If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Chick-fil-A Got Caught Pretending to Be a Teenage Girl on Facebook   (gizmodo.com) divider line 356
    More: Amusing, A Facebook  
•       •       •

14249 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Jul 2012 at 3:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



356 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-26 06:06:50 AM

quantum_jellyroll:
They are not depriving anyone of their rights and freedoms.


But they are funding organizations which do.

It's like saying "the Cathy Family doesn't mow their lawn" because they pay someone else to do it. The lawn still gets mowed.

If the Cathy Family wants to fund hate groups, that's their right. But they'll have to get by without my dollars.
 
2012-07-26 06:15:37 AM

profplump: Gimmick: political/religious differences

It stops being a legitimate political/religious speech when it starts infringing on the rights of others. You can argue about where that line falls -- and that argument is valid political speech, and that argument might change the law -- but it is the duty of government officials to uphold the rights of all citizens.


I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion.

The mayor of Boston made it a matter of public record that they would use the power at their disposal to hassle Chick-fil-A for no other reasons than Chick-fil-A's opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds. That is corruption and religious discrimination. The irony is that the mayor's declaration made it more difficult for anyone in Boston to do anything to Chick-fil-A. If CfA has any difficulties with permits, fire marshals, health inspectors or whatnot; CfA will run to a judge and use the mayor's statements to claim discrimination. The mayor's behavior isn't just unethical, it is poor strategy.
 
2012-07-26 06:32:55 AM

Gimmick: I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion..


For the hundredth time, it's not that CFA is expressing their opinion. It's that they give large sums of money to organizations working to deny me my rights. The owners have the right to express their opinions and to fund hate groups. And I have the right to choose not to give them my dollars.
 
2012-07-26 07:51:20 AM

The Why Not Guy: Gimmick: I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion..

For the hundredth time, it's not that CFA is expressing their opinion. It's that they give large sums of money to organizations working to deny me my rights. The owners have the right to express their opinions and to fund hate groups. And I have the right to choose not to give them my dollars.


Maybe you are repeating yourself hundreds of times because you suck at reading comprehension? The bulk of my post, which you deleted when quoting me, was about the mayor of Boston. I believe gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but I also think it is totally inappropriate for the mayor of Boston to use their position to try to deny Chick-fil-A business opportunities in Boston. There was never an confusion on my part, where I thought it was mandatory for you to spend your money at Chick-fil-A or some stupid shiat.
 
2012-07-26 07:57:59 AM

Gimmick: Maybe you are repeating yourself hundreds of times because you suck at reading comprehension?


I'll leave the insults to you.

You said "they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion."

Nobody is saying they're breaking the law (though I've heard some of their hiring practices are unsavory). Nobody is saying they have no right to express their opinion. I'm saying they fund groups working very hard to deny me my rights, and I choose not to give them my money and have it end up in the hands of people working against me.
 
2012-07-26 08:07:05 AM
Let's reverse the situation. If there was a group of people working to deny YOU rights that other law-abiding tax-paying American citizens enjoy, would you support that group financially?
 
2012-07-26 08:07:35 AM
P-I-C-K-L-E goes into the anus to rupture intestines. The more a man does this, the more likely he will accidentally post a picture of it on Fark.
 
2012-07-26 08:34:46 AM
image.shutterstock.com
 
2012-07-26 08:39:23 AM

Gimmick: profplump: Gimmick: political/religious differences

It stops being a legitimate political/religious speech when it starts infringing on the rights of others. You can argue about where that line falls -- and that argument is valid political speech, and that argument might change the law -- but it is the duty of government officials to uphold the rights of all citizens.

I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion.

The mayor of Boston made it a matter of public record that they would use the power at their disposal to hassle Chick-fil-A for no other reasons than Chick-fil-A's opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds. That is corruption and religious discrimination. The irony is that the mayor's declaration made it more difficult for anyone in Boston to do anything to Chick-fil-A. If CfA has any difficulties with permits, fire marshals, health inspectors or whatnot; CfA will run to a judge and use the mayor's statements to claim discrimination. The mayor's behavior isn't just unethical, it is poor strategy.


