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

And people are not looking at the speech issue from the Chick-fil-A employee's point of view either. Had the woman told the bully what she really thinks, what would be the harm?

Instead she is captive under company polices, forced to utter a scripted phrase instead of being herself, a human being with opinions of her own.

And then, as a representative of the company, you tell him that if he doesn't leave he is trespassing. And then he leaves and that is the end of it. Two ships passing in the night, giving each other a piece of their minds. I support this as long as there is no physical violence.

And can we do this without the Internet exploding?
 
[quote name='Spokker']And people are not looking at the speech issue from the Chick-fil-A employee's point of view either. Had the woman told the bully what she really thinks, what would be the harm?

Instead she is captive under company polices, forced to utter a scripted phrase instead of being herself, a human being with opinions of her own.

And then, as a representative of the company, you tell him that if he doesn't leave he is trespassing. And then he leaves and that is the end of it. Two ships passing in the night, giving each other a piece of their minds. I support this as long as there is no physical violence.

And can we do this without the Internet exploding?[/QUOTE]

I actually don't have a problem with the woman's response. She is at a job, she needs to avoid getting into a political debate and keep serving up those shitty chicken sandwiches. Sure she may be able to diffuse the situation better if corporate gave her more latitude, but then again maybe not.

It's the off-the-clock ownership of employees that I have a problem with.
 
[quote name='confoosious']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."[/QUOTE]
That's one thing (among many) that I hate about this state, right to work bullshit included.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Maybe you should read the Bible yourself instead of listening to the church, because neither are actually true.[/QUOTE]


Elaborate please.
 
[quote name='Spokker']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]

That's all YOU care about. But the universe includes (thankfully) more than just you. This company has clients, suppliers, future employees, etc.

Are you really so short-sighted that you don't understand how an idiot for a CFO might reflect poorly on a company?
 
It only reflects poorly on a company if people care about what someone does on their own time. If nobody gave a fuck, then we'd all be able to separate a person form their professional and personal lives. Unfortunately people aren't as mature as they like to think, and can't separate those two things.
 
No, immaturity would be to think that someone is only an idiot during their off hours.

If you like to dress up as a furry and have sex only at midnight, that's your prerogative.

If you film yourself being a dumbass and post it to youtube, you've lost your right to claim that you don't reflect poorly on the company.
 
[quote name='confoosious']That's all YOU care about. But the universe includes (thankfully) more than just you. This company has clients, suppliers, future employees, etc.

Are you really so short-sighted that you don't understand how an idiot for a CFO might reflect poorly on a company?[/QUOTE]

I think we need to balance the desire of a company to protect it's image with the individual's right to free speech.

Selling more product is a lofty societal goal to be sure, but does it trump the right of citizens be able to speak their mind without facing reprisals from corporate thought police?
 
[quote name='camoor']I think we need to balance the desire of a company to protect it's image with the individual's right to free speech.

Selling more product is a lofty societal goal to be sure, but does it trump the right of citizens be able to speak their mind without facing reprisals from corporate thought police?[/QUOTE]

Well, like I said, free speech has nothing to do with private employment. But let's assume for a second that you mean free speech as a concept and not as in the 1st amendment.

I think if this guy had simply posted, say on his facebook, "I really think Chick-fil-a is a horrible evil company.", nobody bats an eyelash.

But he acted like an idiot and a jerk and filmed it. Does he have a right to do that? Yes. But his display of lack of judgement and tact was an indication of his stupidity and lack of foresight. Things I don't need in a CFO. I'd have fired him too.
 
[quote name='Clak']It only reflects poorly on a company if people care about what someone does on their own time. If nobody gave a fuck, then we'd all be able to separate a person form their professional and personal lives. Unfortunately people aren't as mature as they like to think, and can't separate those two things.[/QUOTE]

I agree. But I also don't have a problem with a private company being able to fire/not hire people for whatever reason. Beyond the legally protected classes (race, gender, religion) that can't be discriminated against of course.

I don't like it. But I think they should have that right. And we have the right not to do business with companies who fire people for reasons we think are absurd.
 
[quote name='confoosious']No, immaturity would be to think that someone is only an idiot during their off hours.

If you like to dress up as a furry and have sex only at midnight, that's your prerogative.

