Just wondering....those who are in favor of boycotting Chick Fil A for their political stand of 'traditional' marriage -- think its perfectly fair for those who don't agree with same sex marriage to boycott Ben & Jerry's and other companies for supporting gay marriage? I just wonder if the somewhat hostile attitude of those who support same sex marriage would be just as passionate in support of others who might disagree with companies who support same sex marriage. I doubt it. But fair is fair...right?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/ben-jerrys-support-gay-marriage-with-a-new

It is a fair question. A little tolerance on both sides would go a long way.....

I don't have a hostile attitude of those who don't support same sex marriage and I don't agree with the all that's going on with CFA. I think it's a free speech issue with CFA and I do support the owners right to voice his thoughts. I don't agree with him and I choose not to use his business. If folks feel strong about being against same sex marriage then they are free to not use the business that do support it.

Eat where ya want. Don't eat where ya don't wanna eat.
Way too easy a decision, for anyone.

If those who want to boycott do so, then more ice cream for me!

Tolerance for the bullies is one thing, and tolerance for the victims are another. But eat where you want and let history judge.

Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is OverPriced and OverRated.
It is unfair to compare any Ice Cream using Ben and Jerry's as a Standard.
In fact, they lose points for OverCuteness in Naming.
(the Tappet Bros. are making a legal move to stop the madness)

Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream is OverPriced and OverRated.
It is unfair to compare any Ice Cream using Ben and Jerry's as a Standard.
In fact, they lose points for OverCuteness in Naming.
(the Tappet Bros. are making a legal move to stop the madness)

I don't remember this topic being a discussion about the quality of ice cream or brand names.

I don't remember this topic being a discussion about the quality of ice cream or brand names.

Sorry . . . Allow me to simplify the concept for you without appearing to be patronizing: I don't support or boycott any provider of good stuff based on their corporate relationship to social/personal issues outside of my enjoyment of that product. Sorry to make something so simple so confusing to . . . well . . . you . . . and/or others with apparently/self admitted short term/long impact memory deficits. =)

Even if Ben and Jerry's wasn't overpriced and overrated I wouldn't care one way or the other about their "corporate stance" on "gay issues".

geez.....

Sorry . . . Allow me to simplifiy the concept for you: I don't support or boycott any provider of good stuff based on their corporate relationship to social/personal issues outside of my enjoyment of that product. Sorry to make something so simple so confusing to . . . well . . . you . . . and/or others with apparently/self admitted short term/long impact memory deficits. =)

Even if Ben and Jerry's wasn't overpriced and overrated I wouldn't care one way or the other about their "corporate stance" on "gay issues".

geez.....

There was nothing complicated about your comment. You were talking about the quality of ice cream and their name which was off subject. Thanks for trying to clarify anyway.

are we done now?.....

are we done now?.....

I am if you are.

I just wonder if the somewhat hostile attitude of those who support same sex marriage would be just as passionate in support of others who might disagree with companies who support same sex marriage. I doubt it. But fair is fair...right?

Of course it's fair. People are entitled to vote their beliefs with their pocketbooks no matter what their opinion. When companies don't just voice their opinions on individual topics, but give corporate profits to activist organizations devoted to their pet causes (as both CFA & Ben&Jerry's do) it's more than just a speech issue. By supporting their business, you're helping drive money toward a cause. I think it's perfectly sensible to ask yourself and like-minded people if continuing to support a business that spends money advocating causes you find abhorrent is something you really ought to be doing.

That said, recognizing the value in a tactic is not the same thing as respecting the sentiment behind it. You can, say, find the Southern Baptist Convention's old boycott of Disney for providing domestic partner benefits bigoted and offensive while still believing that the SBC had every right to call for the boycott in the first place.

I'm going to leave the comfy confines of my Lake Cabin today and drive to Tulsa. Have a Chic-Fil-A sandwich and a tub of Ben & Jerry's Coffee Heath Bar Crunch Ice Cream--What a Country.

Amen.

With the exception of the crazed Westboro Baptist Church bunch -you seldom hear of such hostility from 'Christians' regarding a very large number of companies that SUPPORT same sex marriage. Yet, because ONE company president states his belief against same sex marriage, the hostility among some mayors, media talking heads and others to ONE company compared to dozens and dozens of pro-same sex marriage companies seems to be way, way, way out of proportion. I realize we don't live in a 'fair' culture. But this entire Chick Fil A fiasco seems to be quite unfair in hostility. Its just my opinion....

