CFA part Deux (Page 2)

I support gay marriage.  I support CFA ownership's right to not support gay marriage.  I will continue to buy their products because they make a darn tasty chicken s'ammich.

If I did not buy products because I disagreed with someone in the company's philosophy there would probably be very few products I'd buy.

Much ado about nothing..

I guess we need to rehash.  The concern, for many, is that CFA, through WinShape, donates millions of dollars to organizations that actively work to prevent gay couples from marrying.  So, some people have decided that their dollars will not fund these donations.  It is more than just someone in the company's philosophy.

Let's say the cause was different.  Assume a national restaurant chain donated millions of dollars to organizations that actively pursued very restrictive gun control laws.  I would certainly understand it if the NRA called for a boycott, and its members followed through.

Yep.  Perfectly aware of that. And in your last example I would not care if they did that.  As long as a company is treating everyone fairly (not refusing service to gays for example) I base my buying on the quality of the product.  Apparently my gay friend felt the same way as he was at CFA today.

I never have participated in a boycott.  Perhaps I just don't care enough.

ETA: And if you were to look at the donor lists of all the "anti-gay" charities that CFA donated to I bet you'd find a lot of other companies that people frequent.  Should we be boycotting all of them as well?

For example Russell Athletic donates to the FCA.  http://www.fca.org/CorporateSponsors/

This is certainly an interesting topic to follow.

I think most of us are in agreement that Mr. Cathy can say whatever he wants and that people can choose to patronize CFA or not based on his personal opinions.

I personally struggle with the "controversy" over him giving to charities that actively oppose gay marriage.  This is a position that half of the country agrees with and up until a few months ago even President Obama supported Mr. Cathy's position that marrieage was between a man and a woman.  I do agree with and support the right of people not patronizing CFA for the charitable contributions as well, but I don't really see the "controversy" side of it.

I think the true irony of this is that the desire to harm CFA has likely backfired and they will come out on top by making and donating even more money to christian causes that share their beliefs.

BTW, here was the line at the Chic-Fil-A express in Omaha today.  My wife and I waited for an hour to get our chicken sandwiches.  They said the line has been like this all day since before they opened.  From what I've seen on FB and in the news the same thing is happening all over the country.

OK.  Thats Chicago - Not Boston.  You lumped in Boston's Mayor and I am saying that you shouldnt.  No where did I defend what Chicago's mayor said.  

You want to rehash your argument and just say Chicago's mayor said "X" then I will agree with you - the govt shouldnt interfere w/ permits or free enterprise.  But I dont have a problem with a politicain making a political statement and voicing his opinion either.  

lol, yeah I'm generally there with you but today was more about supporting free speech for my wife and I.  We were happy to spend an hour in line to support CFA and Mr. Cathy.

Mike Huckabee summed it up pretty well on his FB page.

A little over a week ago, I simply urged people to go and eat at Chick Fil-A on Wednesday, August 1. I mentioned it on my TV show and have been discussing it on my daily radio show. The media has called it a "protest." It is most certainly not. No one is protesting anything. This is not a stand against a person, a group of people, or even someone else's belief. This is a simple act of having a meal at a place that sells chicken, not politics. It's to affirm to a Christian brother, Dan Cathy, that he has not been disenfranchised from his citizenship nor his right of free speech as a taxpaying American. It is about taking a stand for businesses to be free of economic bullying and hate speech. It is an opportunity to have a decent meal at a decent place that was founded and continues to be run by decent people who believe in treating their customers and employees with kindness and to say "thank you" to them. The only protest that I know of is coming from the chickens, who will give their lives in large numbers to accommodate what hopefully will be a big day at Chick Fil-A.

Interesting take on it.

This has developed into an interesting study/questions for me.  I don't have an answer, but it leads to interesting questions.

To those who say "I don't care about their beliefs, they are allowed and I just care about the chicken".  Is that for ALL instances?  What if they supported flat out racism or sexism or classism?

Many people said in the other thread, "it's a personal choice".  I think it's more that than ever.  If it's anti gay, then is it "I don't care about their beliefs, give me more chicken!"

But if it's antisemetic or anti african american would it STILL be that same answer?

Maybe choosing to eat there or not indicates to what level of prejudice you are willing to accept or not (or should I say, willing to speak out against or not)?

That's just a question/thought.  NOT calling a single person out, so don't anyone feel that way.

Not sure why you are pointing that out except that you may have felt it was a segway of some sort to preach your own arguement/agenda. 

I didn't accuse "cathy and CFA" did any of those things.  Never mentioned them.

I am asking IF a company, ANY company said they didn't aprove of someone/something for whatever reason,  is someones response of "they are entitiled to their beliefs" and patronize them is ALWAYS the answer?

I'm simply saying that it's obviously it's a personal thing.  If it strikes close to home to you or not plays a factor if you boycott/support/don't care in these matters.  I said it leads to in interesting debate and leads to interesting questions.  Or am I wrong?

What am I saying.  Of COURSE I'm wrong.  I can say the sky is blue, and someone would want to argue on the internet that it's not.

I bet the Dixie Chicks feel a little slighted that they didn't receive the same outpouring of support for their "freedom of speech."

Oh boy... 

I'm punching out early on this one.

In all seriousness, this is one of those impossible subjects to discuss. The different sides are so rooted in their beliefs that nobody is going to change anybodies mind.

It was more the question/statement wondering if Christians can really be Christians and not be anti-gay...

That's a WHOLE new level of this I'm not even going to be a part of.  Talking about chicken sandwhiches is one thing.  Debating who is a "real" Christian?  Whoa.

I have my popcorn.  (Okay... homemade kale chips but you get the idea.)

Andi

Yeah. I am going to have to just stay out of this thread before I'm told how I don't exist since I'm a social liberal and a Christian pastor. And I'm not a young earth creationist either. 

It used to be only the tiny percentage of Christians who claimed to be 100% literalists who would declare that only if you subscribe to their use of scripture, were you a real Christian. Now, people outside the tent are trying to define it the same way. I don't know why.