If you film yourself being a dumbass and post it to youtube, you've lost your right to claim that you don't reflect poorly on the company.[/QUOTE]
You missed my point completely, congrats.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree. But I also don't have a problem with a private company being able to fire/not hire people for whatever reason. Beyond the legally protected classes (race, gender, religion) that can't be discriminated against of course.

I don't like it. But I think they should have that right. And we have the right not to do business with companies who fire people for reasons we think are absurd.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying that it's ridiculous. This guy could have been a finance wiz, but because he did something stupid in his private life, he's no longer qualified to work for a company? That's my point, the one that confused over there missed, that it only happens because people actually care about it. It's only embarrassing to a company because people think it is. If everyone just agreed that a person's personal life (and time) was their own, this would never happen. But people aren't mature enough to do that. If someone had a meeting with this guy, they'd be snickering about the video. They can't separate the business man from the dude on youtube. So he lost his job not because he made and uploaded the video, he lost his job because people are concerned with image above everything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Filming something and putting it youtube takes it to a public space. At that point, it's no longer personal. He willfully threw his privacy rights out the window to try and make some girl look bad and uploading it to a public server where potentially millions of people could watch. At the public level, he represents not only himself, but the company he works for.
 
[quote name='Clak']You missed my point completely, congrats.[/QUOTE]

And you seem to think there's some sort of wall between your employment and your personal life. Guess what? There isn't. How you conduct yourself reflects on who you are as a whole. Your work persona is just part of this whole.

You want to seem to make this an issue of maturity. :)roll: holier than thou much?) It's not. Your personal life is your personal life. This guy made his personal life PUBLIC and therefore all the company's clients, employees, vendors get to see how much of a dumbass he is. They have a right, and an expectation to judge him because of it.

KingBroly gets it.

I'm not saying a vendor should see a guy going into a mosque and say "huh, that CFO is muslim? Didn't know that. Gotta cut ties with that company." This is a very different issue. This guy was shown in a public arena being stupid. That legitimately gives a company pause on his ability to do his job.

edit: oh I see you called me "confused." That's so clever. You must be really happy with your originality.
 
[quote name='confoosious']cool. could you try to make your point again? try to be clearer this time.[/QUOTE]
maul seemed to understand it just fine.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just saying that it's ridiculous. This guy could have been a finance wiz, but because he didn't something stupid in his private life, he's no longer qualified to work for a company? That's my point, the one that confused over there missed, that it only happens because people actually care about it. It's only embarrassing to a company because people think it is. If everyone just agreed that a person's personal life (and time) was their own, this would never happen. But people aren't mature enough to do that. If someone had a meeting with this guy, they'd be snickering about the video. They can't separate the business man from the dude on youtube. So he lost his job not because he made and uploaded the video, he lost his job because people are concerned with image above everything else.[/QUOTE]

You may not like it, but the line between professional/personal and people's perception IS important to an employer. When there's probably dozens of guys just as qualified, chomping at the bit for a shot at this guy's gig and they wont give the company bad PR, I see why he was fired. :hot:
 
Obviously I know that or I wouldn't be posting about how stupid it is. Doesn't mean I can't say it's bullshit and that image shouldn't be so important.

edit- ^^Don't get so butthurt because you didn't understand my point, dude.
 
[quote name='Clak']maul seemed to understand it just fine.[/QUOTE]

ok smart guy:

A pre-school teacher films herself on her off hours doing some jackass-like stunts. Her personal time. Her personal life. But she posts it on youtube.

In your view, people are immature because they would be afraid to leave their kids with her? They shouldn't take into account her doing possibly dangerous stunts in her off time?

edit: I'm not "butthurt." But could you please answer the above question?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it possible now to eat a chicken sandwhich and not give a shit about gay marriage? Or do I need to form a strongly held opinion before purchasing said sandwich.
 
Not anymore apparently.

Also, some idiots vandalized a Chick-fil-A in California saying "Tastes Like Hate." Way to take the moral high ground. The whole thing's really gotten out of hand, and will probably get a lot worse.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']Is it possible now to eat a chicken sandwhich and not give a shit about gay marriage? Or do I need to form a strongly held opinion before purchasing said sandwich.[/QUOTE]

I suppose so, but not if you go out of your way to make a statement about it. making a statement that you're not making a statement is nothing but a farce.