Rationally, "the power at their disposal" refers to lawful actions, whatever anyone thinks of them specifically. CFA is using the powers at their disposal to prosecute what they believe in (or at least what they say they do -- many outright bigots hide behind the Bible, that's not new at all). Same for Boston. Menino isn't some guy who took office by armed force. He's been elected four times in a row. Clearly, the People of Boston agree with him, and vice versa. At this point, it's probably fair to say that when Menino speaks, he speaks for the People of Boston. And the People of Boston, abrasive as they may be (I used to work there, don't get me started) have made it clear they don't want CFA there. It's not just Menino and city government who are ready to fight. It's all three million people there. Even if CFA somehow managed to lay a foot on the ground there, they can count on it getting stomped. Boston's not a 'nice' town: If Cathy opens a store there, he just might get to find out what a chicken sandwich with brick and broken glass tastes like. Menino's being pretty decent, I think, in giving fair warning.

But this isn't unique to Boston. CFA has 1614 stores. Not a single one anywhere in New York or New England. It's not because we don't like fast-food chicken -- we've got plenty of KFC and Popeye's, just for starters. It's because those companies aren't publicly pissing on the things we believe in. They *did* have a few stores here, that all got run out. Welcome to equalisation, biatches.
 
2012-07-26 08:49:28 AM

Xanlexian: jso2897: You know, what I find shocking about this thread is not the number of people who are putting others down for making what they believe to be moral choices with their own money - that's typical of Farkers, who tend to freak completely out at anything they suspect might be any form of "political correctness"
But i had no idea that this many Farkers had such horrible taste in food.
I've had the misfortune of tasting Cick-Fil-A's "food" on a couple of unavoidable occasions. It's hog vomit. Greasy, slimy, salty, foul hillbilly chow. Why would anyone deliberately subject themselves to swallowing garbage, let alone like it? Have they no taste buds?



[i112.photobucket.com image 457x335]



Mmmm...


Damn, son. That's actually a plausible explanation.
 
2012-07-26 08:51:53 AM

Gimmick: The Why Not Guy: Gimmick: I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion..

For the hundredth time, it's not that CFA is expressing their opinion. It's that they give large sums of money to organizations working to deny me my rights. The owners have the right to express their opinions and to fund hate groups. And I have the right to choose not to give them my dollars.

Maybe you are repeating yourself hundreds of times because you suck at reading comprehension? The bulk of my post, which you deleted when quoting me, was about the mayor of Boston. I believe gays should have the same rights as everyone else, but I also think it is totally inappropriate for the mayor of Boston to use their position to try to deny Chick-fil-A business opportunities in Boston. There was never an confusion on my part, where I thought it was mandatory for you to spend your money at Chick-fil-A or some stupid shiat.


Apparently, you believe that an elected official in the U.S. is supposed to some bureaucratic apparatchik who stays out of the way and lets riots solve problems. Not so. As a duly elected representative of the People, Menino is not only legally empowered to do these things, but obliged to do so. You may disagree, but if you do so, bear in mind that you're actually objecting to the Power of the People that folks like Bostonians take deadly seriously. For Bostonians, the Revolution was not so long ago, and they still think like Minutemen. If you think one guy is the problem, you're sorely mistaken. Menino by himself is nothing, just a pasty old white guy; he's powerful because he's got 600,000 angry assholes backing him up. And unlike him, some of them don't care much about what the law says. You can make of THAT whatever you like, but the practical upshot is that Boston isn't a good place for CFA.
 
2012-07-26 08:54:00 AM

The Why Not Guy: [i.istockimg.com image 380x291]

That's right! The best part is forever!


LMAO
 
2012-07-26 08:55:20 AM

quantum_jellyroll: Ghastly: quantum_jellyroll: Sounds like an echo chamber in here.
Imagine someone holding an opinion contrary to what the mob thinks.

