• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Muppets owner Lisa Henson severs ties with Chick-Fil-A over SSM

See but that's what's f***ed up digsbe I really don't like Chick-Fil-A and I really like Oreo's O WHAT IS AN ANTI-GAY BIGOT LIKE ME TO DO?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
 
Zyphlin said:
Well it's not a "chrisitan" organization as in it's goals are religious...but it's "christian" in the notion that its owners business practices and views are highlighly influenced by their religion.

Anyone that frequents a Chick-Fil-A should have at least a guess that they may be religious as I'm sure they've gone "Hmm, I'd love some [insert chick-fil-a food] right now" only to drive by the resturant and go "Ah ****! I forgot it's Sunday" because they close every single sunday.

In most stores there's usually a poster explaining why, due to the deeply held religious beliefs, they are closed on Sundays.
Click to expand...

K, but the owner is free to do so. Does Chick-Fil-A refuse service to gays? I don't care if the owner happens to be religious, it has no bearing on me.
 
muciti said:
It is not. Do you think those who do not support ssm should be boycotting businesses too? i should word it as, it is the right thing for them to do.
Click to expand...

People can boycott whatever they like. If you don't approve of SSM and want to boycott businesses that support it, more power to ya. Good luck explaining to kids why they can't go to Disneyland/Disneyworld. :lol:
 
Ikari said:
K, but the owner is free to do so. Does Chick-Fil-A refuse service to gays? I don't care if the owner happens to be religious, it has no bearing on me.
Click to expand...

Nope. My first job was at a Chick Fil A. We didn't ask someone their orientation nor did we refuse to sell food to obvious homosexuals. Heck, I've sold food to a cross dresser before when I worked there.
 
ChuckBerry said:
Bullsh*t. Discussions of this subject are rife with pro-SSM people leveling the term of "bigot".
Click to expand...

Bigots are human. Calling a bigot a "bigot" isn't implying that God is going to have frogs rain down on us.
 
MaggieD said:
I just can't believe this company is being lambasted because it publicly espouses Christian values.
Click to expand...
And it isn't lip service either, there was a story about a mentally challenged person here who couldn't find a job due to his disabilities, the meticulously chosen franchisee here decided to take a chance on the kid and said it's his best hire ever. The kid got spending money and I believe moved up since the story and is a customer favorite, very helpful and friendly, and all this came because of the christian values of helping others and giving people a chance.

I don't believe it's my place to comment on SSM even as a Catholic, and it isn't my place to judge but I do respect that other Christians do interpret the teachings a different way. Chik-fil-a is entitled to their beliefs, as are Mrs. Henson and the customers of the establishment, I just don't think it's a huge thing to hoot and holler over. And I really need to get my chicken club sandwich fix settled soon.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, so? No one here is saying she can't. Just that it's meaningless for her to do so. As I stated, her father's company doesn't own the Muppets anymore, haven't for a decade. They don't license Chik anything - Disney owns the Muppets and their marketing outright.
Click to expand...

No one?

Form the OP:

It's a pity that simple symbols and characters from childhood now have to be politicized.
 
Ikari said:
K, but the owner is free to do so. Does Chick-Fil-A refuse service to gays? I don't care if the owner happens to be religious, it has no bearing on me.
Click to expand...

Nope, to my understanding there's not systemic discrimination against homosexuals.

I think you have people in three different levels of camps in terms of the "really" outraged.

- Those who are focusing their outrage primarily that the owner has a very fundamentalist view on gay marriage/homsexuality and expressed it in a way some find "disgusting"

- Those who are focusing their outrage primarily that the company gives charitable money to organizations who hold stances that are opposed to gay marriage and other gay rights

- Those wh oare focusing their outrage primarily that the company gives charitable money to organizations who specifically hold radical views regarding gays (homosexuality should be illegal, etc)
 
MaggieD said:
I just can't believe this company is being lambasted because it publicly espouses Christian values.
Click to expand...

Odly, most christians I know personally are ok with SSM. Maybe you just don't understand what christian values really are. Or maybe there are tons of different sects within christianity all of which calim to have the one true set of christian values....

