=there couldnt possibly be a worse representation of the truth than this statement. As usual twotoplace falls in line with the propaganda from the far , far , far left . The company in NO WAY dispenses politics with its food. Just hogwash to say that.

Chick-fil-a has donated more than $3 million to anti-gay causes. So with your chicken sandwich you get a side order of politics.

Edited September 13, 201412 yr by True blue (and gold)
Fixed quote tags

Isn't the first time this has happened to Chick-fil-a. If a company wishes to dispense politics with its food products, no one should be surprised that a school administrator says no, lest the school be accused of promoting a controversial point of view.

 

In other words, this isn't an attack on Christianity.

 

From an article I found:

 

"(Ventura) isn't the first time that Chick-fil-A has prompted outcry in an educational setting. In 2012, the student government at North Carolina's Elon University voted 35-11 to ask the school's food vendor, Aramark, to find another restaurant to take the fast food chicken chain's place. Similarly, St. Mary's College in Maryland and North Carolina's Davidson College have both opted against serving Chick-fil-A products at school events."

So, the fact that other colleges launched an attack on Chick-fil-a over its owner's Christian views proves that this was not an attack on Christianity? That does not even qualify as circular logic. :lol2:

Chick-fil-a has donated more than $3 million to anti-gay causes. So with your chicken sandwich you get a side order of politics.

The correct characterization is "anti-gay marriage" - not "anti-gay." I am guessing that you do know the difference.

Chick-fil-a has donated more than $3 million to anti-gay causes. So with your chicken sandwich you get a side order of politics.

Links that will tell us who these groups are and what exactly their stance is? Because if it's anti-gay marriage, that doesn't equate anti-gay.

So, the fact that other colleges launched an attack on Chick-fil-a over its owner's Christian views proves that this was not an attack on Christianity? That does not even qualify as circular logic. :lol2:

Prejudice is not a Christian view.

Chick-fil-a has donated more than $3 million to anti-gay causes. So with your chicken sandwich you get a side order of politics.

 

Would you care to detail ALL their donations in the interest of discussing what sides we get with our chicken sandwich? $30 million for scholarships? 7 million for education? 1.5 million to sports programs for disadvantaged youth? Go ahead, I'll wait. Hint, you won't find them on moveonmsnbchuffingtonpost.leftwingcrazies.com

Edited September 13, 201412 yr by True blue (and gold)
Fixed quote tags

Prejudice is not a Christian view.

Neither is religious bigotry. You may think that opposition to gay marriage is "predjudice," but unless I am mistaken, you voted for our outlaw president, Barack Obama, when he professed the same position on gay marraiage as the late owner of Chick-fil-a held. Was Obama lying about his position then, is he lying about it now, or did he change his position for some reason other than political convenience?

 

The fact that liberal voters such as yourself voted for Obama when he opposed gay marriage but now hate on Chick-fil-a because its owners hold a similar position is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy.

Neither is religious bigotry. You may think that opposition to gay marriage is "predjudice," but unless I am mistaken, you voted for our outlaw president, Barack Obama, when he professed the same position on gay marraiage as the late owner of Chick-fil-a held. Was Obama lying about his position then, is he lying about it now, or did he change his position for some reason other than political convenience?

 

The fact that liberal voters such as yourself voted for Obama when he opposed gay marriage but now hate on Chick-fil-a because its owners hold a similar position is a perfect example of liberal hypocrisy.

Chick-fil-A has brought this controversy onto itself. The company has a right to donate to right-wing causes that advocate this or that, and its customers have a right to refuse to do business with Chick-fil-A. Simple as that. The fact that the Cathy family is devoutly Christian has little to do with what's going on.

Chick-fil-A has brought this controversy onto itself. The company has a right to donate to right-wing causes that advocate this or that, and its customers have a right to refuse to do business with Chick-fil-A. Simple as that. The fact that the Cathy family is devoutly Christian has little to do with what's going on.

 

So should we go through every corporations political donations or their employees political donations and try to punish them if they don't agree with us ?

Chick-fil-A has brought this controversy onto itself. The company has a right to donate to right-wing causes that advocate this or that, and its customers have a right to refuse to do business with Chick-fil-A. Simple as that. The fact that the Cathy family is devoutly Christian has little to do with what's going on.

Their business seems to be doing quite well. You still haven't answered me or 75center. Oversight or would links shed a different light than you want?

Chick-fil-A has brought this controversy onto itself. The company has a right to donate to right-wing causes that advocate this or that, and its customers have a right to refuse to do business with Chick-fil-A. Simple as that. The fact that the Cathy family is devoutly Christian has little to do with what's going on.

The fact that Chick-fil-a opposes gay marriage has nothing to do with the controversies surrounding it. Otherwise, Barack Obama would just be another failed presidential candidate instead of a failed president.

 

The problem that liberals have with Chiick-fil-a is that is owned by a family of conservative Christians. Their position on gay marriage is just an excuse for persecuting them.

A few days before the back-to-school event, the principal broke the news to the booster club. She said her “main reason” for banning Chick-fil-A was because she did not want an outside organization to sell or advertise during the event.

 

“I work really hard to keep Ventura High School from being a marketplace for all kinds of vendors to come to the campus and reap profit,” she told the newspaper.

 

Well, dear. That’s a bit disingenuous. Chick-fil-A was not making a single penny. They were giving all the proceeds to the booster club. Period.

 

I suspect her “main reason” had more to do with her statement about Chick-fil-A’s opposition to gay rights.

 

There’s just one teensy-weensy problem with Principal Wyatt’s explanation: It’s not true.

 

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t have a stance on gay marriage,” Shaffer told the Star. “We treat everyone who walks through our doors, regardless of their religion or sexual orientation, with honor, dignity and respect.”

 

In a 2012 interview that was published by Baptist Press, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy affirmed his support of the biblical definition of the family. The interview sparked nationwide outrage among the LGBT community and the mainstream media.

 

“Well, guilty as charged,” he said. "We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”

 

That’s it. That’s what Dan Cathy said. Here’s the link to the interview. Read it for yourself. Not once did Cathy say anything disparaging about the LGBT community or gay marriage.

 

 

When will there be an earthquake that will plunge the entire state of California into the Pacific. All this kind of STUPIDITY starts in Cali. :no:

So should we go through every corporations political donations or their employees political donations and try to punish them if they don't agree with us ?

No digging required here. Dan Cathy made his comments in public forums, so he can't hide behind the cloak of Christianity and claim "foul." To answer your question, yes, every company's political spending should be scrutinized and then publicized. What one then does with said information is up to the individual.

No digging required here. Dan Cathy made his comments in public forums, so he can't hide behind the cloak of Christianity and claim "foul." To answer your question, yes, every company's political spending should be scrutinized and then publicized. What one then does with said information is up to the individual.

Deflect, ignore, repeat. Deflect, ignore, repeat. Deflect, ignore, repeat...

Deflect, ignore, repeat. Deflect, ignore, repeat. Deflect, ignore, repeat...

Let's try to keep the discussion on a semi-high level rather than start with the sophomoric stuff. I also should point out that some high schools on the West Coast sponsor LGBT clubs for students. Do not know if the California high school in question does, but that may explain this Chick-fil-A decision.