"Voting" with Your Pocketbook?

[tallman]

Better an ox,

than an Al....

 

[ratfink]

I don't give a rat's ass what the personal beliefs of Mr. Cathy are but when he starts using corporate cash, i.e., MY money to push an agenda I am diametrically opposed to, that's when I cut off the tap.

Except Chick-fil-A is a private company so it's not your money, it's his to do with as he chooses. Although I expect we are fast coming to the point where a business owner is risking their business if they are proactive about any non-politically correct position. Better to stay out of the political advocacy thing altogether because there's always someone with an ox to gore and your views may not match someone with a viral twitter account. There are a number of issues where there is no room for dialog without having it immediately descending into name calling.

 

From Dan Cathy:

 

"our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

 

So when the dialog begins with a monologue calling people arrogant and prideful, doesn't that kind of set the tone?

[upflying]

I would assume these companies share Cathy's views. What is your position in patronizing them?

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-big-companies-that-are-intensely-religious-2012-1?op=1

[moshe_levy]

I see DiggerJim's point, and also the flip side.

 

On one side is the fact that if you speak out politically as a prominent business owner, you automatically alienate some people - some potential customers. And maybe you gain some new ones. Depends on the issue, location, and many other variables.

 

On the other side, perhaps you attain a level of success and wealth, and want to use it to promote things you believe in. These days people talk about the money behind the politicians as much as the politicans. Names like Koch and Soros are familiar to such discussions.

 

So it is easy to see why some businesspeople do not comment on politics. And it is also easy to see why some businesspeople make an extra effort to comment on politics.

 

As consumers, we are free to react accordingly by patronizing, or not.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

I would assume these companies share Cathy's views. What is your position in patronizing them?

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-big-companies-that-are-intensely-religious-2012-1?op=1

 

Bad assumption, Bob. Read all of the descriptions, and you'll see why.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

I would assume these companies share Cathy's views. What is your position in patronizing them?

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-big-companies-that-are-intensely-religious-2012-1?op=1

 

I quoted from this article earlier. Marriott for one, does not share Cathy's views on how how to conduct their business. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-26/god-and-gay-marriage-what-chick-fil-a-could-learn-from-marriott

[pbharvey]

From Dan Cathy:

 

"our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

 

So when the dialog begins with a monologue calling people arrogant and prideful, doesn't that kind of set the tone?

 

The full quote:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

[Fubar]

I don't give a rat's ass what the personal beliefs of Mr. Cathy are but when he starts using corporate cash, i.e., MY money to push an agenda I am diametrically opposed to, that's when I cut off the tap.

Except Chick-fil-A is a private company so it's not your money, it's his to do with as he chooses.

Your logic is faulty.

It doesn't become his money until I give it to him. It is MY money until such time as I take it out of MY wallet and handed it to them. He has no say in how, where, when, why or if I spend it.

On the other side, perhaps you attain a level of success and wealth, and want to use it to promote things you believe in. These days people talk about the money behind the politicians as much as the politicans. Names like Koch and Soros are familiar to such discussions.

If Mr. Cathy, the Koch brothers, etc. want to use their own, personal money on an issue, fine by me. But I have an issue when they use CORPORATE money to promote personal beliefs. As the saying goes, "Put YOUR money where your mouth is", not "your COMPANY'S money".

And no, I don't think corporations are people.

 

Personally, I suspect that the biggest reason that C-F-A is still a privately held concern is so they can avoid stockholder outrage at actions such as this. I doubt they will be considering an IPO float any time soon.

[pbharvey]

I'm president of a C Corporation and I spend the money however I see fit. (Hardly ever on political stuff but often on humanitarian projects backed by religious organizations.) Corporations are owned by shareholders so "corporate money" is actually spent at the (majority) shareholder's discretion.

 

Personally, I suspect that the biggest reason that C-F-A is still a privately held concern is so they can avoid stockholder outrage at actions such as this. I doubt they will be considering an IPO float any time soon.

 

I suspect the reason is because they are a profitable, family owned business with little debt and don't need an IPO. You're right though, if they did an IPO it would most likely mess with how they see fit to run things.

 

 

[ratfink]

From Dan Cathy:

 

"our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

 

So when the dialog begins with a monologue calling people arrogant and prideful, doesn't that kind of set the tone?

 

The full quote:

“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,’” Cathy said. “I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is all about.”

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I suspect the reason is because they are a profitable, family owned business with little debt and don't need an IPO. You're right though, if they did an IPO it would most likely mess with how they see fit to run things.

 

 

It's true that many companies remain private to avoid the oversight that goes along with reporting to the SEC.

 

I used to have a highly successful company worth many millions of dollars as a client. The majority owner divorced his first wife to marry his secretary, and some years later divorced her too. A part of the divorce settlements was that each woman received a big chunk of stock. Talk about oversight; I'd rather have the SEC!