/begin yammering wall of consciousness effluent
This is one of the things that always irk me when people think that all you have to do to be "edgy" is hold an opinion that is "contrary to what the mob thinks". Like being a unique snowflake automatically makes you a rebel.

"HA! Everyone thinks the earth is round, well I'm gonna say it's FLAT! I'M SO PUNK ROCK! YEAH! "

Sometimes, holding an opinion contrary to what the majority hold simply makes you an idiot. Doing something to BE edgy automatically makes it not edgy. It just makes you a hipster douche. And if you're doing something to BE edgy to make it not edgy so you can be ironic then you're a grand poobah hipster douchebag.

God damned posers ruin everything.
/end yammering wall of consciousness effluent

I'm making the point that so many posters in this thread are incensed that the owners of CFA
are adhering to their sincerely held beliefs. They seem to think it's wrong to not go along with
the rest of the lemmings. What makes the mobs consensus any more valid??
.
They are not discriminating against anyone.
They are not intimidating anyone into complying with their wishes.
They are not forcing anyone else to agree with them.
They are not depriving anyone of their rights and freedoms.
They are exercising their 1st amendment right to follow their consciences as their faith leads them.
What makes their beliefs inferior to the beliefs of those that disagree with them?

If someone has a beef against the Cathy family doing with their money what they wish to do,
then they should start their own business to compete against CFA and use any profits earned to support the
causes which they prefer. But, that would take more commitment than just biatching and calling
someone a "hater", so that's probably not an option.

As for the grand poobah hipster douchebag comment...
You're too young, to ...


i18.photobucket.com

Wow. You sure kicked HIS ass. Now try answering some of the things people are actually saying.
 
2012-07-26 09:04:26 AM

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: So, here is my idea. Instead of just boycotting CFA, seek them out when on road trips and you need a bathroom break. Then leave without buying anything.

I know it isn't much, but if they are going to fund hate groups, I'm going to use their water and paper towels for free. Now if I can just get a few thousand more people to do this, it will slowly eat into their profit margins, which is really the biggest concern of the business I'm sure.

/I know it is pennies, but I gotta poop somewhere, so why not stink up a CFA for freedom


Upper-deckers for Equality!
 
2012-07-26 09:09:10 AM

bonefish: [image.shutterstock.com image 450x361]
[image.shutterstock.com image 300x470]
/I love this site...


lol

Is there anything more earnest looking than the expression on a pooping dog's face?
 
2012-07-26 09:50:56 AM
I keep wondering about the mentality of people who think it's fine to lie to support their cause. Then I remember this quote from W.S. Burroughs:

"If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-biatch, get it in writing. His word isn't worth shiat.
Not with the good lord telling him how to fark you on the deal."
 
2012-07-26 10:31:37 AM

Noctusxx: What is so special about these sandwiches? I live in the Pac NW and have never even heard of this place till all this silliness.


It's like eating at Five Guys or having sex with someone for the first time: once it is over you wonder what all the fuss is about.
 
2012-07-26 10:47:06 AM

FloydA: Chick-fil-A and the rest of the religious whackos are much more prone to act like Martin Luther than to act like Jesus.


Well they do seem to be suffering from constipation all of the time, just like Luther did.
 
2012-07-26 10:51:12 AM
quantum_jellyroll:
WOW!! Do you not see the irony is biatching at people for exercising their free speech to oppose other peoples free speech? Why is it ok for them to spread their ideals of discrimination against inborn traits but if we complain about that it's just 'biatching and calling someone a hater'? Why do they get free speech but we do not?

If they have the right to say something, don't we all have the right to retort? Do we not have the right to spread the word of their actions to others and call for action if we want? So weird that you are not mad at them for saying something, only mad at people for responding.

So do you support the idea of repressing a person because of an inborn trait?
 
2012-07-26 10:57:21 AM

thismomentinblackhistory: Noctusxx: What is so special about these sandwiches? I live in the Pac NW and have never even heard of this place till all this silliness.

It's like eating at Five Guys or having sex with someone for the first time: once it is over you wonder what all the fuss is about.


