Chick-Fil-A
- Thread starter oldtimer54
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
From a purely rational point of view - yes.
But inserting a racial component into an issue sucks the rationality out of the room and replaces it with highly charged emotions.
People are entitled to their own beliefs, no matter how reprehensible others may find them.
Tolerance is a double-edged sword in a free society.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
If Chick-Fil-A did 'contribute' to public officials who oppose same sex marriages, would that be wrong in and of itself in your opinion?
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they did, that's why it's a little more of an issue than just some company voicing their own personal opinion. I'll look that up..
noxiously
Well-Known Member
Sometimes I wonder if the people who think it's a choice to be gay is actually gay themselves. Like dude keeps saying, it's a choice and you don't have to act on it, well maybe he had an urge that he just never acted upon, thus making him think that he is not gay, lol. But seriously though, over the years I have seen enough evidence to know that 99% of the time, gay people are gay because they were born gay. Like someone else mentioned already, why choose a life style that will only bring difficulty upon yourself. Sure, some people like to rock the boat, make waves, etc. etc. but as many gay people as their are I can't see that being the case. Why would someone risk having their parents, grandparents, and their whole family basically disown them. Some people are tolerant to homosexuality and they wouldn't disown their own family member, but what about the ones who are not tolerant. People have killed themselves because they couldn't handle how they were treated because they were gay.
I had a debate with one of my friends years ago about this topic. His dad believed people chose to be gay, so my friend felt the same way. I tried arguing that whole, "Why would they choose a harder life" bit, but they just said cause they wanted to be different. So, I broke it all the way down to them, and they didn't like what I said because it proved my point better than anything I had said previously as well as better than all of their points.
I gave them a challenge. The payout would have been two months of my pay going straight to them if they could complete the task. Sounded pretty good to me, if in fact you could choose to be gay then it wouldn't matter. I told them, if you can choose to be gay, then prove it to me by being gay for just one month. All they had to do was find another guy who was gay, have sex with him, suck his c@ck, take it in the @ss and actually like it. Also, it's not just about sex, it's about love. They had to actually have feelings of love, as well as sexual attraction to a man. They both said no. When I asked them why, they both proved my point, they both said, at almost the same exact time, "Because I'm not gay".
So if you can choose to be gay, then choose to be gay for a little while, fall in love with someone from the same sex, have sex with them and like it and then turn back straight. By doing that you will prove to everyone that you can choose to be gay and be real about it. I'm not talking about two drunk college girls making out at a party, but full on gay.
I worked with these identical twins years ago, Matt and Chris, they were both super gay, flamers at that. They would both dress in skirts outside of work, wear makeup, the whole nine yards. Their dad never molested them, no one for that matter, ever molested them. They were just born that way.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
In and of itself? No, it would not be wrong. Privately-held company.
Anyone who disagrees is free to spend their money elsewhere.
That's really the end of it as far as I am concerned.
DISCLAIMER: I am not saying I agree with the position. I don't give a shit about gay marriage either way because it does not affect me. I am simply defending their right to hold their own beliefs on said position.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I should point out at this point that it is illegal for businesses to contribute to political campaigns; so yes, that would be wrong.
But the individuals who make up that business? Nope. Not wrong if their convictions are genuine.
But the individuals who make up that business? Nope. Not wrong if their convictions are genuine.
noxiously
Well-Known Member
I don't know if they have contributed to any specific political group or not. Even though I am completely for gay marriage, and equality for all individuals no matter their race or sexual preference, I have to say that if they did contribute to a certain political group then that's their choice. Nothing we can do about that. Just as I think everyone should be treated the same, have ALL of the same rights, that also applies to people who want to donate their own money to wherever they see fit.
Hell, if Mitt Romney wanted to donate money to the KKK then have at it. That's his choice, not mine. Not saying he would do that, but you know what I'm saying. I have donated money to the zoo, wildlife foundations, as well as other places, because it was my money and no one can tell me how to spend it because we live in America. We should ALL have the same exact rights as the next person, if not then we are not a truly free country. it's a shame that things like this have to happen. And to all those people who keep saying marriage is holy, it's wrong in the bible to be gay, and all that other crap they talk, well, America wasn't founded on religion. America was an escape from religious persecution, so stop trying to put religion in government, there is no place for it. That's why the founding fathers left it out of politics, it wasn't until later that these religious freaks pushed their views and life styles onto the rest of us and made things worse.
View attachment 2279436thought this was funny
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
So when does it become wrong/illegal for a privately held company to contribute financially to some cause? Is that line completely arbitrary in that each persons opinion will be different on what is right and wrong?
What about that Citizens United case a while ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
I thought corporations are considered individuals and since, as you said, individuals can spend their money however they'd like, it's isn't illegal to contribute to political campaigns. Does that apply to this?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
A corporation is comprised of individuals just as a union is.
Individual contributions have a limit of $2,500 to any political campaign.
A PAC is not a political campaign. They are two completely separate entities as far as the law is concerned.
In my understanding of the law, businesses and corporations can contribute to PACs as much as they wish, but they are prohibited by law from contributing to individual political campaigns.
That was all sorted out by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Aah, so they basically figured out a way to go around the individual contributions limit?
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
It's more like they figured out that the more regulations there are, the more ways can be found to get around them.
Would not it be easier just to know who is sponsoring who, rather than this strange Kabuki dance we have concocted to conceal it?
Speech should be free. Just like the First Amendment says.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Good for you!chic-fil-A donates to some groups who have some retarded beliefs about homosexuality, but $5 million is a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things.
i have boycotted them for a while due to their inhumane treatment of chickens.
I have boycotted them for at least 16 years, but for completely different reasons.
I disagree with them on the whole gay thing, but if they accommodated vegetarians, and the food was good; I would totally eat there anyway.
Just for the First Amendment aspect alone.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the gays are going about this the wrong way. instead of boycotting, they should occupy.
everyone should take an uber long time in deciding to order. 5 minutes later, after asking about everything on the menu, they should order a small diet coke.
bring a book or a game, sit down, and enjoy your diet coke with unlimited refills. coke does support marriage equality and equal rights for all.
dump the thing out after taking one sip. fill it again. repeat for hours and hours.
bleed them slowly so that legitimate customers will have to wait in endless lines and lobbies packed to the gills with flaming homos reading david sedaris and sipping on diet cokes in suggestive fashions.
that's how i would do it at least.
shrxhky420
Well-Known Member
stay high
Kalebaiden
Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Yeah, because an evil legitimate business would not figure out a way around that disruptive tactic in a New York minute.
View attachment 2279700......................lul