 

"Why is the president spending $X on meals and entertainment? Is that all business related. How about travel? Why does the president need a fully stocked office in his house? Why is the president spending so much on art for the office?"

 

The two women hated each other and hated the majority owner. You see, while the value of their stock would go up every year, the majority owner would never declare a dividend, and there really wasn't a buyer for their minority stock at anything like its FMV. They would have liked to have had a good part of the "personal" expenses the majority owner paid out of the business reclassed as a dividend, and then they would have been able to get a commensurate dividend too. But they were never quite able to pull it off.

 

The majority owner just tried to stay out of the middle of it and let his lawyers and accountants handle it, which meant he paid 2-3 times as much in professional fees as he otherwise would have. He eventually sold out to a much larger corporation, and the exes finally got their millions, but not while they were young and beautiful!

[pbharvey]

 

from the amen corner

[leikam]

how much do you/we, or should we make our where we shop/buy/eat/stay/etc decisions based our own personal alignment with, or lack thereof, a business’s social positions/values? [...] Or do most people just go about their shop/buy/eat/stay decisions with nary a thought to its social impact?

 

I do support businesses whose owners share my values. There's a local restaurant near me; among other things, the owners put time/money/effort into animal/pet rescue and advocate for humane treatment of animals. Their causes are not my primary reason for eating there -- the food is tasty after all -- but if I knew that they supported causes I abhor, I would certainly be motivated to find tasty food elsewhere.

 

This kind of judgment is simple at the local level and much harder with much larger businesses. I don't keep a black list or put effort into researching business owners' social views but where I know them, they do become one factor in my buying decisions.

[Ken H.]

I haven't read all of this thread, nor do I care to. It's obvious Ken has an agenda, & that's his right. His agenda, & those here that agree with him, is if you don't agree with he & his like, you're to be vilified & deemed backward.

Oh baloney. No "agenda", just trying to have a conversation about appropriateness, or not, of channeling our spending based on our beliefs. Any spending, any belief, one way or the other.

 

I said at the beginning of this thread it isn’t about any specific business or any specific belief.

 

[Ken H.]

Ken overhears that a BMWST member is a member of the _________ Church.

Ken KNOWS that the offerings collected by that church are in some fashion used to oppose gay marriage.

Ken knows that this BMWST member is a business owner.

In a desire to inform others, Ken "Outs" the member, in a non-condeming way of course, suggesting that other BMWST members make their own decision as to whether or not any of us should do business with them.

 

SURELY that's not what you mean.

 

This thinking is horrible. I dread the day when any of us support "..don't shop there because the owner is __________.

Nope, still no go. Just belonging to a church (or any organization) doesn’t give credence one way or the other to or not to boycott an individual’s business in and of itself.

 

To quote myself, “...identifying a merchant, with substantiated evidence whose beliefs policies and most importantly – actions, do not agree with theirs.”

 

[Ken H.]

But to say that a Christian business owner doesn't have the right to speak his mind & express his beliefs is just Stalinist.

I might not have been paying attention but I didn't see anyone question his right to speak his mind and express his belief. They're just saying if you act to legislate your misguided beliefs on us, we aren't gonna buy your crappy fast food. That's all I got from it anyway, probably because I'm not so reactionary.

They absolutely have that right. That’s not my topic at hand. It’s whether we should walk with our $$ if we don’t agree with their right to have/voice a belief.

[Ken H.]

It appears, from my reading of this thread, that many are missing a critical point: Chick-Fil-A serves some pretty darned good chicken sandwiches in a friendly, impeccably clean environment.

No, I think the critical point many are missing is that the thread’s not about Chick-Fil-A!

[Rocer]

...

 

But my query isn’t about this specific example (nor intent to start a debate about Dan Cathy vs. Gay Marriage) but rather a question about how much do you/we, or should we make our where we shop/buy/eat/stay/etc decisions based our own personal alignment with, or lack thereof, a business’s social positions/values?

 

...specially because of Dan Cathy’s statements.

 

My consideration of your question goes beyond Cathy's mere statements. Shouldn't one be concerned with his company's track record of out of court settlements with employees who were discriminated against for their personal beliefs / life style as well as the obligation of training, not so much about preparing / serving sandwiches, but the indoctrination of Cathy's chosen religion based values. Does a non-christian, a gay person or a person living in a common law relationship have equal access to work in his organization?

 

My decision to cross one of Chic's thresholds would be based more on what Cathy has done with his social convictions/values. It's one thing for him to have them - after all, it's his right. It's another thing that he uses his position/power/influence to discriminate against potential or active employees who don't share his personal convictions, which I believe is their constitutional right.

[Quinn]

Today is apparently voting day for Chick fil a. So be sure you eat or don't eat at you local today. That should about cover everyone.

 

------

 

 

[Mike]

It appears, from my reading of this thread, that many are missing a critical point: Chick-Fil-A serves some pretty darned good chicken sandwiches in a friendly, impeccably clean environment.

