The problem, and danger, with the Chick-Fil-A boycott

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

If you don't know about the Chick-Fil-A Boycott issue, here's a brief primer

http://boycottchickfila.com/

Now, here's the issue.

This isn't a boycott that is in response to something the company itself has done. There is no evidence that the company refuses to serve homosexual individuals, or that it discriminates against homosexual individuals when it comes to employment.

Instead, it is primarily to do with what the company does with its profits, and it doesn't do anything criminal or necessarily oppressive with these funds. It supports things that people disagree with.

Other boycotts, over things like Nestlee's actions in Africa, are fundimentally to do with the activities of the company, and the impact that the company is happening.

What this boycott seems to look like to me is less the principled opposition to a company's action, but much more like a witchunt, trying to smoke someone out based upon their opinions.

Now while that's perfectly legal, it isn't exactly very enlightened. If you want to beat people's opinions, engage with them in debate. Attempting to starve them out, just because you disagree with them... not really cool (what's slightly more obviosuly wrong is the death threats etc sent to the copmany's exec - who has recently died of a heart attack).

And more than that, it's starting to set a worrying trend. It may begin something where people think it's okay to discriminate against people on the grounds of their opinions. We've already had several city mayors saying they want Chick-Fil-A out of their cities on the basis of the company leaders opinions. Well here's a newsflash, the zoning laws arn't up to you. You don't get to randomly choose that you don't like someone's opinion, and then ban them from conducting business.

If you want to boycott a company, boycott it for a good reason, because it's doing something wrong, because it's conducting it's policies unethically. Don't boycott a company because it's executive has an opinion and acts on it.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

Would you not think those who cheat, divorce and the likes are 'undermining' marriage far more than the aforementioned couples? If we're going to place restrictions on this sort of thing, to 'uphold' the shining braw meaning of marriage. I'd suggest going for the bigger and biggest bunch of offenders = Straights.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Would you not think those who cheat, divorce and the likes are 'undermining' marriage far more than the aforementioned couples?

 

I think they do undermine marriage, however they are not doing so in the same way. They are undermining it in terms of violating the contract they go into. Gay marriage is about redefining the contract, which damages it differently.

If we're going to place restrictions on this sort of thing, to 'uphold' the shining braw meaning of marriage. I'd suggest going for the bigger and biggest bunch of offenders = Straights. 

Like I have said in the past, no-fault divorces is indeed bad. It fundamentally undermines the principle of marriage. What is the point of promising to be with someone forever, if all you're going to do is stay there until you just don't feel like it anymore.

[God ~blogs admin ~]

which damages it differently.

Define damages. What do you actually expect this all to lead to if it passes and becomes the norm?

Like I have said in the past, no-fault divorces is indeed bad. It fundamentally undermines the principle of marriage. What is the point of promising to be with someone forever, if all you're going to do is stay there until you just don't feel like it anymore.

 

Exactly, however. What would you say about Newt Gingrich in comparison to Sally Ride? What damage has she done outside of her own personal chance at 'heaven'?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Define damages. What do you actually expect this all to lead to if it passes and becomes the norm?

Social damage, that means that marriage ultimately means less and that we value it less, along with the commitment it means. If we start valuing marriage only in terms of what it can do for us (IE as a celebration of love, whether or not we are happy etc) then it becomes something we can throw away when we don't like it any more, rather than something we work on. Gay marriage itself doesn't do this, but rather it is the premise upon which gay marriage is based. IE that marriage's primary purpose is about love.

Exactly, however. What would you say about Newt Gingrich in comparison to Sally Ride? What damage has she done outside of her own personal chance at 'heaven'?

 

Individuals arn't doing the damage as much as the collective social opinion is.

[Hutch Hogan]

Social damage, that means that marriage ultimately means less and that we value it less, along with the commitment it means. If we start valuing marriage only in terms of what it can do for us (IE as a celebration of love, whether or not we are happy etc) then it becomes something we can throw away when we don't like it any more, rather than something we work on. Gay marriage itself doesn't do this, but rather it is the premise upon which gay marriage is based. IE that marriage's primary purpose is about love.

So you must also be against divorce because that is a much more significant problem here. Divorce means the end of the commitment, as you have pointed out, as well having an emphasis that marriages can be dissolved for lack of love or because the pair is unhappy. 

So, are you against the legality of divorce as well?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

So you must also be against divorce because that is a much more significant problem here. Divorce means the end of the commitment, as you have pointed out, as well having an emphasis that marriages can be dissolved for lack of love or because the pair is unhappy. 

So, are you against the legality of divorce as well?

 

I am against no-fault divorce, yes. There are legitimate grounds for divorce, such as abuse and adultery.