[quote name='KingBroly']The whole thing's really gotten out of hand.[/QUOTE]

It's a civil rights matter of huge cultural importance, even if chik-fil-a is just a small part of it overall. indifference = acceptance, and I hope you have enough dignity that, in 50 years, when our grandchildren asks us what it was like to live in an era where we were so ignorant that we treated glbtq people as second-class citizens, you are open and honest in that you stood on the side and pointed fingers at everyone equally with the same, lazy, "both sides do it" tripe dribbling down your chin.
 
I like that you think you know my opinion on the matter even though I clearly haven't given to you. Please go assume somewhere else.

People getting violent, vandalizing, stealing and bitching at people isn't going to solve anything. Martin Luther King Jr. believed in peaceful protests to get things done. Nothing, from either side on this issue, in this debate right here and now, shows anyone any human decency. It's either 'I'm right' or 'you're an inhumane, immoral son of a bitch.' That's not really the way to get things done. You want to debate about it? Fine. Let's debate in 8 months when our heads are cool and our emotions are in check. Because they most certainly are not right now.

The same goes for any contested issue. It's always 'something happened, now we have to debate about it.' The smart thing would've been to debate about it months ago when it wasn't an issue instigated by someone's words or actions. It really doesn't get us anywhere to be so reactionary.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Martin Luther King Jr. believed in peaceful protests to get things done.[/QUOTE]

History likes to treat Martin Luther King Jr. like he's the only person who managed to accomplish anything during the civil rights era. But the fact is, there are lots of people who did lots of things, both violent and nonviolent, both confrontational and nonconfrontational, that have helped publish the goals we had in mind.

The degree of violence in any protest movement is not an indicator of its validity or legitimacy. To treat it as such is absurd and obfuscates from the issue at hand.

EDIT: I'll tell you what. Show me what gains have been made by the American labor movement during the industrial era that were accomplished at the negotiating table and not while on strike or by show of force.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Not anymore apparently.

Also, some idiots vandalized a Chick-fil-A in California saying "Tastes Like Hate." Way to take the moral high ground. The whole thing's really gotten out of hand, and will probably get a lot worse.[/QUOTE]

A little graffiti = "really gotten out of hand"?

We rocked out to "Smells Like Team Spirit" and you whine when a bigass corporation gets a little bit of graffiti on the side of their restaurant. Your generation is a bunch of pussies.
 
KB - I'm just amazed at how big this one thing has blown up. CFA has always been a Christian-cult-like company. That hasn't changed. They've been giving money to the same pathetic causes for years. Nothing new there. But right now, *bamn*, here it is, front and center every hour on the 24 hour news cycle. In the wake of our terrible economy, ongoing wars overseas, the horrible atrocities happening in Syria and such - suddenly CFA is the big news story?

The obvious answer is that it has the right mix of everything that's big right now. Most of the folks who are "pro-CFA" didn't really get on the whole bandwagon until big local, bad government started stepping in and saying "Woah - you can't do that!" On the surface, this is a great example of government abuse of power - which is huge with the right right now. And let's be honest - the anti-gay aspect of it is there for *some* of the pro-CFA folks... and it's another big button issue.

On the other side, you've got the entire anti-gay debate going on - and CFA's actions alone have had this stirred up for some time - but the pro-CFA movement is feeding them. "Tank Man" would have meant nothing if no one paid attention. Then, you've got the whole "corporations spending money to influence policy" part of it. Now, reasonably, you and I both know Cathy isn't getting anywhere with the idea of jailing and exporting homosexuals and that the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage faces a lot more issues than one chicken franchise - but the simple *idea* of big corporations having the potential to influence policy (in a way that "we" don't agree with, of course) is another hot-button issue right now.

Chick-fil-a is just a giant intersect of so many important issues right now that it's easy to see how it's getting out of hand.

And I'm sure the timing of mere months before the November election is just pure coincidence.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] In the wake of our terrible economy, ongoing wars overseas, the horrible atrocities happening in Syria and such - suddenly CFA is the big news story?[/QUOTE]

Kinda like how gay rights is a topic of conversation at all.
 