No, I think the critical point many are missing is that the thread’s not about Chick-Fil-A!

 

If you're hankerin' for a chicken sandwich, it is.

 

Seriously, I understand your point, Ken. And my flippancy is a way of making mine. Almost always I'm going to be swayed by value, quality, and customer service above all other considerations. This is a company who, I think, scores well on all three of those points, so the religious perspective of its owner (which I don't happen to agree with) is of little importance to me.

 

This reflects my general attitude about who I choose to do business with--for me, it's all about how well they treat me as a customer. There aren't too many social transgressions that are so great that they'd sway me. I have too many immediate concerns in my life to try to figure these things out.

 

I'll take mine with curly fries.

[moshe_levy]

I would assume these companies share Cathy's views. What is your position in patronizing them?

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-big-companies-that-are-intensely-religious-2012-1?op=1

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see something happening here over and over. There seems to be a sentiment that some are boycotting or avoiding business because they're owned by religious people. But the list Bob shows above illustrates that the discussion is in fact, not based on religion at all. It's based on what the outlook of the company is.

 

For example, you have Cathy, and we know what he said.

 

But in Bob's list you have, for example, Timberland's CEO Jeff Swartz, who used his Jewish faith as a basis to "sever the company's ties with a Chinese factory where human rights violations were allegedly occuring despite the fact that it took a hit to the shoemaking company's bottom line."

 

And in Bob's list you also have, for another example, Gary Heavin, CEO of Curves, "a born-again Christian who has garnered criticism for conservative political views and donating to anti-abortion causes" which has caused many members to quit.

 

Now, notice something very critical here: BOTH types of CEOs used their religions to justify very different agendas. Notice BOTH of these CEOs took their beliefs as more important than a strict bottom-line shareholder focus. BOTH were willing to sacrifice profit to hold true to their beliefs. Admirable? In some cases, obviously yes.

 

Where I come down, personally, is that running a company like Swartz is "the right thing to do" regardless of minimal impacts on profit, and is obviously less controversial than what Cathy or Heavin are up to. What Cathy and Heavin are up to angers a sizeable portion of the population. By contrast, the only people who would get mad at Swartz are the type of shareholders who care only about pure profit regardless of social consequence.

 

THAT'S the difference. That's why you see firestorm at Cathy and Heavin, but not so much as Swartz, even though he clearly used his religion as a basis for a business decision that cost the company money.

 

-MKL

[Les is more]

This looks interesting.

[ratfink]

I'm going to have a Chicken sandwich today at a food cart serving free range chicken raised with "traditional" methods and values.

 

For anyone going to Chuck Fulla, here is some food for thought

from PETA:

 

Chickens raised for their flesh, called "broilers" by the chicken industry, spend their entire lives in filthy sheds with tens of thousands of other birds, where intense crowding and confinement lead to outbreaks of disease. They are bred and drugged to grow so large so quickly that their legs and organs can't keep up, making heart attacks, organ failure, and crippling leg deformities common. Many become crippled under their own weight and eventually die because they can't reach the water nozzles. When they are only 6 or 7 weeks old, they are crammed into cages and trucked to slaughter.

[Matts_12GS]

This reflects my general attitude about who I choose to do business with--for me, it's all about how well they treat me as a customer. There aren't too many social transgressions that are so great that they'd sway me. I have too many immediate concerns in my life to try to figure these things out.

 

Well said Mike.

 

Too much of this just seems like people looking for a way to be offended and grandstand about it IMO. If you were really that pissed about it, quit posting rhetorical questions about the appropriateness of your actions and do what you believe to be right.

[Marty Hill]

No way Matt, it's how the day gets filled up.

[Selden]

I'm getting fed up with the whole Chick fil-A story. Truman Cathy expressed his opinion. Then a bunch of politicians got involved (even in Atlanta) with suggestions that something should be done to prevent/discourage more Chick fil-A openings. People are free to choose eat in one of his stores or not (for whatever reason), but unless Chick fil-A is engaged in some sort of criminal activity, it's none of government's business, other than in the area of normal business zoning decisions.

[Roadwolf]

Yeah, at this point, I am sick of it as well, but not for the reasons you state... just tired of explaining to people who haven't a clue what his statements REALLY mean... that his company actively supports organizations that try to work against Gay Marriage Equality. Separate and UNequal is the name of the game. Those that support him I have no use for these days... like talking to a brick wall, so I am tired of this conversation... better to spend energy at those that sit on the fence and whittle away opposition to this civil rights issue one by one. And, time is on my side... the public in a generation will wonder what all the fuss was about and these types (Chick-fil-A afficianados) will be in the minority.

[Quinn]

I'm most annoyed by being told that if I eat a chick-fil-a, I'm personally taking a stand against gay marriage. Isn't it possible that maybe I just like the food? I see no more reason to let this bother me than when PETA tries to guilt me out of wearing leather shoes. I tired of the intolerance of people who demand that I tolerate them.