With the exception of the crazed Westboro Baptist Church bunch -you seldom hear of such hostility from 'Christians' regarding a very large number of companies that SUPPORT same sex marriage. Yet, because ONE company president states his belief against same sex marriage, the hostility among some mayors, media talking heads and others to ONE company compared to dozens and dozens of pro-same sex marriage companies seems to be way, way, way out of proportion. I realize we don't live in a 'fair' culture. But this entire Chick Fil A fiasco seems to be quite unfair in hostility. Its just my opinion....

Bravo!

With the exception of the crazed Westboro Baptist Church bunch -you seldom hear of such hostility from 'Christians' regarding a very large number of companies that SUPPORT same sex marriage. Yet, because ONE company president states his belief against same sex marriage, the hostility among some mayors, media talking heads and others to ONE company compared to dozens and dozens of pro-same sex marriage companies seems to be way, way, way out of proportion. I realize we don't live in a 'fair' culture. But this entire Chick Fil A fiasco seems to be quite unfair in hostility. Its just my opinion....

True. Other Christian organizations, such as the American Family Association, still advocate boycotts against pro gay companies, but are seldom in the news for doing so. I think the irritation against Chick-fil-a is more from it donating to anti-gay causes than the free speech aspect of it.

I personally don't get any of it and find it all pretty hypocritical.

There are many, MANY companies whose actual business practices are far more directly detrimental to individuals.

Ever watch any documentaries over the bloodshed just so we can have $.47/lb bananas? Or the number of companies that use basically slave labor to produce cheap clothing and electronics and even brooms? The list goes on and on..... so I'm not about to get upset because someone is asked a direct question and gives an honest answer. The company has NEVER hidden its Christian roots, so for this to be an issue now is simply one side taking advantage of the simplemindedness of our population in general.

True. Other Christian organizations, such as the American Family Association, still advocate boycotts against pro gay companies, but are seldom in the news for doing so. I think the irritation against Chick-fil-a is more from it donating to anti-gay causes than the free speech aspect of it.

I understand. But how does the Chick Fil A contribution to support 'traditional' marriage compared to...say...the owner of Amazon who recently gave well over one million dollars to support same sex marriage?? And yet the hostility from pro-traditional marriage supporters isn't a bleep on the radar screen toward Amazon!!! I sense the amount of hostility thrown toward the 'traditional' marriage statement shows how unfair, LACK of tolerance many gay supporters apparently have. It seems like those demanding tolerance are very much intolerant as clearly demonstrated by the Chick Fil A fiasco.

I think the irritation against Chick-fil-a is more from it donating to anti-gay causes than the free speech aspect of it.

This ^ is why a lot of folks are/were upset

I understand. But how does the Chick Fil A contribution to support 'traditional' marriage compared to...say...the owner of Amazon who recently gave well over one million dollars to support same sex marriage?? And yet the hostility from pro-traditional marriage supporters isn't a bleep on the radar screen toward Amazon!!! I sense the amount of hostility thrown toward the 'traditional' marriage statement shows how unfair, LACK of tolerance many gay supporters apparently have. It seems like those demanding tolerance are very much intolerant as clearly demonstrated by the Chick Fil A fiasco.


Boils down to most gay folks wanting to marry just like all of us heteros...I can absolutely understand how they would feel hurt by Cathy confirming he is funding against them...Doesn't really compare the other way around since we already have that right

Boils down to most gay folks wanting to marry just like all of us heteros...I can absolutely understand how they would feel hurt by Cathy confirming he is funding against them...Doesn't really compare the other way around since we already have that right
Soooooo....pro-traditional folks should be hurt by by the funding of many, many pro same sex marriage supporter companies, owners? Perhaps pro-traditional marriage folks should stage a 'kiss-in' at business that support same sex marriage in protest?

Tolerance for the bullies is one thing, and tolerance for the victims are another.

Exactly.

Also, for me, this has never been an issue of whether or not a business owner has a right to proclaim his personal belief system. I don't know anyone who has said that he should not have been allowed to say what he feels. But, let's be honest--how many people ate at Chick-Fil-A August 1 and were actually there because of 'freedom of speech,' and not because they happened to agree with Cathy about same-sex marriage?

Exactly.

Also, for me, this has never been an issue of whether or not a business owner has a right to proclaim his personal belief system. I don't know anyone who has said that he should not have been allowed to say what he feels. But, let's be honest--how many people ate at Chick-Fil-A August 1 and were actually there because of 'freedom of speech,' and not because they happened to agree with Cathy about same-sex marriage?

Does it really matter, The US is still a Free Country

Does it really matter, The US is still a Free Country

As long as you don't define "free" as being able to marry who you want.

Soooooo....pro-traditional folks should be hurt by by the funding of many, many pro same sex marriage supporter companies, owners? Perhaps pro-traditional marriage folks should stage a 'kiss-in' at business that support same sex marriage in protest?