5 Guys is good stuff. They do need a couple things though...more than just 1 kind of cheese, and shakes. Real milk & ice cream shakes.
 
2012-07-26 11:02:56 AM

Sultan Of Herf: thismomentinblackhistory: Noctusxx: What is so special about these sandwiches? I live in the Pac NW and have never even heard of this place till all this silliness.

It's like eating at Five Guys or having sex with someone for the first time: once it is over you wonder what all the fuss is about.

5 Guys is good stuff. They do need a couple things though...more than just 1 kind of cheese, and shakes. Real milk & ice cream shakes.


If I remember correctly, they had the latter for a short while, along with coffee. Basically the owner claims that they couldn't keep the quality up and make them fast enough so they were deleted from the menu
 
2012-07-26 11:23:14 AM

The Why Not Guy: Gimmick: Maybe you are repeating yourself hundreds of times because you suck at reading comprehension?

I'll leave the insults to you.

You said "they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion."

Nobody is saying they're breaking the law (though I've heard some of their hiring practices are unsavory). Nobody is saying they have no right to express their opinion. I'm saying they fund groups working very hard to deny me my rights, and I choose not to give them my money and have it end up in the hands of people working against me.


www.picturesof.net

Gimmick shown here having problems integrating a different way of addressing this issue into his mind.
 
2012-07-26 11:26:01 AM
 
2012-07-26 11:26:38 AM
...and I f***ed up the HTML. The link, she does nothing of note. Sorry.
 
2012-07-26 11:29:06 AM

sure haven't: Am I the only one who calls them "chick fill uh"?
I'm Canadian so we don't have these so...



I thought it was that too

Course I'm a Cannuck as well.
 
2012-07-26 11:35:01 AM

shotglasss: Missouri isn't really the south...that starts in Arkansas.


I'd only half agree with you there. I'd say where it starts is sort of an amorphous, dynamic line that is sometimes as far south as the MO-AK border, sometimes as far north as the Ozarks. Branson sort of fluctuates between the two.

The exception is that the Missouri Bootheel is ALWAYS part of the south.
 
2012-07-26 11:37:41 AM

cenobyte40k: quantum_jellyroll:
WOW!! Do you not see the irony is biatching at people for exercising their free speech to oppose other peoples free speech? Why is it ok for them to spread their ideals of discrimination against inborn traits but if we complain about that it's just 'biatching and calling someone a hater'? Why do they get free speech but we do not?

If they have the right to say something, don't we all have the right to retort? Do we not have the right to spread the word of their actions to others and call for action if we want? So weird that you are not mad at them for saying something, only mad at people for responding.?


Same can be said the opposite direction though and it's that free speech everyone is up in arms against. I'm for equality in way of life and beliefs for everyone including CEO's of major companies. Just because it's a large company doesn't mean they don't have the same rights as we do. We try to stamp out anything we don't like but really that's against what the U.S. Constitution grants to all of those that live there. So you give your money to PETA to keep me from eating this T-bone steak I slapped on the ass and told to stay on the plate and let them pay money to whoever they want. What you REALLY need to be doing is phoning your local Congressional member and making sure they vote for equality not regulation on beliefs and ways of life.

As I've said before, boycotts do very little to actually get anything done. Unless you single handedly can stop all commerce of a company in its tracks then you wont make a dent. This has been tried many times before and it never gets the job done. Boycotting is anonymous and you can't take a stand if you're anonymous. Everyone complains that CFA is so against the LGBT community and yet I've worked for one and worked with two openly gay men one of which MANAGED the store. The company knew about their orientation and they were working their anyway with no ostracism. Most of the charities they CFA supports are for gay therapy which many might not agree with but seriously if someone is going to one of those for help it's because they wanted to go there themselves to "get help" and that's their business not ours. Really there are far better things to be fighting for like getting ALL of our damn troops back home like the bastard in the White House said he would do before he went into office.
 
2012-07-26 11:40:14 AM

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: Gimmick: profplump: Gimmick: political/religious differences

It stops being a legitimate political/religious speech when it starts infringing on the rights of others. You can argue about where that line falls -- and that argument is valid political speech, and that argument might change the law -- but it is the duty of government officials to uphold the rights of all citizens.