Personally, if people use their religion as an excuse to be an ass, I still call them an ass, and Chic-Fil-A is acting the ass.
 
muciti said:
Do you also think the it is the right thing for those who are not in favor of ssm to boycott and refuse to support any organization or store that does support ssm or is run by homosexuals? Should consumers really be basing their spending habits on the sexual preferences and opinions of business owners?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I feel VERY strongly for SSM. I had a brother who was gay and was with the same man for 18 years. He died without having the right to marry the person he loved. So, yes, I feel it is right to base my spending habits on companies that openly are against SSM like Chic-fil-A.

If someone else feels that strongly against SSM, then it would be right for them as well to not spend money someplace that supports SSM.

There are people on the right and left that will either shop or not shop at places that say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. While I think that may be silly, someone may feel strongly enough either to shop or not shop there.

I guess my point is ultimately it is my money, and for what I have control of, I will decide who gets it.
 
MaggieD said:
Most Christians, I think, would say that marriage between a man and a woman is biblically correct. (I support gay marriage, so don't climb all OVER my ass. Ha!) Thank heaven there are enough pick-and-choose Christians in our country that also espouse to the "Judge not . . ." part. But Christianity itself doesn't support gay marriage. Period.

What anti-gay bigotry? Maybe I've missed something...because that's wrong.
Click to expand...

I thought it was christians who claimed that god gave us free ****ing will. Apparently that is only when you don't do what those same christians like what you do.
 
justabubba said:
but we have found out that the henson company will no longer work for chik fil a

guess we won't have anymore cows telling us to 'eat more chicken'
Click to expand...

But that's a bit of a lie on her part. They don't own the Muppets anymore, haven't since 2002. There is no evidence they have any relationship, business or otherwise, with Chick now.
 
lizzie said:
Yeah, from what I've read, they close on Sundays, so that their employees are free to go to church.
Click to expand...

What if their employees are Jewish?
 
Boo Radley said:
No one?

Form the OP:

It's a pity that simple symbols and characters from childhood now have to be politicized.
Click to expand...

That doesn't say she can't speak her piece. Just that it's a shame she's politicizing characters that her company no longer owns.
 
Thorgasm said:
What if their employees are Jewish?
Click to expand...

They can go to church too. They need to, so they can learn something! :mrgreen:

A business has a right to close on Sundays, and has a right to say its so their employees can go to church. What the employees do on that day is up to them.
 
Last edited:
If you read my previous posts you would see that I think boycotts are effective and deny revenue. I also strongly stated that a business license is a RIGHT if the business is in compliance with zoning and product matters that apply to all. I'm vehemently in favor of SSM, I hold religion in utter disdain, but I'm appalled that the license was denied on the basis of their ugly philosophies. This is completely wrong and will not survive the expensive and unnecessary legal battle to follow.




ChuckBerry said:
The issue specklebang that got the whole ball rolling on this subject are Chicago and Boston's decisions to deny business licenses to Chick-Fil-A based on the owners public comments espousing his opinion on SSM. Boycotting is pointless anyway, and anyway it's really beside the point. It's one thing to boycott, it's another to use the power of government to prevent someone from opening a business based on their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
 
TheNextEra said:
Here's the thing, I feel VERY strongly for SSM. I had a brother who was gay and was with the same man for 18 years. He died without having the right to marry the person he loved. So, yes, I feel it is right to base my spending habits on companies that openly are against SSM like Chic-fil-A.

If someone else feels that strongly against SSM, then it would be right for them as well to not spend money someplace that supports SSM.

There are people on the right and left that will either shop or not shop at places that say Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. While I think that may be silly, someone may feel strongly enough either to shop or not shop there.

I guess my point is ultimately it is my money, and for what I have control of, I will decide who gets it.
Click to expand...

I know it is there right. You are not understanding my question. Is it the right thing for people to do who disagree with your point of view? You stated earlier people should boycott Chick fil a because of the opinion of their owner. I assume you think it is the right thing to do.