No need for the pro traditional divorce folks to stage anything since they already have it made

No need for the pro traditional divorce folks to stage anything since they already have it made

I think they already did - and by all accounts it was a huge turnout - aka, Chic-Fil-A Appreciation Day!

I think this issue could be solved by taking a slightly different angle and removing some of the emotional aspects of an emotional debate. I think we need to separate the religious and legal aspects a relationship.

First remove the state completely from marriage. Marriage is a religious sanctification of a relationship between two people. Keep the government completely out of religious ceremonies. Permit any ordained minister to preside over any marriage that fits into his/her beliefs. This removes government completely from telling any minister who they can or cannot marry in their church. Isn't this true freedom from government interference into religion? I am fairly sure the near and far right have been demanding government keep out of religion for a long time. Then this side of it becomes 100% a religious question to be decided between the people desiring marriage, the clergy, and the deity they worship.

Second, implement civil unions for everyone desiring to cover all the legal bases involved in these matters. We pretty much do this now in many states. If the federal government is going to get involved in this debate, this is its rightful place. It then becomes an equal protection under the law debate at this level. Make all involved in these unions eligible for health care coverage, insurance, hospital visitation, and anything else like this where there is a entitlement or service available to a person based solely upon their relationship with another. This will provide husbands, wives, partners, or whatever label you wish to give them all the same rights during and after the union.

The federal and state governments no longer tell a church what they can and cannot do with respect to this issue, and everyone maintains their personal beliefs and can hold them without interference from, or interfering with, other people. It really shouldn't matter what I think because I have no right to force anyone else to live in a manner that I demand so far as it does not interfere with me or any other citizen. (All the excessive PDA needs to stop by BOTH sides - sheesh, show a little decorum and for the love of God, don't make me explain some things to a child before they really need to be concerned with that stuff!)

As for those fearing an epidemic of polygamy, I don't see it happening. No sane man would want to go that route and no sane woman would go for it. ;)

There, I solved it! Now will everyone please go get a chicken sandwich and some ice cream! (Sorry, it's Sunday, no Chic-Fil-A today - and that's ok.)

But how does the Chick Fil A contribution to support 'traditional' marriage compared to...say...the owner of Amazon who recently gave well over one million dollars to support same sex marriage?? And yet the hostility from pro-traditional marriage supporters isn't a bleep on the radar screen toward Amazon!!! I sense the amount of hostility thrown toward the 'traditional' marriage statement shows how unfair, LACK of tolerance many gay supporters apparently have. It seems like those demanding tolerance are very much intolerant as clearly demonstrated by the Chick Fil A fiasco.

Let's see if we can make a distinction between the actions of Amazon and Chick-Fil-A.

On the one hand, Chick-Fil-A is working to prohibit others from enjoying the right to marry; on the other hand, Amazon is working to ensure that a historically denounced demographic enjoys the right to marry.

If a vegetarian doesn't approve of eating meat and meat byproducts, he ought not eat meat and meat byproducts. For such a person, abstaining from meat would be a reasonable and virtuous endeavor. However, working to ensure that others cannot eat meat -- simply because he personally doesn't approve of the diet -- is act that infringes upon the liberties of others, and no one should be surprised that such an effort was met with hostility and protest.

Chick-Fil-A's attempts to control the marital options and limit the freedoms of a particular demographic are what have incensed many across the world. The reason behind so much hostility should be obvious.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it all...

Let's see if we can make a distinction between the actions of Amazon and Chick-Fil-A.

On the one hand, Chick-Fil-A is working to prohibit others from enjoying the right to marry; on the other hand, Amazon is working to ensure that a historically denounced demographic enjoys the right to marry.

If a vegetarian doesn't approve of eating meat and meat byproducts, he ought not eat meat and meat byproducts. For such a person, abstaining from meat would be a reasonable and virtuous endeavor. However, working to ensure that others cannot eat meat -- simply because he personally doesn't approve of the diet -- is act that infringes upon the liberties of others, and no one should be surprised that such an effort was met with hostility and protest.

Chick-Fil-A's attempts to control the marital options and limit the freedoms of a particular demographic are what have incensed many across the world. The reason behind so much hostility should be obvious.

Well said

Let's see if we can make a distinction between the actions of Amazon and Chick-Fil-A.

On the one hand, Chick-Fil-A is working to prohibit others from enjoying the right to marry; on the other hand, Amazon is working to ensure that a historically denounced demographic enjoys the right to marry.

