And the left yet again shows how tolerant they are

[Twotoplace]

Two more examples of the left's hypocrisy and your inability to defend it.

You would have more success arguing this latest chicken plucking as a First Amendment issue. Seems 50 percent of controversial/political threads these days start off with "it's not fair ..."

 

Getting real old. Just sayin'.

[Twotoplace]

No matter how many times or how many ways you say it, it is still not acurate to says that the company discriminates. There is no evidence of it.

 

THE COMPANY does not give money to further anti legislation.

 

The company's profits are distributed to different people as income. Much the same way as any large corporation.

 

Where those individuals decide to distribute their income is up to them.

 

You can try all you want to say the family and the company are the same, but in the end they are not.

 

One is a corporation, the other is individuals.

I think you're being disingenuous in separating the corporation from the family. This is a private family business, not a public company.

 

Lots of stuff on the Internet about the recipients of the Chick-Fil-A/Cathy family largesse.

 

Again, the issue isn't about CFA/Cathy family donations. It's about whether free speech has consequences. Obviously it does.

[All Tell]

You would have more success arguing this latest chicken plucking as a First Amendment issue. Seems 50 percent of controversial/political threads these days start off with "it's not fair ..."

 

Getting real old. Just sayin'.

 

You mean like someone who dodges an issue when he gets backed into a corner.

[coldweatherfan]

I think you're being disingenuous in separating the corporation from the family. This is a private family business, not a public company.

 

Lots of stuff on the Internet about the recipients of the Chick-Fil-A/Cathy family largesse.

 

Again, the issue isn't about CFA/Cathy family donations. It's about whether free speech has consequences. Obviously it does.

 

On the first part, I think you don't understand corporate law. The family and CFA incorporated are not the same thing.

 

The last part I agree with. Free speech does have consequences. Although this is the first time it has been mentioned in this thread.

 

If individuals don't want to support CFA, I have absolutely no problem with that. That is their choice.

 

I do have a problem with government entities doing it. a government entity telling someone they can't open a business because they believe something different than the government entity. I cannot support that in anyway. All the Cathy family has done is participate in the political process.

 

In these situations it is necessary to divest yourself of your position on the subject. If the company represented something you believe in would you have the same opinion that a government agency could stop them from owning a business.

[Bluto]

Intolerance of a private, family-owned company that funds intolerance is not hypocrisy.

Sorry, but it is.

Edited August 27, 2015 by mcpapa

[Twotoplace]

On the first part, I think you don't understand corporate law. The family and CFA incorporated are not the same thing.

 

The last part I agree with. Free speech does have consequences. Although this is the first time it has been mentioned in this thread.

 

If individuals don't want to support CFA, I have absolutely no problem with that. That is their choice.

 

I do have a problem with government entities doing it. a government entity telling someone they can't open a business because they believe something different than the government entity. I cannot support that in anyway. All the Cathy family has done is participate in the political process.

 

In these situations it is necessary to divest yourself of your position on the subject. If the company represented something you believe in would you have the same opinion that a government agency could stop them from owning a business.

When the Koch brothers talk, people listen. I don't think anyone asks: "Are they acting as a corporation (second largest private corporation in America), as a duo, as two individuals, or as a PAC when they donate X amount to Y." Same applies to CFA and Cathys. I'm sure there are similar examples of private firms donating to liberal causes, too.

 

Re: "I do have a problem with government entities doing it ... telling someone they can't open a business because they believe something different than the government entity. I cannot support that in any way":

 

Are you opposed to states trying to shut down (legal) abortion clinics? Are you opposed to cities enforcing zoning rules to ensure orderly growth? Just two of many examples of government entities doing what they do.

 

The Denver example is more problematic, partly because at least some on the city council loosely equate the granting of an airport franchise license to CFA as an endorsement of the company's/family's stance on gay rights. And since the airport to an extent represents the city, that makes this a difficult decision.

[Twotoplace]

Sorry, but it is.

For you to be correct, the course of action proposed by the Denver council would have to run counter to a belief previously expressed by said council.

[Hellbird]

Poor analogy. Try again.

 

Perhaps Chick-Fil-A should join ranks with the 200 or so large companies from coast to coast that have signed the pledge to be LGBT friendly. If not, then the company needs to realize that the causes you support define you ... and have consequences.

Actually it isn't a bad analogy at all.

[Hellbird]

I think you're being disingenuous in separating the corporation from the family. This is a private family business, not a public company.

 

Lots of stuff on the Internet about the recipients of the Chick-Fil-A/Cathy family largesse.

 

Again, the issue isn't about CFA/Cathy family donations. It's about whether free speech has consequences. Obviously it does.