[Hutch Hogan]

I am against no-fault divorce, yes. There are legitimate grounds for divorce, such as abuse and adultery

So do you protest in favour of that as adamantly ? 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Indeed. However unlike gay marriage, the question of no-fault divorce is not a going concern. There is no debate, no plan to change the law. The fact that the law for gay marriage is up for discussion makes it a more immediate concern.

[Julia Chapman]

They have the right to give their money to whomever they please, just as I have the right to support whatever companies and causes that I please. I choose not to give money to a company if that company is going to use the SAME MONEY, which is essentially MY MONEY, to literally support the killing of people based on their sexual history. I would expect the same of you if a company supported a "Kill the Christians" bill.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

1. They're not giving money to companies that support the killing of h... If you can prove otherwise, be my guest.

2. As I have said repeatedly, this isn't a discussion about rights. You are quite correct, you have the right, and they have the right, but that isn't what I'm questioning here. I'm questioning the wisdom and fairness of the action.

3. How is this situation different than if you bought something from somewhere who had an employee who disagreed with you? This isn't company policy, this is the decisions of individuals. The company is not discriminating against gay individuals, it isn't banning service to gay couples. In short, it isn't doing anything that could be considered discriminatory. All this boycott appears to target is the individual opinions of a small group of people. Newsflash, every company you buy from will have a group of people in it somewhere who you do not agree with. That in itself is not reason to boycott them.

4. I didn't see anyone positively supporting all of the good that these same people do/did. They fund a foster care program, children's camps, schools and they provide higher education scholarships to dozens of their employees. If you're going to tar the entire company with the actions of a select group within that company, at least make it all their actions. Don't just select those you don't like.

At the end of the day, the boycott is targeting the individuals at the top, but bringing a large amount of collateral damage with it.

[Julia Chapman]

I like this organized form of discussion. It makes it easier to be clear.

1. I can prove otherwise. You do not disagree that they support Family Research Council, no? The same Council that lobbied not to try to stop the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda? That's spending money to directly kill gay people. Murder is a sin, yes?

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chick-fil-a-profits-are-suppor...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/01/1115751/-What-really-makes...

(You might say the first one is biased, but really. What source is going to be unbiased when it comes to things like religion or politics?)

2. I find it wise not to put money into causes I don't believe in. I find it perfectly fair that I have the choice to pick things that stand with my morals. I don't buy fur or cosmetics tested on animals, because I don't agree with it. That's fair.

3. The thing is, if you look at my second source, it's not that the CEO is against same-sex marriage. It's that the charity part of the company is giving money to the people who want gay people dead. So I don't agree with the CEO? Fine. So I am giving my money to a company that goes against my morals? Not fine with me. I am perfectly aware that many people don't believe the same as me. However, I feel it is wrong and hateful. I will try to change it.

4. Yes, they do excellent things. I, as someone who has to pay a ridiculous amount for education (I've made my choice to go to a private high school), am very grateful especially for scholarships. You could say the EXACT same things about the Boy Scouts, but, unsurprisingly, I don't want to support them either.

At the end of the day, it is the decision of the consumer, and I hope that they choose based on morals and facts. I think we agree on that front.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I can prove otherwise. You do not disagree that they support Family Research Council, no? The same Council that lobbied not to try to stop the "Kill the Gays" bill in Uganda? That's spending money to directly kill gay people. Murder is a sin, yes?

Do some more research. The people Chick Fil A gave their money do did not support the killing-the-gays bill. What it did was lobby to change the proclamianton. Here's this quote from CBS.

The Tony Perkins-led FRC said it did lobby on the bill, but not to kill it - rather to change the language it contained and "to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right."

"FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution," the group said. "FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006856-503544.html

I find it wise not to put money into causes I don't believe in. I find it perfectly fair that I have the choice to pick things that stand with my morals. I don't buy fur or cosmetics tested on animals, because I don't agree with it. That's fair.

Indeed, but you are being inconsistant. Keep in mind this is not the company. This is people within the company. Do you investigate the entire employee base of every single company you buy from to confirm that no one in it gives money to causes you disagree with?

The thing is, if you look at my second source, it's not that the CEO is against same-sex marriage. It's that the charity part of the company is giving money to the people who want gay people dead. So I don't agree with the CEO? Fine. So I am giving my money to a company that goes against my morals? Not fine with me. I am perfectly aware that many people don't believe the same as me. However, I feel it is wrong and hateful. I will try to change it.

Erm...no. It's the CEO giving money to that charity, who in turn, give the money.

At the end of the day, it is the decision of the consumer, and I hope that they choose based on morals and facts. I think we agree on that front.

 

I agree. So I trust you will stop spreading the lie that Chick Fil A wants gays dead