Not to minimize the need for our Federal government to wake up and stop interfering in private lives of citizens, but let's be real - "gay people can't get married" vs. "near complete genocide"... Yeah, I'm going to side with the groups of people being killed in Syria.

That's not to say that we, as private citizens, shouldn't have a national discussion about the issue (that, ideally, ends with the entire statement above about telling the Federal government to butt out and let any two willing, competent adults enter into a private contract should they so choose)... but the amount of news going towards CFA-related stories vs. the amount of news talking about Syria? It's not even remotely equivalent to the scale of the stories.

*edit* - you know what would make for an interesting unscientific study? Go to the local mall, grocery store, whatever - ask five or ten random people "Hey, what's going on with Chick-fil-a right now?" - record their answer. Then, ask "What's going on with Syria right now?". Record the silence.

To be fair, a lot of this isn't really the fault of our media (new and old)... it's just that we're Americans and we don't care. **** yeah!
 
As usual, whenever someone complains about the government it's always the federal. Never mind that state governments are the ones passing laws about gay marriage left and right. No no, that's state's right.

edit- Missed the point btw, bobbeh.
 
[quote name='Strell']Kinda like how gay rights is a topic of conversation at all.[/QUOTE]

I love it when a wall of text gets destroyed by a single sentence.
 
Not again with the motherfucking Syria.

It's ok to have a discussion about American issues without complaining about how Americans are ignorant of foreign affairs.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Not anymore apparently.

Also, some idiots vandalized a Chick-fil-A in California saying "Tastes Like Hate." Way to take the moral high ground. The whole thing's really gotten out of hand, and will probably get a lot worse.[/QUOTE]

They didn't even do it right. They spelled all the words correctly!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']KB - I'm just amazed at how big this one thing has blown up. CFA has always been a Christian-cult-like company. That hasn't changed. They've been giving money to the same pathetic causes for years. Nothing new there. But right now, *bamn*, here it is, front and center every hour on the 24 hour news cycle. In the wake of our terrible economy, ongoing wars overseas, the horrible atrocities happening in Syria and such - suddenly CFA is the big news story?

The obvious answer is that it has the right mix of everything that's big right now. Most of the folks who are "pro-CFA" didn't really get on the whole bandwagon until big local, bad government started stepping in and saying "Woah - you can't do that!" On the surface, this is a great example of government abuse of power - which is huge with the right right now. And let's be honest - the anti-gay aspect of it is there for *some* of the pro-CFA folks... and it's another big button issue.

On the other side, you've got the entire anti-gay debate going on - and CFA's actions alone have had this stirred up for some time - but the pro-CFA movement is feeding them. "Tank Man" would have meant nothing if no one paid attention. Then, you've got the whole "corporations spending money to influence policy" part of it. Now, reasonably, you and I both know Cathy isn't getting anywhere with the idea of jailing and exporting homosexuals and that the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage faces a lot more issues than one chicken franchise - but the simple *idea* of big corporations having the potential to influence policy (in a way that "we" don't agree with, of course) is another hot-button issue right now.

Chick-fil-a is just a giant intersect of so many important issues right now that it's easy to see how it's getting out of hand.

And I'm sure the timing of mere months before the November election is just pure coincidence.[/QUOTE]

Really?! Tell me how the actions in Syria are truly that of a Genocide. Are they really exterminating an ethnic groups like the Turks tried with the Armenians, or what Silvodan Milosevitch did in Bosnia-Herzgovina? If it is then we'll talk and only if both sides aren't actively TRYING to kill the other off.
As for Chik-Fil-A doesn't it fucking creep you out just reading that article?! Jeez I wouldn't want to work with a business so up in my privacy. One can only guess how they'd treat a straight man who is a Transvestite compared to any Gay person.
 
It's ok for a business to be Christian. Just look at In-N-Out, putting their little bible verse shit on their packaging. I eat there gladly (The fact that their food is so damn good doesn't hurt either).

The difference is, In-N-Out doesn't donate money to hate groups.

So yeah, fuck Chick-Fil-A.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']It's ok for a business to be Christian. Just look at In-N-Out, putting their little bible verse shit on their packaging. I eat there gladly (The fact that their food is so damn good doesn't hurt either).