If a vegetarian doesn't approve of eating meat and meat byproducts, he ought not eat meat and meat byproducts. For such a person, abstaining from meat would be a reasonable and virtuous endeavor. However, working to ensure that others cannot eat meat -- simply because he personally doesn't approve of the diet -- is act that infringes upon the liberties of others, and no one should be surprised that such an effort was met with hostility and protest.

Chick-Fil-A's attempts to control the marital options and limit the freedoms of a particular demographic are what have incensed many across the world. The reason behind so much hostility should be obvious.

One other interesting distinction might be in the amount of money spent on causes specifically Pro- or Anti- Same-sex marriage. It would take an economist to accurately determine that, but on the surface it seems like the founder of WinShape Foundation has given a remarkable small amount of money to deter same sex marriage.

When it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, this week has certainly been historic. On "The Colbert Report" on Thursday night, Stephen Colbert still wasn't able to come to grips with the news. "I don't know about you, but I am still reeling from President Obama's announcement that he is gay," he joked. "“I have to assume that’s the reason he supports gay marriage."

Kidding aside, Colbert took the opportunity to debunk the claim, propagated by many Christian conservatives, that Jesus condemned homosexual relationships. He played footage of Dallas megachurch pastor Robert Jeffress -- the guy who thinks Mormonism is a cult -- suggesting that Obama "has really contradicted the Jesus he says he followed."

Colbert decided to go directly to the source. "I would like to read to you what the Jesus said about homosexuality," he declared, breaking out his trusty Bible. "I would like to, but he never said anything about it. Evidently Jesus was so filled with rage that he was speechless."

But just because Jesus never publicly denounced homosexuality doesn't mean he personally approved of it, Colbert reasoned. "I am confident he condemned it all the time in private, when he was hanging out with those other 12 dudes at their elaborate dinner parties, where they all sat on the same side of the table, just living the bachelor life together, drinking wine and working on their washboard abs," he said.

As a practicing Catholic and Sunday school teacher, Colbert presumably knows a thing or two about Jesus. But could his stance on gay marriage -- and his winking suggestion that Jesus and his disciples were a bunch of "confirmed bachelors" -- draw the ire of fellow Catholics? We shall see.

As a practicing Catholic and Sunday school teacher, Colbert presumably knows a thing or two about Jesus. But could his stance on gay marriage -- and his winking suggestion that Jesus and his disciples were a bunch of "confirmed bachelors" -- draw the ire of fellow Catholics? We shall see.

If Catholic nuns can draw the ire of the Vatican for spending so much time helping the poor that they've neglected their gay-bashing and slut-shaming duties, I'm sure someone somewhere started writing hate mail to Colbert Thursday night.

If the owner of Chik-fil-A was an outspoken Atheist who proclaimed Christianity as a nonsense that will destroy 'Merica and used his fortune to support groups that worked to secularize America and remove tax-free status from churches, there would be no uproar. There would be no boycott. It would just be a nice hard working job creator expressing his freedom of speech.

If the owner of Chik-fil-A was an outspoken Atheist who proclaimed Christianity as a nonsense that will destroy 'Merica and used his fortune to support groups that worked to secularize America and remove tax-free status from churches, there would be no uproar. There would be no boycott. It would just be a nice hard working job creator expressing his freedom of speech.

And he wouldn't do well in the South at all

If the owner of Chik-fil-A was an outspoken Atheist who proclaimed Christianity as a nonsense that will destroy 'Merica and used his fortune to support groups that worked to secularize America and remove tax-free status from churches, there would be no uproar. There would be no boycott. It would just be a nice hard working job creator expressing his freedom of speech.

Absolutely. After all, nowhere in recorded history has anyone at any time ever risen up in defense of Christianity when someone spoke ill of it. Nope. Nada, Doesn't happen. Seedy to even consider such a notion.

oh, wait.

Absolutely. After all, nowhere in recorded history has anyone at any time ever risen up in defense of Christianity when someone spoke ill of it. Nope. Nada, Doesn't happen. Seedy to even consider such a notion.

oh, wait.


could it be........................ the Crusades?

Free speech has zero to do with this issue, it's about the anti-gay interest groups that Chick-Fil-A gives millions to. Free speech is me saying I don't like your tie. That's okay, but when I start supporting groups and legislation that are working to make your tie illegal, that's probably crossing the line. Human rights > waffle fries. As much as people like to back up their prejudices with scripture, they LOVE to back it up with perceived threats to the constitution and 'merican ideals. Let's be fair? Let's be honest.

Does it really matter, The US is still a Free Country

Not if the PC crowd gets their way.

Not if the PC crowd gets their way.

From the person who constantly justifies restricting the rights of others, this is rich..