 

Okay, now I'm hungry. All this talk has got me salivating for a chicken sandwich. But it won't be a chick-fil-a; there's not an empty parking place anywhere near the one at the local mall and hasn't been since I was at the gym this morning. Doing a booming backlash business.

 

------

 

 

[ratfink]

So how can we boycott this thread and publicize our boycott of it at the same time?

[DiggerJim]

Does a non-christian, a gay person or a person living in a common law relationship have equal access to work in his organization?

Why should they? Should a private business owner have to hire someone who doesn't share his (& thus his company's) values? Should a church be forced to hire atheists as preachers? Should an abortion clinic be forced to hire an anti-abortion demonstrator as a receptionist? Should an anti-abortion advocacy group be forced to hire abortionists for their reception desk? No one anywhere owes any individual a job.

 

Legally, we may require that someone not discriminate based on protected classes of people because we believe it is in the greater good of the country. Business owners who disagree with them have to look at those laws and say the cost of obeying them does not outweigh the benefits of owning a business. Society has to look at them and decide if those laws prevent certain businesses from forming and thus the jobs for the unprotected classes from being created. It's a balance.

 

Cathy can choose to discriminate for whatever reason he chooses - it's HIS company. If he chooses to do so in ways that are illegal, he'll pay a penalty. If he chooses to do so in ways that invite litigation he'll pay for that as well. If he decides those costs are worth incurring in order to keep a company staffed with people who support his agenda, then that's his right. If gays/lesbians/living together without marriage people don't like those who think differently then they don't need to work for one of them. Forcing him to hire them isn't going to make him like them. If they are really pissed, they should start a chicken restaurant and prove to him the rightness of their position by being more successful and driving him out of business. In the meantime, they should vote with the feet and work for someone else. No one is forced to work for Cathy. He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with.

 

[Roadwolf]

I'm most annoyed by being told that if I eat a chick-fil-a, I'm personally taking a stand against gay marriage.

 

You're reading way too much into that statement concerning you personally, but in actuality, and if you were honest with yourself, the vast majority of those extra customers you saw today piling in ARE personally taking a stand against gay marriage. On the wrong side of history is what they are. That statement: "I tired (sic) of the intolerance of people who demand that I tolerate them." I am sure was used quite a bit back in Selma, Birmingham, Little Rock, and elsewhere over 40 years ago.

 

But back to the main topic... which is, I have decided to not give them a nickel, which is my little part in not patronizing a company whose core values are based on an outmoded view of humanity and chooses to side with the bigots.

[Roadwolf]

On this, based on my reading of the press accounts of the interview and what they have publicly said via press releases on their site, your concern about hiring and firing isn't the issue here (although I gotta think that it DOES happen in their corporate world, if a man or woman is outed, I don't think they are long for that company). The issue at what Cathy has said is that he doesn't go for Gay Marriage in the society at large. That is what the controversy is centered about. He and his crew are actively working the political arena to sway voters or lawmakers to protect and defend "traditional marriage" as he sees it, defines it, believes "God's" version of it and so on. He as that right, no one is asking him to not be able to say so and believe that. But in my book, when he comes out and says that a couple of the same sex can't get married and have the same protections under the law that he enjoys being married to his "first" wife, well, then he is wrong. He is about denying another loving family the equal protection under the law. And that is the crux of the problem. Either you believe in his view for whatever reason (probably a Christian perspective almost entirely) and want to exclude other non-traditional marriages or you view it as discrimination and want others to have access to what you have. Simple as that.

 

How he runs his private company is ultimately up to him and his leadership crew. But that doesn't mean that he has a free pass in the court of public opinion, and eventually and hopefully, in the eyes of the law.

[Matts_12GS]

No way Matt, it's how the day gets filled up.

 

[Quinn]

Roadwolf, you're certainly coming across as being one of those intolerant people. You've decided that the majority of those people who have ever eaten at Chick-fil-a are bigots; as is Cathy for believing that God wants the word marriage to be defined as one man, one woman. Isn't he just voting with his pocketbook also? Seems like a lot of America is still in that camp or at least on the fence on the gay marriage issue.

 

If this is a core issue for you then fine, take your business elsewhere. But it isn't necessary to demonize those who disagree with you or maybe just don't think it overwhelms the good he and his company have done.

 

 

-----

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Call me Chris...

 

Look, if it comes across as strong then it is because I have seen personally (and I mean personally) what happens to some gay people I have known in my life when they hit the intersection of religious belief by these Chick-fil-A supporters and what they desire in their life. In fact, my daily work has me in an organization that stands for what Chick-fil-A stands for and it is just disheartening. So forgive me if I come across as intolerant in your view... I bath in it daily from my colleagues and it sickens me.

 

And to your statement about the majority of the people that eat there are bigots... I did not SAY THAT... the guys and gals in the lines today, sticking it in the eye of those that don't agree with their viewpoint, the countless FB message in support of the company's/Cathy's stance, those are the guys I am referring to. There are probably honest brokers here that go there and don't give a damn about their policy... you may be one of them.