I don't agree with Chick-fil-A, but they haven't broken any laws nor are they infringing on anyone's rights by expressing their opinion.

The mayor of Boston made it a matter of public record that they would use the power at their disposal to hassle Chick-fil-A for no other reasons than Chick-fil-A's opposition to gay marriage on religious grounds. That is corruption and religious discrimination. The irony is that the mayor's declaration made it more difficult for anyone in Boston to do anything to Chick-fil-A. If CfA has any difficulties with permits, fire marshals, health inspectors or whatnot; CfA will run to a judge and use the mayor's statements to claim discrimination. The mayor's behavior isn't just unethical, it is poor strategy.

Rationally, "the power at their disposal" refers to lawful actions, whatever anyone thinks of them specifically. CFA is using the powers at their disposal to prosecute what they believe in (or at least what they say they do -- many outright bigots hide behind the Bible, that's not new at all). Same for Boston. Menino isn't some guy who took office by armed force. He's been elected four times in a row. Clearly, the People of Boston agree with him, and vice versa. At this point, it's probably fair to say that when Menino speaks, he speaks for the People of Boston. And the People of Boston, abrasive as they may be (I used to work there, don't get me started) have made it clear they don't want CFA there. It's not just Menino and city government who are ready to fight. It's all three million people there. Even if CFA somehow managed to lay a foot on the grou ...


It doesn't matter how many times Menino has been elected or how much support the gay community has in Boston. It is unlawful for the government to discriminate against a business for stating their religious beliefs, and that trumps everything you posted.

Even if I was wrong (which I'm not), do you think our nation would benefit from allowing politicians to pick and choose what businesses are allowed on their turf based on the company's position on the controversial issues of the day? That would be ridiculous.
 
2012-07-26 11:40:47 AM

Colour_out_of_Space: Well, I guess that's something Chick-fil-A and I have in common.


Yeah, I don't see what the big deal is. I have no less than 3 fake-teenage-girl Facebook accounts, and sometimes I'll spend hours making them talk to each other. OMG, I have a boner right now just thinking about.

\BRB
 
2012-07-26 11:57:47 AM
Pickle Juice Taints!
 
2012-07-26 12:19:38 PM
I have a friend who is claiming it's a hoax because no one can show with any proof that it was Chik-fi-A who made the facebook account.
 
2012-07-26 12:23:30 PM

MadMattressMack: PoochUMD:
Chick Fil A are all franchises. So outside of money made selling frozen fries and chicken breasts to the restaurants, I don't think much of your money makes it out of the actual restaurant. But if you decide to spend your money elsewhere, is there any restaurants that employee 100% of people who don't give money to catholic churches or other religious organizations that don't believe homosexuals should get married?

You've never looked into getting one of their franchises. They are cheap to get ($5,000) but there's so many people trying to get one that the odds you get it are way low. Along the lines of 75 new licenses per year out of over 10,000 applications. And with that comes strict stipulations. Such as the corporation chooses where it goes. If it's not where you want to be then too bad. You can't be trying to do anything else besides run the restaurant. You can't have more than one and try to incorporate them.

Plus 15% of gross sales AND 50% of the profits go back to the corporation. So yeah, half of all cleared profit goes back on top of the food costs. This is unlike other franchises where only a small amount goes back to cover mainly corporate advertising. Their franchise rules are the worst out there.

Sources are here (franchise reviews) and here (CFA's website)


Damn, the franchise fee is really low, but the only thing that gets you is the right to use their name and business model. To actually build, equip and open the restaurant you're probably looking at $750 grand to a million.

I don't know a lot about restaurant franchises, but the royalties are high and I've never heard of a franchisor that takes from both the top and bottom line. And fifty percent of profits? Damn!
 
2012-07-26 12:25:39 PM

Phil Payne: and yet I've worked for one and worked with two openly gay men one of which MANAGED the store. The company knew about their orientation and they were working their anyway with no ostracism. Most of the charities they CFA ...