The difference is, In-N-Out doesn't donate money to hate groups.

So yeah, fuck Chick-Fil-A.[/QUOTE]

In N Out is the best fast foot restaurant in the world.
 
[quote name='JasonTerminator']The difference is, In-N-Out doesn't donate money to hate groups.[/QUOTE]

This is the crux of the matter. It will always be a red herring to say "you hate christian businesses!"

I don't. Few people do. But I do hate businesses that fund hate groups and try to get involved in the political process in ways that I find appalling.

EDIT: awwww, all this in-n-out talk. Well, at least I have Wawa. shrug.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This is the crux of the matter. It will always be a red herring to say "you hate christian businesses!"

I don't. Few people do. But I do hate businesses that fund hate groups and try to get involved in the political process in ways that I find appalling.

EDIT: awwww, all this in-n-out talk. Well, at least I have Wawa. shrug.[/QUOTE]

When I shop, the last thing I think about is what religion the business is. Give me good product, value, service and you can worship the devil for all I care. As long as it's not in my face, I'm fine with it. Cause you know, I'm religiously tolerant, which is more than I can say for some of the religious.

Anyway, in a more pressing debate:

Hoagiefest vs Double Double.

Sorry man, double double wins.
 
[quote name='confoosious']When I shop, the last thing I think about is what religion the business is. Give me good product, value, service and you can worship the devil for all I care. As long as it's not in my face, I'm fine with it. Cause you know, I'm religiously tolerant, which is more than I can say for some of the religious.[/QUOTE]

You know, people always claim to hate the devil but he sure moves alot of product. I've never seen a Jesus beer.
 
When you find out a conservative Christian has been donating money to known hate groups, it kind of puts the idea of Christian charity in a whole new light. For those playing at home, giving money to a hopsital to treat the sick and infirm -that's class. Giving money to groups who see gays as a curse on the country, and would like nothing more than to get rid of them -not classy.
 
I saw this paragraph in an CNN article.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/03/opinion/stanley-chick-fil-a/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Where else in the world would a) the president of a chicken restaurant chain feel it was within his remit to publicly endorse "the traditional family," b) liberal mayors totally overreact by trying to stop his business' expansion, c) a former presidential candidate declare an "appreciation day" for the restaurant, and d) hundreds of people actually show up to eat there in solidarity?
Click to expand...

Implying this is a bad thing. Why not be okay with all of it? Why are we so sensitive? These are not terrible problems to have.

Why do we do anything? Why do we say anything? Who can say things? Are opinions the domain of anonymous Internet posters? I don't think so.

I would rather we have these controversies than to live under the tyrannical rule of political correctness as in the United Kingdom.
 
[quote name='camoor']She is at a job, she needs to avoid getting into a political debate [/QUOTE]

But why? Let's all get into the political debate with our real names, our real job titles, our real lives. Let's mix it up and really let each other know what we think. Why live with this thinly veiled charade of civility, as if informing another person of your political views should even be considered uncivil.

Once we get it out of our systems, we'll be able to get back to work. What we need now more than ever is plain speaking.
 
It's like you can't follow that a company just fired a guy for being an outspoken opinionated douche.

It's like you don't know how society works, and has always worked, and that if we were to just change a setting in a SocietyConfig.ini file, suddenly everyone would be an enlightened, open-minded individual and we would sail toward a utopia of unfettered philosophical discussion.
 
[quote name='Spokker']But why? Let's all get into the political debate with our real names, our real job titles, our real lives. Let's mix it up and really let each other know what we think. Why live with this thinly veiled charade of civility, as if informing another person of your political views should even be considered uncivil.

Once we get it out of our systems, we'll be able to get back to work. What we need now more than ever is plain speaking.[/QUOTE]

How about no. There's no such thing as "getting it out of your system." Politics and religion are topics that people can't just be like "oh, I see your point. Let's hug now and ride off on our little ponies!"

I know this might be hard for you to understand but not everybody wants to discuss politics. Some people just want to go to work, get their work done, go home.

I AGREE with the douchebag in the video from an issue standpoint and I still want to punch him in the face. Imagine what happens at work when people disagree on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top