Chick - Fil-A BoycottFollow

Dude, you should have SEEN the ********* when I tried to marry five kittens.

Sure. And it looks as though his customers have spoken loud and clear. The claims of infringement of free speech were related to public statements by elected officials that they would use their power to block Chick-Fil-A's business in their towns. That *is* infringement of free speech. And that's where the outrage came from. If you don't want people complaining about infringement of free speech, don't threaten to use government power to punish someone who speaks. Pretty simple, right?

That might be the only sensible thing I've ever seen you post.

I'll buy that.

I didn't realize this was all that the "protest for free speech by eating chikin" thing was about. I thought it was about all of the people who are boycotting the place.

Yeah, we have Zaxby's as a better local option. Food tastes better, and since the franchise is based out of our town (funny thing, about a dozen restaurant franchises are based around here) we get a small bit of locavore cred, too.

Weird, apparently you missed the sh*tstorm of protests from conservatives when the Muppets said they'd no longer work with Chick-fil-A that came days before Boston/Philly/Chicago officials made their announcements.

Then again, you don't get your news from anywhere, so I guess that makes sense

To be fair, I do agree with your first point: those officials, if they actually try to enact a ban or a barrier, are going over the line. That's most definitely NOT where the outrage came from, however; it just fanned the flames.

Edit: Eh, not worth it. This is OOT, not the Asylum.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 8:23am by LockeColeMA

So much hate.

The gay community and its supporters boycott the restaurant chain because the CEO is of a different opinion than them. The CEO is "boycotting" the gays because they're of a different opinion than him. And 'round we go!

I don't agree with his decision to donate money to the "war on homosexuals," but it's his money and his choice. If you don't like it, don't support it. I'm fairly certain I would not enjoy having a ***** up my butt, so I'm not going to try it.

To boycott his company because of his opinion just seems a little extreme to me. According to my English dictionary (yes, here we go again), a boycott is to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion. Basically, people are intimidating/coercing the CEO into changing his personal opinion. I don't know what the US constitution is like, but that's a classic breach of our constitutional right to be... well, free people.

The CEO doesn't like gays. So what? The kebab guy down on the corner dislikes me because I look nothing like him. I still go there. Why? Because he makes excellent kebabs. Who gives a **** if he doesn't like me? He doesn't have to like me, and I don't have to like him. He takes my money and gives me tasty food. Everything else is outside my care sphere.

Like I said, I disagree with the CEO's decision to donate money to anti-gay causes, just as I would disagree with my kebab maker's decision to donate money to anti-Danish causes. Would I boycott his kebabs if I found out that he did? No. It's his decision and while I disagree with it, I don't want to coerce him into changing it.

I know, right?

This, really. It's a pretty easy distinction to make. The 1st ammendment protects our speech from government suppression. Personal conflicts (even those including loud, far-reaching voices such as celebrities) are not covered by the 1st ammendment umbrella. A boycott of the business by an organized group of people is fine. Enacting a political barrier to new business is not.


Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 10:08am by BrownDuck

Just staying the one night in Bangkok?

Can't be too careful with your company.

I think here's where you're wrong. There are a bunch of possible motivations to boycott, but changing the CEO's opinion likely isn't one of them.

Most are probably doing it out of a generalized desire to push back against an opinion they disagree with. They'd like to harm Chick-Fil-A financially, thereby limiting the CEO's influence (but also as a way of 'punishing' him). It's also a means of showing the strength and prevalence of their opposing opinion. But mostly I think it's just an easy way of outwardly expressing their anger that could have a modicum of success.

A belief that one could "change his opinion" through an action like boycotting here would be very, very, naive.

What I'm really getting from this thread is that Nio is pregnant.

Tell us something we don't know.

It's people. They're making our food out of people. Next thing they'll be breeding us like cattle for food. You've gotta tell them. You've gotta tell them!



Edited, Aug 3rd 2012 2:19pm by someproteinguy