They've even said that they do not discriminate against gay people, and openly hire and employ gay people. What irks a lot of people is that they are putting so much money towards groups who have denying homosexuals the right to marriage as one of their primary goals.

It's like they had the policy of "We have nothing against blacks and even often employ them, but we're gonna do all we can with our resources to keep them from marrying whites."
 
2012-07-26 12:38:49 PM
People trying desperately to work the free speech angle in favor of Cfa are pretty much putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "lalalalacanthearyou" at this point. This IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. This is not a RELIGIOUS ISSUE. This is a matter of CHOOSING not to SUPPORT a company that SUPPORTS AN ANTI-GAY AGENDA. It really can't be anymore clear.
 
2012-07-26 12:39:31 PM

ReverendLoki: Phil Payne: and yet I've worked for one and worked with two openly gay men one of which MANAGED the store. The company knew about their orientation and they were working their anyway with no ostracism. Most of the charities they CFA ...

They've even said that they do not discriminate against gay people, and openly hire and employ gay people. What irks a lot of people is that they are putting so much money towards groups who have denying homosexuals the right to marriage as one of their primary goals.

It's like they had the policy of "We have nothing against blacks and even often employ them, but we're gonna do all we can with our resources to keep them from marrying whites."


And I'm still trying to figure out how a boycott is going to stop this. The only way to stop laws from being made or change laws already made is to petition your local Congressional member. Again a boycott just doesn't get anything accomplished because its anonymous and never actually makes a statement. Any financial impact will be felt by the workers at the bottom of the chain before you would EVER hurt the main company's ability to fund these groups. This is the equivalency of trying to stop a boxer from punching someone by removing his gloves.
 
2012-07-26 12:39:43 PM

pregerstheHobo: Hell, I'm an atheistic alcoholic that lost all hope in humanity long ago and I keep a Mr. Rogers quote calendar on my desk.


I think Fred Rogers is a true, model Christian man. He doesn't hate, he loves. He may not like homosexuality, but he will not bash, hate, condemn, or fight to deny a homosexual's rights, nor will he give a dime to groups that would. He knows that we should love our fellow man, and let God be the one to judge us when we all reach the afterlife.*

*The above is strictly opinion, no claim of accuracy is made. Please, Farkers, don't f*** up Mr. Rogers for me.
 
2012-07-26 12:49:00 PM

Saberus Terras: pregerstheHobo: Hell, I'm an atheistic alcoholic that lost all hope in humanity long ago and I keep a Mr. Rogers quote calendar on my desk.

I think Fred Rogers is a true, model Christian man. He doesn't hate, he loves. He may not like homosexuality, but he will not bash, hate, condemn, or fight to deny a homosexual's rights, nor will he give a dime to groups that would. He knows that we should love our fellow man, and let God be the one to judge us when we all reach the afterlife.*

*The above is strictly opinion, no claim of accuracy is made. Please, Farkers, don't f*** up Mr. Rogers for me.


Mr. Rogers beat a hooker to death back in 1991. I also heard he beefs in the shower then heels in down the drain.
 
2012-07-26 01:01:08 PM

mooseyfate: Saberus Terras: pregerstheHobo: Hell, I'm an atheistic alcoholic that lost all hope in humanity long ago and I keep a Mr. Rogers quote calendar on my desk.

I think Fred Rogers is a true, model Christian man. He doesn't hate, he loves. He may not like homosexuality, but he will not bash, hate, condemn, or fight to deny a homosexual's rights, nor will he give a dime to groups that would. He knows that we should love our fellow man, and let God be the one to judge us when we all reach the afterlife.*

*The above is strictly opinion, no claim of accuracy is made. Please, Farkers, don't f*** up Mr. Rogers for me.

Mr. Rogers beat a hooker to death back in 1991. I also heard he beefs in the shower then heels in down the drain.


I think you are mistaking. That was RICHARD Rogers and not FRED Rogers.
 