 

About Cathy's right to spend his money on groups that fight against Gay Marriage, well sure, he can spend away... but you know where he gets that money, from customers and I choose not to contribute to his little kitty to do as he pleases.

 

And lastly, sure, Chick-fil-A isn't monolithic in it's deeds... I am sure you can find lots of positives that they do... employ young kids, community outreach, etc. But for me, this was a defining issue... just rubs me the wrong way. Told my kids that we are going elsewhere... and if they ask why, well, they are going to know the truth. That others don't see it that way, well that is their (and yours) prerogative. Feel free to patronize them all you want for the reasons that you want.

[Rocer]

Does a non-christian, a gay person or a person living in a common law relationship have equal access to work in his organization?

Why should they? Should a private business owner have to hire someone who doesn't share his (& thus his company's) values? Should a church be forced to hire atheists as preachers? Should an abortion clinic be forced to hire an anti-abortion demonstrator as a receptionist? Should an anti-abortion advocacy group be forced to hire abortionists for their reception desk? No one anywhere owes any individual a job.

 

Legally, we may require that someone not discriminate based on protected classes of people because we believe it is in the greater good of the country. Business owners who disagree with them have to look at those laws and say the cost of obeying them does not outweigh the benefits of owning a business. Society has to look at them and decide if those laws prevent certain businesses from forming and thus the jobs for the unprotected classes from being created. It's a balance.

 

Cathy can choose to discriminate for whatever reason he chooses - it's HIS company. If he chooses to do so in ways that are illegal, he'll pay a penalty. If he chooses to do so in ways that invite litigation he'll pay for that as well. If he decides those costs are worth incurring in order to keep a company staffed with people who support his agenda, then that's his right. If gays/lesbians/living together without marriage people don't like those who think differently then they don't need to work for one of them. Forcing him to hire them isn't going to make him like them. If they are really pissed, they should start a chicken restaurant and prove to him the rightness of their position by being more successful and driving him out of business. In the meantime, they should vote with the feet and work for someone else. No one is forced to work for Cathy. He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with.

 

Jim, I don't suppose anyone in Cathy's disenfranchised categories would want to work for him but what about those already in his employ who are outed or who leave their marriage and remarry? Is it justifiable that they lose their jobs then?

 

I would be interested in knowing your opinion on how our province should handle the reverse situation - gay marriages have been accepted and lawful in our province for several years. It's really a non-issue, that is until some clerks assigned to perform civil marriages refused to carry out their duty to marry gay couples because of the clerk's personal religious beliefs. Referring to your statement

 

"He shouldn't be forced to have someone work for him that he disagrees with"

 

should these clerks then be fired from their jobs?

[Ken H.]

You've decided that the majority of those people who have ever eaten at Chick-fil-a are bigots;

That is clearly not what he said. Quoting:

 

the vast majority of those extra customers you saw today

The people who chose to intentionally eat there today as a way of voicing their support for the company’s policy is decidedly a different group than “the majority of those people who have ever eaten at Chick-fil-a”

 

Shish. And they say I paint with a broad brush!

[Jake]

I believe there are three groups of patrons who bought a Chick-Fil-A sandwich today.

 

Those who have that hankering for decent chicken sammie.

Those who ardently support the owner's views.

Those who disagree with the owner's views, but ardently respect his right to express them.

 

Who among us is the truly tolerant?

 

 

[tallman]

I'm going back to supporting all those other corporations.

 

You know, the one's that have always put the consumer first.

The one's that never put corporate profit ahead of doing the right thing.

[Jake]

It's very nice to see that Ken, being of an inclusive disposition, gracefully acquiesed by accepting that this thread was, in fact, completely about Chick-Fil-A the whole time...

 

The people who chose to intentionally eat there today as a way of voicing their support for the company’s policy is decidedly a different group than “the majority of those people who have ever eaten at Chick-fil-a”

 

 

[Couchrocket]

Since learning about the Chick-Fil-A thing Donna and me absolutely will never eat there. (Not that we likely would anyway, like most of those sort of places, the nutritional numbers on their food are atrocious.) But others could just as easily decide they will make an extra effort to do so specially because of Dan Cathy’s statements. But do they? Should they/we give consideration to these considerations?

 

Ken,

 

Suppose the LGBT group came into your town, identifying the members of all of the Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups.

 

They then name each member and identify all the businesses they own. Car washes, gas stations, office supply stores, plumbers, contactors, and on and on.

 

Then publicly vilafying all of those people, and encouraging others to not do business with them.

 

Would you support this?