Lets say you and I were out and wanted to get some lunch and there was a restaurant owned by 2 gay men. If I did not agree with homosexuality would that be a good reason for me to not go to that restaurant? Or rather would it make more sense for me to eat some lunch there since their beliefs have nothing to do with my sandwich?
 
muciti said:
I know it is there right. You are not understanding my question. Is it the right thing for people to do who disagree with your point of view? You stated earlier people should boycott Chick fil a because of the opinion of their owner. I assume you think it is the right thing to do.

Lets say you and I were out and wanted to get some lunch and there was a restaurant owned by 2 gay men. If I did not agree with homosexuality would that be a good reason for me to not go to that restaurant? Or rather would it make more sense for me to eat some lunch there since their beliefs have nothing to do with my sandwich?
Click to expand...

If you chose not to eat there it would be because of your bigotry. That is the difference. People boycotting Chick Fil-A do so because the owner is a bigot and supports other bigots.
 
Funny how Chick Fil A has maintained the same positions for 44 years and the liberal groups suddenly found their voice and outrage...two months after Obama 'changed' his position.

The people upset over Chick Fil A's position on gay marriage have all the integrity of a singly ply cracked balsa wood bridge. If their own 'values' can be so easily sold out in the name of politics how can they expect ANYONE to take them seriously? I guarantee...ChickFilA comes out the winner on all of these public displays of 'courageous' outrage.
 
VanceMack said:
Funny how Chick Fil A has maintained the same positions for 44 years and the liberal groups suddenly found their voice and outrage...two months after Obama 'changed' his position.

The people upset over Chick Fil A's position on gay marriage have all the integrity of a singly ply cracked balsa wood bridge. If their own 'values' can be so easily sold out in the name of politics how can they expect ANYONE to take them seriously? I guarantee...ChickFilA comes out the winner on all of these public displays of 'courageous' outrage.
Click to expand...

I'm betting most people didn't realize Chick Fil A's stance before now.

I appreciate the irony of your outrage of the politicization of this issue by throwing Obama into it. :lol:
 
I don't see Old Testament folks as Christians, maybe some sect of orthodox Judaism, but not Christian. JC came a few centuries after an eye for an eye.

I don't see Chick fil a as espousing it's Christian Mission statement but rather a Robertson moment where they ponder out loud about Gawd not liking us shaking our fists and possible punishment.

It crossed the line from Christian Values to holding the wrath of Gawd overhead.

I don't care what the muppets do or don't do, I wouldn't bet on Jim Henson being oversad about the stand being taken.

Never been in a chik fast food place, most likely never will, their 'Christian mission Statement' never impressed me, their food average at best.
 
muciti said:
I know it is there right. You are not understanding my question. Is it the right thing for people to do who disagree with your point of view? You stated earlier people should boycott Chick fil a because of the opinion of their owner. I assume you think it is the right thing to do.

Lets say you and I were out and wanted to get some lunch and there was a restaurant owned by 2 gay men. If I did not agree with homosexuality would that be a good reason for me to not go to that restaurant? Or rather would it make more sense for me to eat some lunch there since their beliefs have nothing to do with my sandwich?
Click to expand...

I support the right of anybody who chooses not to patronize a particular business for whatever reason.
 
Thorgasm said:
If you chose not to eat there it would be because of your bigotry. That is the difference. People boycotting Chick Fil-A do so because the owner is a bigot and supports other bigots.
Click to expand...

Ironic dont you think? Equality is not something you agree with? Are people allowed to have beliefs that differ from yours, or does that make them suddenly a bigot? One would argue that you boycotting a business because of a persons beliefs is equally bigotted.
 
Last edited:
Thorgasm said:
I'm betting most people didn't realize Chick Fil A's stance before now.

I appreciate the irony of your outrage of the politicization of this issue by throwing Obama into it. :lol:
Click to expand...
The irony is not from me...the irony is all the people running around pretending to give a **** about this issue while they swallowed their outrage throughout the Obama presidency. The irony is that they ignored the issue...as long as it was the same as Obamas. Oh...wait...thats not really irony is it...its just blatant, pathetic hypocrisy.

So...they will be attacking EVERY group that is opposed to gay marriage now...right? They will be going after black ministers, Hispanic and black groups...just like they did following the prop 8 vote in California. OH...wait...they didnt. So...yeah...it WILL be just like California.

****ing hypocrites. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom