is always something to fear.
 
[quote name='confoosious']
Would you do business that employs an idiot as CFO?[/QUOTE]An idiot in what sense? And in what capacity am I doing business with them?

If I am simply buying catheters from them, I couldn't care less about how they are doing financially or what their CFO does. All I care about is that they make a good catheter.

Now, if I am in a position where I have to worry about this company's finances, the CFO's political stunting doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the CFO's official job capacity. If he's doing the stunting on company time, then I'd worry and support his firing.

Half these guys are probably fucking sex slaves in Thailand anyway. At least you know where you stand with the idiot in the video.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The balance of power between employee and employer will have a chilling effect on speech, albeit at the private level, and it gets even worse with mandatory arbitration.[/QUOTE]

So true

[quote name='confoosious']People don't really understand how the 1st amendment works.[/QUOTE]

More like people don't understand that the first amendment has had it's back broken by corporations.

CEO Don Cathy can spew fascist hate speech because he is the boss. This dude needs to go through his like kowtowing, making sure he never gets caught on film saying something that his corporate paymasters disagree with.

The guy is kind of a prick but that's not the point. If he had walked up to CEO Don Cathy, politely introduced himself, and calmly explained why he found Don Cathy's remarks offensive, he would be just as fired. His employer doesn't want employees who question the establishment in their off-time, they want good girls and boys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top