 

Chick-Fil-A is a franchise which means each restaurant has it's own owners that pay a franchise fee to be an owner. Don't mistake that for being one family that owns every restaurant. What they own is the name etc. The Chick-Fil-A located in Florence I'm sure isn't told by the founders of the chain who they have to donate money to. What the founders donate money to is their business period, same as what you do with your money is none of my business.

[Hellbird]

When the Koch brothers talk, people listen. I don't think anyone asks: "Are they acting as a corporation (second largest private corporation in America), as a duo, as two individuals, or as a PAC when they donate X amount to Y." Same applies to CFA and Cathys. I'm sure there are similar examples of private firms donating to liberal causes, too.

 

Re: "I do have a problem with government entities doing it ... telling someone they can't open a business because they believe something different than the government entity. I cannot support that in any way":

 

Are you opposed to states trying to shut down (legal) abortion clinics? Are you opposed to cities enforcing zoning rules to ensure orderly growth? Just two of many examples of government entities doing what they do.

 

The Denver example is more problematic, partly because at least some on the city council loosely equate the granting of an airport franchise license to CFA as an endorsement of the company's/family's stance on gay rights. And since the airport to an extent represents the city, that makes this a difficult decision.

I would be willing to bet any amount of money that there are homosexuals who are employed by Chick-Fil-A

[coldweatherfan]

When the Koch brothers talk, people listen. I don't think anyone asks: "Are they acting as a corporation (second largest private corporation in America), as a duo, as two individuals, or as a PAC when they donate X amount to Y." Same applies to CFA and Cathys. I'm sure there are similar examples of private firms donating to liberal causes, too.

 

Re: "I do have a problem with government entities doing it ... telling someone they can't open a business because they believe something different than the government entity. I cannot support that in any way":

 

Are you opposed to states trying to shut down (legal) abortion clinics? Are you opposed to cities enforcing zoning rules to ensure orderly growth? Just two of many examples of government entities doing what they do.

 

The Denver example is more problematic, partly because at least some on the city council loosely equate the granting of an airport franchise license to CFA as an endorsement of the company's/family's stance on gay rights. And since the airport to an extent represents the city, that makes this a difficult decision.

 

While I don't believe in abortion, it is legal at this time.

 

So, unless one could show that the place was doing something illegal, I would not agree with shutting them down.

[Jim Schue]

Did anybody figure out who owns the Denver Airport? It's kind of a key part to this discussion.

[Hellbird]

Did anybody figure out who owns the Denver Airport? It's kind of a key part to this discussion.

I wonder how much of it is ran by the federal gov't. If it's anything like Great Cincinnati Airport it is ran by a board but the federal gov't is what funds the majority of it so I would say it's not locally "Owned" per say but funded federally and also local taxes etc.

[Twotoplace]

From flydenver.com:

 

Who owns and operates Denver International Airport?

 

The City and County of Denver owns and operates Denver International Airport. Under the city charter, the management, operation and control of Denver International Airport is delegated to the city’s Department of Aviation. The Manager of the Department of Aviation is appointed by and reports directly to the Mayor of Denver.

[B-Ball-fan]

My personal knee-jerk reaction to this is that if Chick-Fil-A hasn't discriminated against anyone, then I don't have any problem with them having a location at this Denver Airport.

 

I've never eaten there, but have often heard that they are really good, and run a nice clean restaurant. It's very possible that someday in the future I'll check them out.

 

I haven't a clue of the views of the ownership of most restaurants or businesses I patronize, and have rarely ever given it a concern. Their views are not what makes or breaks for me whether or not they provide a good product or service.

 

I love the Waffle House's fluffy omelets, and if their company happened to voice an opinion that's opposite of mine, at the end of the day I'd still think that nobody does a better fluffy omelet than them.

 

The only reason I know about Chick-Fil-A's views is because it's been blasted all over the news, and me so far not having tried them has nothing to do with it.

 

If they were over the top and in your face about their views, then that could possibly sway me away, but if they generally run a respectable business, I really don't care what their views are. They just better not be pumping their chickens with some sort of anti-gay mind controlling drug. I kid of course.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the power of throwing money at some causes, but if by chance they do put their money in places supporting anti-gay campaigns, no amount of attempts at swaying me personally could ever possibly change my ideas on things, however I suppose that those with little understanding of homosexuality to begin with, or are already set with their beliefs could possibly be more easily swayed if possibly on the fence.

 

But there again, whether or not I personally agree, where they put their money is their own damn business.

 

This country is based on freedoms, and I support the idea of everyone whether or not I agree with them or not, to have that freedom just as long as it's not over the top extreme like the Westboro Baptist Church, or one group abusing their freedoms by trying to steal away the freedoms of others.

 

Live and let live.