Chick-fil-a

[Nick1911]

I was going to bugger up the McDonalds thread with this, but decided it probably belongs in it's own thread, in politics.

I personally don't eat at Chick-fil-a. 

Here's the crux of why:

Through WinShape, Chick-fil-A has given $3 million to anti-gay social conservative groups since 2003, with a total of $2 million in 2009 alone. [more]

I'm not gay, but I view anti-gay = anti-freedom.  So, I avoid them.

Anyone else here do the same?  Any other fairly large companies that you boycott for religious or political reasons outside the gun world?  (I know some boycott paypal for being anti-gun.) 

[Perd Hapley]

The politics of gay are anti-freedom, so I applaud them for their principled stand. I would patronize them more heavily, if they had stores in my neighborhood.

[Fitz]

I was going to bugger up the McDonalds thread with this, but decided it probably belongs in it's own thread, in politics.

I personally don't eat at Chick-fil-a. 

Here's the crux of why:

I'm not gay, but I view anti-gay = anti-freedom.  So, I avoid them.

Anyone else here do the same?  Any other fairly large companies that you boycott for religious or political reasons outside the gun world?  (I know some boycott paypal for being anti-gun.) 

I don't like their anti gay donations either.

But I also recognize that they don't own the restaurants, local franchise owners do. So I eat there anyways.

Yeah, the corporation gets the franchise fees, etc... but any boycotting of stores would hurt the individual franchise owners a helluva lot more than the big organization

[MechAg94]

I think I'd have to side with Fistful here. What does "anti-gay" mean?  Who labeled them as that and why?  I wouldn't trust left labels like that without knowing more facts.

[MechAg94]

From footnotes on wiki page.

IRS 990 forms show that WinShape, the restaurant chain's charitable foundation which was founded by Chick-Fil-A's chairman S. Truett Cathy in 1994, gave to the following groups in 2009:

    Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
    Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
    National Christian Foundation: $240,000
    Focus On The Family: $12,500
    Eagle Forum: $5,000
    Exodus International: $1,000
    Family Research Council: $1,000

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/chick-fil-a-donated-anti-gay-groups-2009_n_1069429.html

So which of those organizations is really anti-gay?  I am sure they are anti-gay-marriage which is political issue.

[Fitz]

From footnotes on wiki page.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/chick-fil-a-donated-anti-gay-groups-2009_n_1069429.html

So which of those organizations is really anti-gay?  I am sure they are anti-gay-marriage which is political issue.

Brady Campaign isn't anti gun

They're just anti-you-owning-guns, which is a political issue.

[CNYCacher]

The "anti-gay" claims are pretty weak, actually.

[HankB]

After reading this thread and a couple of links (including the one from the  HuffPo) . . . I think I'll be eating there more often.

[BlueStarLizzard]

My mom did the same with Domino's, who at one point (i don't know if this is still the case) gave money too Pro Life lobbiest.

As CSD said, it's the local franchise owners who you are dealing with, who may or may not agree with their companies political leanings. Yes, you could put the local guy out of business if you found enough support, and if you knocked out a good portion of francises, you could hurt the overall company, but in the end, you will be doing A LOT more damage to the local guy then anyone else.

[Fitz]

My mom did the same with Domino's, who at one point (i don't know if this is still the case) gave money too Pro Life lobbiest.

As CSD said, it's the local franchise owners who you are dealing with, who may or may not agree with their companies political leanings. Yes, you could put the local guy out of business if you found enough support, and if you knocked out a good portion of francises, you could hurt the overall company, but in the end, you will be doing A LOT more damage to the local guy then anyone else.

As CSD said?

[BlueStarLizzard]

As CSD said?

Oh, sorry, as fitz said.

It's the dang avatar. He has gray face too!
 

[makattak]

Back onto the topic, my wife and I will not shop at Whole Foods because many of their francisees (including the local ones) donate to Planned Parenthood. Not really a sacrifice for me, but my wife REALLY would love to shop there. Their support for abortion means it is a sacrifice she has no problem making, but she really likes a lot of their products.

[Perd Hapley]

Brady Campaign isn't anti gun

They're just anti-you-owning-guns, which is a political issue.

False analogy is false.

[Fitz]

Nonexistent support of your flippant comment is non-existent.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Back onto the topic, my wife and I will not shop at Whole Foods because many of their francisees (including the local ones) donate to Planned Parenthood. Not really a sacrifice for me, but my wife REALLY would love to shop there. Their support for abortion means it is a sacrifice she has no problem making, but she really likes a lot of their products.