 

 

Dave,

 

I think you are on to something good here. We should make the concept even more robust. We could come up with a name for all the people who hold a view that is intolerant, then make it a requirement that if we know someone like that who is trying to hide it, that their friends and neighbors be required to report it. Then once we have them identified they could be required to wear some symbol to easily identify them so that they could be individually and collectively boycotted, or if they're resistant to boycott tactics, it would be easier to up the ante and take more effective action! Maybe a star or something like that could be sewn on their clothes.

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

Yes, that's it. The LGBT crowd are nothing short of Nazis!

 

I'm surprised that you haven't addressed the horrendous fundamental flaw in Dave's argument, and that is this: LGBTs are not out actively trying to restrict the rights of "Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups" to act as they so choose.

 

The entire premise of the argument you quoted acts as though it is an equal and balanced set of actions with lopsided attention being paid to only one side. But that simply isn't the case. (To whit: Are LGBT out in the capitals asking for legislation to restrict anyone else's set of rights? No. Are some religious people? Yes. And there goes that premise, then). And further, it isn't the case that ALL "Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups" seek to restrict the rights of LGBT, so I will not paint with a broad brush to say ALL religious people. But some of them? Yes, obviously.

 

In short, there is no moral equivalence between the raped and the rapists, and there is certainly no cause to bring up Nazi persecution as applying to those who seek to restrict the rights of law abiding, tax paying citizens. That's absurd on every level. Please don't pretend as though the LGBT crowd is out with pitchforks looking to restrict the rights of others, when you know damn well that isn't the case. (And if it is, kindly point us to ONE example, that will stand in the face of the endless legislation currently stacked up against that community).

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

Yes, that's it. The LGBT crowd are nothing short of Nazis!

 

I'm surprised that you haven't addressed the horrendous fundamental flaw in Dave's argument, and that is this: LGBTs are not out actively trying to restrict the rights of "Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups" to act as they so choose.

 

The entire premise of the argument you quoted acts as though it is an equal and balanced set of actions with lopsided attention being paid to only one side. But that simply isn't the case. (To whit: Are LGBT out in the capitals asking for legislation to restrict anyone else's set of rights? No. Are some religious people? Yes. And there goes that premise, then). And further, it isn't the case that ALL "Catholic, Mormon, Evangelical, Jehovah Witness, etc, etc, groups" seek to restrict the rights of LGBT, so I will not paint with a broad brush to say ALL religious people. But some of them? Yes, obviously.

 

In short, there is no moral equivalence between the raped and the rapists, and there is certainly no cause to bring up Nazi persecution as applying to those who seek to restrict the rights of law abiding, tax paying citizens. That's absurd on every level. Please don't pretend as though the LGBT crowd is out with pitchforks looking to restrict the rights of others, when you know damn well that isn't the case. (And if it is, kindly point us to ONE example, that will stand in the face of the endless legislation currently stacked up against that community).

 

-MKL

 

LOL

The point is simply that intolerance in any direction can end badly. Those gold stars became acceptable when the consensus shifted sufficiently to support the notion. There was a time before that when the notion was so outrageous that no sane and civilized person could even conceive that such a thing was even possible.

 

I think that that the LGBT community should not be restricted, proscribed, or discriminated against in any way whatsoever. Neither should any other community.

 

As far as voting with one's pocketbook is concerned,it is largely a fool's errand. The global economy is so intertwined I don't think it is possible to buy anything that in some way isn't "connected" to something you detest.

 

[moshe_levy]

>>>>The point is simply that intolerance in any direction can end badly.<<<<<

 

Absolutely. I abhor attacks against any law abiding tax paying citizens, whether religious or not.

 

>>>>Those gold stars became acceptable when the consensus shifted sufficiently to support the notion. There was a time before that when the notion was so outrageous that no sane and civilized person could even conceive that such a thing was even possible.<<<<

 

On that point, I cannot agree. I don't tolerate baseless attacks on law abiding, tax paying citizens precisely because there is NEVER a time in recorded history when intolerance was considered insane or uncivilized. In fact, it was the law of the land going back to the dawn of recorded history. If you are under the assumption that making Jews wear yellow badges was a Nazi invention, I should highlight that, in fact, the Nazis were merely extending a very long tradition in that regard. One borne of the Catholic Church, in particular. Here's a brief timeline for you:

 

1215

Fourth Lateran Council headed by Pope Innocent III declares: "Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress."

 

1219

Pope Honorius III issues a dispensation to the Jews of Castile.

 

1222

Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton orders English Jews to wear a white band two fingers broad and four fingers long.

 

1228

James I orders Jews of Aragon to wear the badge.

 

1265

The Siete Partidas, a legal code enacted in Castile by Alfonso X but not implemented until many years later, includes a requirement for Jews to wear distinguishing marks.

 

1267

In a special session, the Vienna city council forces Jews to wear Pileum cornutum (a cone-shaped head dress, common in medieval illustrations of Jews)

 

1269, June 19

France. (Saint) Louis IX of France orders all Jews found in public without a badge (French: rouelle or roue, Latin: rota) to be fined ten livres of silver.