Free speech has zero to do with this issue, it's about the anti-gay interest groups that Chick-Fil-A gives millions to. Free speech is me saying I don't like your tie. That's okay, but when I start supporting groups and legislation that are working to make your tie illegal, that's probably crossing the line. Human rights > waffle fries. As much as people like to back up their prejudices with scripture, they LOVE to back it up with perceived threats to the constitution and 'merican ideals. Let's be fair? Let's be honest.

This is a lot of hyperbole. Chick-Fil-A does not give millions to anti-gay groups. Thousands, maybe. Millions, no. In fact, the most hated one often mentioned on this board is Exodus something or other. In 2010, Chick-Fil-A gave $1,000 to them. I can't find records for 2011, yet, but I'll bet it hasn't increased dramatically. The bulk of their charitible spending goes to other religious and community support efforts.

Chick-Fil-A Donated Nearly $2 Million To Anti-Gay Groups In 2010
July 02, 2012 9:26 am ET
In early 2011, Chick-fil-A came under fire for its donations and political ties to a number of anti-gay groups. Though Chick-fil-A continues to deny supporting an anti-gay agenda, the company has donated over $3 million to organizations like the Family Research Council and Exodus International between 2003 and 2009. And in 2010 alone, Chick-fil-A donated over $1.9 million to anti-gay causes, more than any other year for which public records are available.

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

They may just be spinning the facts to their favor, too, eh?

"EqualityMatters.org is a new media and communications initiative in support of gay equality. Through strategic communications, research, training and media monitoring we strengthen efforts for full LGBT rights and correct anti-gay misinformation. Our goal is to enhance advocacy and activism across all platforms and to leverage our expertise in support of others who are working to make full equality a national imperative."

Not saying that Chick-Fil-A hasn't shot themself in the foot by alienating a spectrum of their customers. Just saying that WinShape may not have anti-gay missions as it's sole or even top priority. Just like the organizations that EqualityMatters.org say are anti-gay. That may not be their top priority. When I was familiar with FCA, it wasn't promoting heterosexuality and denigrating homosexuality. ... except for Exodus International. What else can their goal be other than to cause an exodus of homosexual persons from the team?
I know it sounds like I'm trying to be a global warming denier ... er rather, an EqualityMatters.org denier. I just don't trust what everybody says at face value. To be fair, WinShape's stated goals and missions are rather admirable, as stated on their web-page, too.

Those numbers have been quoted by several reputable media sources, including Forbes.


And remember, Cathy hasn't just stuck to the the usual protect-the-family rhetoric. He's been quoted as saying: "We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him."

Pretty strong words and stance, especially since he purports that by endorsing gay marriage, our entire country is going to be judged by God.

Completely entitled to his opinions, but when you are using millions generated from your business to openly promote these types of extreme views you can't blame those targeted for having an extreme response.

It's the same sort of backlash directed at celebrities who use their wealth and high profile to promote what many see as nutty positions. They are viewed with cynicism and suspicion, as they probably should be.

The bulk of their charitible spending goes to other religious and community support efforts.

Who also likely use some of the money to fund anti gay programs

They may just be spinning the facts to their favor, too, eh?

"EqualityMatters.org is a new media and communications initiative in support of gay equality. Through strategic communications, research, training and media monitoring we strengthen efforts for full LGBT rights and correct anti-gay misinformation. Our goal is to enhance advocacy and activism across all platforms and to leverage our expertise in support of others who are working to make full equality a national imperative."

Not saying that Chick-Fil-A hasn't shot themself in the foot by alienating a spectrum of their customers. Just saying that WinShape may not have anti-gay missions as it's sole or even top priority. Just like the organizations that EqualityMatters.org say are anti-gay. That may not be their top priority. When I was familiar with FCA, it wasn't promoting heterosexuality and denigrating homosexuality. ... except for Exodus International. What else can their goal be other than to cause an exodus of homosexual persons from the team?
I know it sounds like I'm trying to be a global warming denier ... er rather, an EqualityMatters.org denier. I just don't trust what everybody says at face value. To be fair, WinShape's stated goals and missions are rather admirable, as stated on their web-page, too.

If you did say it, you would be wrong. They have set sales records ever since this BS started and continue to do so.

Who also likely use some of the money to fund anti gay programs

It would be more Christian to quit giving to anti-gay groups and start giving to the poor if Chick-fil-a doesn't already, or increase it if it already does.

What's that old phrase ... oh yeah, ask and ye shall recevie (or something close to that)
Chick-fil-A agrees to stop funding antigay groups, Chicago alderman says | The Lookout - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/chick-fil-funding-anti-gay-groups-175154249.html?_esi=1)