I need to shop there more often.

[Perd Hapley]

Will the OP of this thread also be accused of trolling?

Nonexistent support of your flippant comment is non-existent.

Gun owners just don't want to be interfered or meddled with. I am all for staying out of the affairs of homosexuals. Legally recognizing homosexual marriages would be the opposite of that.

[Fitz]

Will the OP of this thread also be accused of trolling?

Gun owners just don't want to be interfered or meddled with. I am all for staying out of the affairs of homosexuals. Legally recognizing homosexual marriages would be the opposite of that.

Negative. Currently, they are being denied a legal status (with associated benefits) that are given to heterosexuals.

If there were no legal benefits to marriage, you may be right.

Government should not be involved in marriage at all... but since we are, everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose. Or at the very least, be able to get the same benefits from the arrangement.

[makattak]

Negative. Currently, they are being denied a legal status (with associated benefits) that are given to heterosexuals.

If there were no legal benefits to marriage, you may be right.

Government should not be involved in marriage at all... but since we are, everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose. Or at the very least, be able to get the same benefits from the arrangement.

So, as a libertarian, you are for more governmental coercion. Got it.

[Fitz]

So, as a libertarian, you are for more governmental coercion. Got it.

I'm against government rules being responsible for offering status and benefits (insurance, inheritance, etc) to one class of citizens and not another.

If we're going to get government out of marriage, we need to do it entirely.

We don't get to say "NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN MARRIAGE" while we afford special legal status to hetero married couples.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Fitz, don't bother.

They refuse to accept that a large portion of the world defines marriage diffrently then they do. You can point out every and all of the logical and actual reasons that they are wrong and they'll just sit there and scream "That's NOT MARRIAGE!!"

It's kinda funny to watch 'em blow there tops for awhile, but then things get heated, thread gets locked and no body has anymore fun.
 

[makattak]

I'm against government rules being responsible for offering status and benefits (insurance, inheritance, etc) to one class of citizens and not another.

If we're going to get government out of marriage, we need to do it entirely.

We don't get to say "NO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN MARRIAGE" while we afford special legal status to hetero married couples.

Why not? The government provides special benefits to married couples because we want to encourage a certain family structure. Man+Woman+childen is a stable structure for the benefit of society because progeny are best raised in a stable environment of that nature.

What benefit to society is there that the government should encourage homosexual coupling? Further, why do we limit it to couples who sleep together? Why should a pair of sisters living together not get the same benefits if it is simply a matter of "fairness"? Why should we limit it to just two people? Why should we limit it at all?

On what basis can you say marriage is about who you want to sleep with once you have discarded the stable nuclear family as the reason for governmental recognition and benefits?

[Fitz]

Why not? The government provides special benefits to married couples because we want to encourage a certain family structure. Man+Woman+childen is a stable structure for the benefit of society because progeny are best raised in a stable environment of that nature.

What benefit to society is there that the government should encourage homosexual coupling? Further, why do we limit it to couples who sleep together? Why should a pair of sisters living together not get the same benefits if it is simply a matter of "fairness"? Why should we limit it to just two people? Why should we limit it at all?

On what basis can you say marriage is about who you want to sleep with once you have discarded the stable nuclear family as the reason for governmental recognition and benefits?

SInce when is it the government's responsibility to encourage a particular family structure?

I must have missed that part in the powers delegated to the federal government

[makattak]

Fitz, don't bother.

They refuse to accept that a large portion of the world defines marriage diffrently then they do. You can point out every and all of the logical and actual reasons that they are wrong and they'll just sit there and scream "That's NOT MARRIAGE!!"

It's kinda funny to watch 'em blow there tops for awhile, but then things get heated, thread gets locked and no body has anymore fun.
 

It's not marriage. However, your side wants to force me to treat it as such.

I always find these threads amusing as I get to see the Coercive Libertarians go nuts. And I'll be sure to note who "blows their tops" in this thread.

[makattak]

SInce when is it the government's responsibility to encourage a particular family structure?

I must have missed that part in the powers delegated to the federal government

It's not the Federal Government's responsibility. Most of the benefits your side wants to appropriate for gays are provided by states whose powers were not detailed by the constitution.

[Fitz]

It's not the Federal Government's responsibility. Most of the benefits your side wants to appropriate for gays are provided by states whose powers were not detailed by the constitution.

OK... so i take it you have no issue with states legalizing gay marriage?