 

1274

The Statute of Jewry in England, enacted by King Edward I, enforces the regulations. "Each Jew, after he is seven years old, shall wear a distinguishing mark on his outer garment, that is to say, in the form of two Tables joined, of yellow felt of the length of six inches and of the breadth of three inches."

 

1315–1326

Emir Ismael Abu-I-Walid forces the Jews of Granada to wear the yellow badge.

 

1321

Henry II of Castile forces the Jews to wear the yellow badge.

 

1415, May 11

Bull of the Avignon Pope Benedict XIII orders the Jews to wear a yellow and red badge, the men on their breast, the women on their forehead.

 

1434

Emperor Sigismund reintroduces the badge at Augsburg.

 

1528

The Council of Ten of Venice allows the newly-arrived famous physician and professor Jacob Mantino ben Samuel to wear the regular black doctors' cap instead of Jewish yellow hat for several months (subsequently made permanent), upon the recommendation of the French and English ambassadors, the papal legate, and other dignitaries numbered among his patients.

 

1555

Pope Paul IV decrees, in his Cum nimis absurdum, that the Jews should wear yellow hats.

 

1566

King Sigismund II passes a law that required Lithuanian Jews to wear yellow hats and head coverings.

 

1710

Frederick William I of Prussia abolished the mandatory Jewish yellow patch in return for a payment of 8,000 thaler (about $75,000 worth of silver at 2007 prices) each.

 

1938, August 17

The Nazi regime forced Jewish Germans and the stateless Jews with Austrian citizenship to adopt additional middle names (mostly Israel or Sarah, few other derogatory names considered "Jewish" were alternatively possible) to be used at any occasion such as signatures, visit cards, addresses, firms etc.

 

1938, October

Jewish Germans had to turn in their passports to get them stamped in a black J, Jewish Austrians had been denied German citizenship and their Austrian passports had turned void.

 

1939, January

Jewish Germans and Austrians had to adopt special identity cards to be carried on them whenever away from home.

 

1939, September and October

A number of local German occupational commanders ordered in their areas Jewish Poles to wear an identifying mark under the threat of death. There were no consistent requirements as to its color and shape: it varies from a white armband to a yellow Star of David badge.

 

1939, 23 November 1939

Hans Frank ordered for all Jewish Poles above the age of 11 years in German-occupied Poland to wear white armbands with a blue Magen David on.

 

1941, July

Jewish Poles in German-occupied Soviet-annexed Poland, Jewish Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians as well as Soviet Jews in German-occupied areas were obliged to wear white armbands or yellow badges.

 

1941, August 8

All Romanian Jews have to wear the yellow badge.

 

1941, August 13

The yellow badge was the only standardised identifying mark in the German-occupied East, other signs were forbidden.

 

1941, September 1

Also Jewish Germans and Jews with citizenship of annexed states (Austrians, Czechs, Danzigers) - from the age of six years - were ordered to wear the yellow badge when in public.

 

1941, September 9

Slovakia ordered its Jews to wear yellow badges.

 

1941/1942

Romania started to force Jews in newly annexed territories, denied Romanian citizenship, to wear the yellow badge.

 

1942, April 29

Jewish Dutch people are forced to wear the yellow badge

 

1942, June 3

Jewish Belgians have to wear the yellow badge

 

1942, June 7

On German command Jewish Frenchmen were to wear the yellow badge (Vichy refused that).

 

1942, August

With the German annexation of Luxembourg the yellow badge was introduced there too.

 

1942, August

Under German pressure Bulgaria ordered its Jewish citizens to wear small yellow buttons, contravention, however, was not prosecuted.

 

1942, November

With the occupation of the French Zone libre Jews there were also forced wearing the yellow badge.

 

1944, March 31

After the occupation of Hungary the German occupants ordered Jewish Hungarians and Jews with defunct other citizenships (Czechoslovakian, Romanian, Yugoslavian) in Hungarian-annexed areas to wear the yellow badge.

 

So you see, there is always more history behind things than we may have known. Today, it's en vogue to attack gay people for what they are and who they love, with the sanction of some Churches (the SAME ones, as you see above, with a history of such actions). Tomorrow, maybe it will be me, next (again). Maybe you. Maybe someone you love or care for. OR we can stand up to it now, and stop the very cycle you see above from repeating.

 

-MKL

 

[Ken H.]

It's very nice to see that Ken, being of an inclusive disposition, gracefully acquiesed by accepting that this thread was, in fact, completely about Chick-Fil-A the whole time...

 

The people who chose to intentionally eat there today as a way of voicing their support for the company’s policy is decidedly a different group than “the majority of those people who have ever eaten at Chick-fil-a”

LOL. Yeah I thought about that before I typed it. But the miss-quote was so flagrant I couldn’t let it go by.

 

Alas, this thread, like so many has gone completely astray of my original discussion topic. I regret using that particular example of a general concept I was hoping to discuss. Oh well, continue on with the chicken sandwich dicussion.