2012-07-26 01:02:58 PM

roncofooddehydrator: You know what would make more sense than a boycott? Donating a dollar to a gay-rights group every time you ate at Chik-Fil-A. If the average sale is $10 (picking a round number), then that would equal 1,100 times what the Cathy's donate to anti-gay groups.


This is not an either-or proposition. How 'bout I not eat at CFA because of their repugnant political stance, AND donate to gay rights groups?
 
2012-07-26 01:03:07 PM

zarberg: I have a friend who is claiming it's a hoax because no one can show with any proof that it was Chik-fi-A who made the facebook account.


Yes, it's not as though such a thing is so common in business that it has a name: astroturfing... or anything like that!
 
2012-07-26 01:18:09 PM

CheekyMonkey: roncofooddehydrator: You know what would make more sense than a boycott? Donating a dollar to a gay-rights group every time you ate at Chik-Fil-A. If the average sale is $10 (picking a round number), then that would equal 1,100 times what the Cathy's donate to anti-gay groups.

This is not an either-or proposition. How 'bout I not eat at CFA because of their repugnant political stance, AND donate to gay rights groups?


Because a boycott doesn't stop this it's like not voting for president and expecting your ideas to be represented anyway by whoever gets elected. If you want to put a stop to this you have to actually make your presence known. Not only that but when you boycott a business you boycott other things too like the farmers who provided the chicken they server who also might be LGBT for all you know or the company that supplies its bread which btw actually DOES support gay rights (Sunbeam Breads). So really who are you boycotting?
 
2012-07-26 01:24:46 PM
So it wasn't really a girl?
images.icanhascheezburger.com

i197.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-26 01:30:27 PM
Surly U. Jest:
Pickle Juice Taints!


image.shutterstock.com

-Don't Boycott me Bro!
 
2012-07-26 01:33:22 PM

Phil Payne: ReverendLoki: Phil Payne: and yet I've worked for one and worked with two openly gay men one of which MANAGED the store. The company knew about their orientation and they were working their anyway with no ostracism. Most of the charities they CFA ...

They've even said that they do not discriminate against gay people, and openly hire and employ gay people. What irks a lot of people is that they are putting so much money towards groups who have denying homosexuals the right to marriage as one of their primary goals.

It's like they had the policy of "We have nothing against blacks and even often employ them, but we're gonna do all we can with our resources to keep them from marrying whites."

And I'm still trying to figure out how a boycott is going to stop this. The only way to stop laws from being made or change laws already made is to petition your local Congressional member. Again a boycott just doesn't get anything accomplished because its anonymous and never actually makes a statement. Any financial impact will be felt by the workers at the bottom of the chain before you would EVER hurt the main company's ability to fund these groups. This is the equivalency of trying to stop a boxer from punching someone by removing his gloves.


You've got to admit, being excluded from the city of Boston might hinder growth a little bit.

And this is really far from anonymous, what with everyone who is doing it loudly proclaiming it in nearly every avenue available to them.

I know I'm just one person, and me not spending the $20-30 to take my family there doesn't even register in the corporate earnings graph, but that doesn't matter. It's not so much what my actions mean to them, but rather what they mean to me, and my daughter who looks up to me. Maybe I can teach her now not to sell out her morals/ethics because it's convenient. I understand that sort of thing might be important later in her life.
 
2012-07-26 01:38:34 PM

The Why Not Guy: [i.istockimg.com image 380x291]

That's right! The best part is forever!


Torg! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
 
2012-07-26 01:46:42 PM

ReverendLoki: Phil Payne: ReverendLoki: Phil Payne: and yet I've worked for one and worked with two openly gay men one of which MANAGED the store. The company knew about their orientation and they were working their anyway with no ostracism. Most of the charities they CFA ...

They've even said that they do not discriminate against gay people, and openly hire and employ gay people. What irks a lot of people is that they are putting so much money towards groups who have denying homosexuals the right to marriage as one of their primary goals.

It's like they had the policy of "We have nothing against blacks and even often employ them, but we're gonna do all we can with our resources to keep them from marrying whites."

