Chick-Fil-a Shows "Hate" With Kindness,Free Food,Drink for Gay Protestors

That's as much as I can find. There are also companies who support child labor:

Nestle
Hersey
Coca Cola
Wal-Mart
Grocery stores that carry the above items.

When human rights groups have asked grocery stores to boycott Nestle products because children were dying on chocolate plantations they were met with a resounding "no".

We can also negate the use of Kraft Foods (they are under an umbrella group that also supports Republicans)

I could go on. It's very difficult to find them all because so many companies now are under these umbrella mantles and support all sorts of global misery.

I try to only buy local, Etsy where possible, etc because of this but it just isn't always feasible. Thanks to multi-national corporate umbrellas, I can't worry about boycotts as much as I used to because of these umbrella groups. It's next to impossible to purchase anything anymore that doesn't have cruelty associated with it somehow, so I remember to financially support groups that I would specifically like to help.

 

That's great, but you're missing the point. It's far more than just contributions, because (like Jeb states) this CEO was under no obligation (or considerable pressure) to make his opinions known. He wanted to... and being a CEO is no bird-brain achievement. He knew a kind of fallout would occur... which should send a clear message to any one out there principled enough to stop business there if they disagree. On the other hand, I can understand people shopping at places that contribute to not-so-noble causes, because a) those places realize the ramifications... and decide to put business and customer before personal positions, and b) as you say, it can be difficult to find that information out. What happened here with Chick-Fil-A is something different, and on purpose.

 

I'm not missing the point, I suppose I am trying to widen the point, but as that is not working...

As I've said, I boycotted both Target and ChikFilA for those reasons you've listed above. When the boycott crossed over into politicians using force to coerce unpopular speech I removed myself from the boycott as is my right of expression to show my displeasure for the movement's lack of self-policiing.

As boycotting ChikFilA is not the only means I have for promoting GLBT rights, nor the only company offending them, I will now direct my efforts in other ways. I have always donated pro bono hours to GLBT legal cases and will continue to support my local GLBT youth center.

I understand that I disappoint you, but I also have a professional obligation to support the Constitution and the boycott organizers have made it difficult for me to support both them and my other obligations and beliefs with their recent activities. Therefore, I abstain until such time as GLAAD organizers police their house and condomns ardently the actions of these politicians.

This naturally puts me on your unprincipled list, but as I've said to Don earlier, I care about staying within my truth and my own expectations. I am a progressive sock puppet to him, an unprincipled GLBT offender to you, and that is just something I shall have to live with.

 

Nevermind. I honestly couldn't care less about your individual efforts, nor do I put you on any lists. What I'm actually expressing here is not so much that many corporations have shady dealings (as per your widening of the point) but deliberate efforts to make said dealings known to the public, which is what Chick-Fil-A did, under no unestimated result. I refuse to believe that the CEO is so stupid as to believe a boycott wouldn't occur as a result of his largely unprovoked statement (as Jeb points out) how ever small or large... that is a no-brainer. That, to me, is the art of saying what you'd like to say without saying it, or in this case the intended result without tipping the scale. You're going far into your personal steps that I care not to address... I'm after the topic as it stands.

 

Yeah it would be if straights planned a huge kiss in at someone's business.

 

So it seems the evil corporation guy cares more about his principles than if he loses a little business. In doing so, it seems he has grown his business; win/win..guy's smart and the principles of the Constitution triumphs again.

 

a) You're the only one that called them evil, and b) he's perfectly within his rights to do so, just as his customers are perfectly within their right to discontinue business if they deem it appropriate. An actual win-win.

To anyone agreeing with Mr. Emanual, sure. To anyone else that just went out to protest vocal (and monetarily supported) discrimination, no... the consitution was never in any danger of being ripped apart. Try and relax.

 

What is with the left's inability to see this guy's statement had NOTHING to do with discrimination of gays. Is there even one incidence of refusal to serve or hire a gay at CFA?? Then stop screaming discrimination. So most of us think that the religious, traditional marriage should be persevered. Most of us think it should NOT included in its definition same sex, polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestially and what ever other thing people can come up with. Marriage is sacred to us. Gays should not be able to demand we change what is sacred to another portion of the population. Push for government to be removed from the "marriage" business and push for civil unions. Leave our sacred tradition of marriage alone.

 

What's with your selective reasoning? His statement is mild... his actions display a support for continued discrimination (actions being millions in revenue to organizations that lobby Washington to prevent equality for homosexuals)... and marriage predates religion. Had you really wanted no interference in your religion/marriage, you'd be demanding any govt. involvement in religion be removed immediately, so that all that seek govt. approval of a mutual contract (be they heterosexual or homosexual) fall under civil union, thereby leaving the "sacred" to the sacred only, and not just by sexual preference.

 

The topic is about free food and drink for protesters, but if we are speaking to Jeb's point of him being able to keep his beliefs known then I will state that a Baptist magazine interviewing a Christian CEO would naturally wish to ask him about the boycott and his beliefs on gay marriage.

Could he have abstained? I'm sure he could have said that he chose not to address the topic, but that would have only been seen as evading. I am somewhat doubtful that someone would equate what was said in a Baptist magazine to having given the same statement to Forbes or Newsweek, but I will defer to others with more knowledge on the CEO for that.