 

[Couchrocket]

If you are under the assumption that making Jews wear yellow badges was a Nazi invention, I should highlight that, in fact, the Nazis were merely extending a very long tradition in that regard. One borne of the Catholic Church, in particular. Here's a brief timeline for you:

 

You've made my point. This is very easy to see in the rear view mirror, yet at any given point in the flow of history "that group" who is next to fall into that error thinks it unthinkable. Then they think it necessary. Then they think it righteous.

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

I think we're making the same point then, on two different sides of the same coin. This is the same basic argument that was brought up when we had the whole (now closed) gay marriage thread. My general point was that we've seen this cycle before, and each time years later, we look back with shame and regret - and thus if we're to learn from history, we would not pull the same stunts we've pulled with oppresing minority populations in the past, because it's never turned out well - ever.

 

On the opposite side of the coin I see your point as well. Noted!

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

One more thing I forgot to add - consistency. Consistency is important. We have sliced up the supporters of CFA into some groups, among them people who disagree with the CEO's statements but feel strongly supportive of his right to say them. (Count me in that group).

 

Let us only ask for consistency. If boycotts are empty symbolism as they apply to CFA, let us not forget the multitude of companies boycotted for being SUPPORTIVE of marriage equality. Just a few months ago, we all remember "One Million Moms" and other religious groups all over the news, urging formal boycotts of JC Penney for hiring Ellen DeGeneres as spokeswoman?

 

It's easy to list a dozen more companies boycotted - formally - by many of the same people who now tell us boycotts are empty symbolism.

 

Consistency. VERY rare in such discussions. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander too!

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

I think we're making the same point then, on two different sides of the same coin. This is the same basic argument that was brought up when we had the whole (now closed) gay marriage thread. My general point was that we've seen this cycle before, and each time years later, we look back with shame and regret - and thus if we're to learn from history, we would not pull the same stunts we've pulled with oppresing minority populations in the past, because it's never turned out well - ever.

 

On the opposite side of the coin I see your point as well. Noted!

 

-MKL

 

I agree. Very much the sides of the same coin. My intent is often to merely broaden the context of whatever it is we're discussing. And I thought that in this case reminding us "all" (including myself) that we too easily run amok whenever we take up some sort of "righteous cause." In fact, I think that the more strongly we feel that we have the "righteous cause da jour" the more we might take pause to examine whether we've taken the first step toward history repeating itself. We will never arrive at the time when "all of that kind of thing is behind us because we're so enlightened now and there's no going back." To think that is the first step in the wrong direction.

 

And unfortunately, we never were able to get to the part of the redefinition of marriage thread that I thought would be most productive. "An appropriate legal definition that encompasses the current consensus." That would have been really worthwhile, I think, to bring clarity to the larger context of the issue.

[TyTass]

It's very nice to see that Ken, being of an inclusive disposition, gracefully acquiesed by accepting that this thread was, in fact, completely about Chick-Fil-A the whole time...

 

The people who chose to intentionally eat there today as a way of voicing their support for the company’s policy is decidedly a different group than “the majority of those people who have ever eaten at Chick-fil-a”

LOL. Yeah I thought about that before I typed it. But the miss-quote was so flagrant I couldn’t let it go by.

 

Alas, this thread, like so many has gone completely astray of my original discussion topic. I regret using that particular example of a general concept I was hoping to discuss. Oh well, continue on with the chicken sandwich dicussion.

Sidetracked ... yes, for sure (as usual), but I think you have had your original questioned answered directly by quite a few people here. And as usual we have mixed results (imagine that). Without a seriously analyzing the post, it seems obvious to me that:

 

Some people said try to boycott as many issues as possible so they would not end up supporting businesses with ideals diametrically opposed to their own, and do all they can do let the company being boycotted know they are being boycotted and why. They're a busy lot, that group, having to research so much all the time to separate fact from fiction, as well as the myriad global integration issues. It appears some are up to it (as best they can, of course).

 

Then there are those who have historically boycotted on many issues, but because of the globalization of business wonder if it really makes any sense to boycott any more. (I believe your original standpoint, Ken.)

 

And there are those (like me) who most often concern themselves with the company's relationship with the consumer/customer, but admit to refraining from patronizing businesses when that business takes and official position/practices/active measures in just a few key issues, which are in opposition to their own. (I personally admitted I feel silly for even doing so, but just can't quite let those few issues go.)

 

Lastly (what seemed to my baysean statistics as the largest group), are those that solely concern themselves with the company's relationship with their customers (i.e., products, service, etc.). It also seemed to me these folks made a compelling arguement in regards to the difficulties in untangling the issues of globalization anyway, though others in this category stated vehemently that there should be no concern outside of the businesses relationship with it's customers.

 

So, as you asked the questions, Ken ... do you feel you've had it answered? Were you looking for a particular viewpoint or simply seeking opinions? (Either being valid to my mind.)