And I'm still trying to figure out how a boycott is going to stop this. The only way to stop laws from being made or change laws already made is to petition your local Congressional member. Again a boycott just doesn't get anything accomplished because its anonymous and never actually makes a statement. Any financial impact will be felt by the workers at the bottom of the chain before you would EVER hurt the main company's ability to fund these groups. This is the equivalency of trying to stop a boxer from punching someone by removing his gloves.

You've got to admit, being excluded from the city of Boston might hinder growth a little bit.

And this is really far from anonymous, what with everyone who is doing it loudly proclaiming it in nearly every avenue available to them.

I know I'm just one person, and me not spending the $20-30 to take my family there doesn't even register in the corporate earnings graph, but that doesn't matter. It's not so much what my actions mean to them, but rather what they mean to me, and my daughter who looks up to me. Maybe I can teach her now not to sell out her morals/ethics because it's convenient. I understand that sort of thing might be important later in her life.


And you also end up teaching her that it's ok to make a point against one entity regardless of whoever else gets drug around in the effecta and aftermath of it. Minimum wage workers, suppliers of the company many of which are oddly enough pro-gay and actually support pro-gay charities. The problem in this country is people never think of what the lasting effects of things they do are. The immediate is all they ever care to see.

As for you saying people are loudly proclaiming it again the LGBT community tried this in the ENTIRE STATE OF COLORADO for two years and it failed miserably (around $75 mill impact over two years to a state that makes $5 bill a year in tourism alone). Not only did it not make any significant financial impact but the goal they wanted to achieve was in no way effected by it as the amendment still passed and wasn't defeated until the Supreme Court finally added the final nail in its coffin by stating it didn't meet the rational basis test. The community would have been better served by petitioning state legislatures directly which oddly enough the community largely seemed to ignore.

Boycott if you want but just realize the only one it makes feel better is you and it doesn't actually make a huge difference like other options would and the end result is going to effect others more than it will ever hurt the company as a whole. If you can live with this and it helps you sleep at night then go for it. I'll pat that single mom on the back for you on her way to the unemployment office while Mr Cathy keeps sending his money to these groups.
 
2012-07-26 01:47:07 PM

mooseyfate: People trying desperately to work the free speech angle in favor of Cfa are pretty much putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "lalalalacanthearyou" at this point. This IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. This is not a RELIGIOUS ISSUE. This is a matter of CHOOSING not to SUPPORT a company that SUPPORTS AN ANTI-GAY AGENDA. It really can't be anymore clear.


Wrong.
 
2012-07-26 02:01:09 PM

Phil Payne: Because a boycott doesn't stop this


I don't expect to stop it. In fact, I doubt CFA notices or even cares that I don't eat there twice a month. But it makes me feel better knowing my money isn't supporting groups that are working against me. That's good enough.
 
2012-07-26 02:01:11 PM

Phil Payne:

And I'm still trying to figure out how a boycott is going to stop this.



It's not, nor is it intended to.

If you see a homeless guy asking for change that you're sure he will spend on drugs and alcohol, and don't give him any, that doesn't mean you think he will stop begging, nor will it stop him from drinking or using drugs. It just means that you aren't helping him get high.
 
2012-07-26 03:14:53 PM

FloydA: Phil Payne:

And I'm still trying to figure out how a boycott is going to stop this.


It's not, nor is it intended to.

If you see a homeless guy asking for change that you're sure he will spend on drugs and alcohol, and don't give him any, that doesn't mean you think he will stop begging, nor will it stop him from drinking or using drugs. It just means that you aren't helping him get high.


The Why Not Guy: Phil Payne: Because a boycott doesn't stop this

I don't expect to stop it. In fact, I doubt CFA notices or even cares that I don't eat there twice a month. But it makes me feel better knowing my money isn't supporting groups that are working against me. That's good enough.


And you both totally ignored the rest of what was said. In the act of boycotting one single man you have also boycotted several gay rights activists and supporters of gay rights groups. So is a failed attempt at getting to one guy really worth making things hard for the rest?
 
Displayed 50 of 356 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report