I think that this could easily have been a moment, and God willing it will turn into a moment where people create a dialog in a different venue to discuss a way forward. Had the president of GLAAD asked him to meet up for dinner there could be movement forward in a way pleasing to everyone. George Bush was not particularly swayed by the AIDS crisis in Africa until an Irish rock star asked to have lunch with him. A month later he pledged 15 billion dollars to Africa.

It is easy to have an opinion without having to express that opinion in a personal way. Were someone to meet with him and discuss things from the perspective of "my family" with names, faces, and a sharing of a life story we do not know the effect it might have...or not. It has yet to be tried.

As for not wishing to discuss the rest, it is difficult not to become personal when you use words such as "principled" to describe the boycott, the converse being "unprincipled" if you do not boycott. I did not eat at ChikFilA on Wednesday not because I am boycotting, but because I didn't feel like having chicken. I am now ambiguous as to the boycott and my ability to make any sincere choice has been removed.

If I boycott now it will be marred by being told what my position should be, it will be marred by the actions of political figures, it will be marred by the death threats to ChikFilA employees, and it would be an insincere and inorganic event in my life. If I wait until the furor dies down and the dust settles I can, once more, make a sincere decision without the confusion of political maneuvering and coercion.

 

The US government does not have the right to interfere in anyone's tradition of marriage. This should have been civil unions for all who require or desire it that meet age of consent standards and/or type of union/contract. By bestowing literally thousands of benefits on married couples to the detriment of single people, gay couples, polygamous couples, etc you are creating a preferred state that is coerced through promise of benefits only to be denied to some.

 

For sure. Unfortunately, until that day happens (and I'll bet money we see the apocalypse first) why make it equal for gay people?

Anyway, as to the OP - That's nice to see. Dialogue always works better then anger.

 

The US tax laws and estate laws are so contentious, so unfair that it really is wrong to provide relief only to a certain (married) section of the population. Single people alone or with children, polygamist families (they are growing in the US)...all of them deserve the same benefits or...give none.

 

Absolutely. That would be great. Unfortunately, here in reality, that's never going to happen (at least in our lifetime anyway) without a seismic shift in North American Culture. Until then, we have to fill the gaps of inequality wherever and however possible.

 

It is easier to create civil unions at the state level with full faith and credit than to create an onerous "marriage amendment" that will have to take into consideration unique child custody cases and will be challenged immediately in the courts by groups already waiting in the political wings for their right to inclusion.

We can repeal DOMA and then make a push for contract law.

I'm not as a civil libertarian going to advocate for more government intervention and an intervention that neglects other classes that would also wish these same benefits. You cannot change the law to include one class of people at the exclusion of others and call that a move towards equality.

If we have the opportunity to fix the system (and we do)...let's truly fix it.

 

If that were possible I'd support it wholeheartedly. I just don't see it working. I mean, I haven't seen any single people pushing to get the same rights as married people, nor any pushes for that in any media sources.

Another aspect of this this has nothing to do with money or finances or taxes. To some gay people, its just a way to validate their relationship to the same level that 'everyone else' is. Some just want to be married because others have told them they can't. In most cases their is a reason, but I don't see one in this case that goes beyond the religious angle.

 

Think about what you typed, there. Why would he be there? Why would he do the interview unless he wanted to be there, ZM? I'm saying he wasn't under any pressure to make the statement... which signals to anyone (smart enough to know that he's no dummy) that he wanted that opinion out there and in the open, regardless of any resulting ramifications.

Your methods of protest are different, (just as everyone's are) which is why I do not place you in any category.

I don't buy into that anymore than I buy into the suggestion that aligning yourself with the tea party must mean you fall in accordance with the multitude of messages (some inflammatory) that have come out of the party. You're perfectly able to make your positions known within a boycott, because it's just that... voluntary abstaining from something based upon your views & principles.

 

The "precedent barn-door" is ALREADY thrown wide open by the state getting involved in "sacred idea of marriage" in the FIRST place!


This "slippery slope" idea is soo stupid! After all, maybe it was legalizing INTERRACIAL marriage is what gave everyone "perverted" ideas? MAybe it was mariage between religions? How about the idea that people got to choose their OWN spouses instead of families doing it?

Most likely, it was the starting to allow WOMEN to have a say in WHO they marry that started our slide into decadence! That's it! Let's get back to TRADITION MARRIAGE and have the women OBEY their fathers on who they will marry, as has been seriously advocated right here on PF!

 

I'm not a Tea Party member. Just to be clear. I do not affiliate with the Tea Party, which in my opinion have shown me that they are nothing more than angrier Republicans.

I am pro-Constitution and truly for less government. The government has proven itself to be a contemptible entity in the last decade, capable of invading homes for the purpose of criminalizing speech and dissent. It has turned people with drug addiction issues into criminals, kidnapping and incarcerating them for making use of their own bodies in an unpopular way.

Ahem...not a Tea Party member.

 

I was speaking in theory... I know you're no tea partly member.

 

I have strong concerns about a movement that claims to be for smaller government and the only "smaller" about the government they propose is smaller regulations on business and smaller taxes for an insignificant portion of the country.

I am closer to the minarchy of the Constitution as I believe it prevents corruption in government.

 

"Thousands ofr benefits"? I think not. A tax advantage. That's about it from the government.

 

There are 1400 odd benefits that come as a default, things like end of life decision authority, etc.

 

It's nothing more then window dressing.

 

It's nothing more than kindness, extended to those attacking you. It's called "Christianity".