Are you boycotting Chick-Fil-A?

[bighead384]

Are you boycotting Chick-Fil-A?

I don't see a reason to. It's just their opinion. I especially don't like how governors in Boston and Chicago have told Chick-Fil-A they can't do business there. That sends the message that all citizens should be thinking the same way those governors do.

Related: Gay Rights activists hold a "Kiss-In": http://articles.cnn.com/2012-08-03/u...-gay-marriages

[Little_Miss_1565]

Point of order: Chicago and Boston haven't actually blocked CFA from opening stores there. They've just committed acts of being blowhards, which really all politicians are.

I haven't bought anything at a CFA in years because it's not new that they donate corporate funds to anti-gay initiatives. They can do whatever they like with their money, but they don't need to do it with my money.

[KTILLA23]

Don't really care, i have never and will never go there anyways.

[Jojan]

I have just learnt about Chick-Fil-A this week.

[WebDudette]

Are you boycotting Chick-Fil-A?

I don't see a reason to. It's just their opinion. I especially don't like how governors in Boston and Chicago have told Chick-Fil-A they can't do business there. That sends the message that all citizens should be thinking the same way those governors do.

Yes, I have been for quite a few years. It's not just their opinion, they are actively giving financial support to organization working against homosexual equality. Furthermore, boycotting them is in no way an 'attack'. I'm not preventing them from doing business, I just choose not to give them mine. Everyone who was interviewed during the National Chick-Fil-A Day thing said that they were there to protect CFA's freedom of speech, to support their right to choose, and to defend them against people who would try to infringe on their rights. That's horse shit and they know it. They are there to support homophobia and nothing else. That's okay, they have every right to do that, just as I have every right to not support CFA, but at least be honest about your motives. The only people even attempting to infringe on others rights are those within CFA responsible for funding anti-homosexual groups.

Chick-Fil-A can still open up shop in Boston and Chicago, there's no official law or anything against it. I can't say I support what those governors said. I mean, it's perfectly fine to say they disagree with CFA's practices, but it's a little extreme to say they aren't welcome. It just doesn't seem like their place to me. Still though, CFA is in no way banned from either city.

[cool 2 hate 681]

Don't really care, i have never and will never go there anyways.

same here
10

[Godxilla]

I actually live in Massachusetts, so one could almost say that this is a very local thing for me.
Now, to my argument:
I would vote no for a few reasons. First, I think that our Mayor For Life Thomas "Mumbles" Menino has committed a grave mistake in telling CFA to get out and stay out. Now, he was never a pro-business Mayor For Life anyway, but this is simply amazing. To tell a business that has not done anything wrong (meaning breaking laws or evading taxes or something) to stay out of Boston is downright absurd. Clearly, Mumbles enjoys McDonald's more. I have no opinion in that regard, as I have never eaten at either venue, and never will, because of my severe allergy to peanuts and peanut oil. In other words, I would be killing myself by eating there.
Second, there is no need for the Mayor For Life to tell them to screw off. Why? Because gays, lesbiens, transgenders, bisexuals, and other "gay" groups DON'T HAVE TO EAT THERE. If they disagree, then don't go there. And CFA should be allowed to open it's doors for another reason: every time we Massachusettsians see a CFA, we will think about gay rights.
Finally, there are undoubtedly several other businesses that don't support gays and in fact support antigay groups. But Mayor For Life Mumbles will ignore them, because giving them attention would be fair, just, and uniform, 3 things that Democrats hate. It surprises me how big of a deal this is. But as Chris Smoove once said, " It's amazin'-mazin'"
So, in the end, I voted no, and feel strongly that this is the right choice.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Godxilla, if I'm not mistaken he urged CFA to withdraw their permit application. Menino did nothing legally binding. It's political posturing.

There are many orgs whose heads are very conservative personally, which is fine, but CFA goes the extra step of making this part of their corporate mission.

CFA gets to choose what they support, and others get to choose not to support them because of it.

[WebDudette]

Just for the record, there are other companies I choose not support for similar reasons. I will never bu anything from or donate to the Boy Scouts of America and I will never have anything to do with the Salvation Army. On the other hand, I'll eat the shit out of some In-N-Out.

What is it that people don't seem to understand about this whol Boston/Chicago thing? There is no real situation here, it's just political pandering that literally ever politician since the dawn of time has participated in. As I said, I think they should have merely expressed their disapproval and left it at that, but they aren't actually doing anything to CFA.

[Little_Miss_1565]

What is it that people don't seem to understand about this whol Boston/Chicago thing?

It's the same sort of untruth that leads many people to think not supporting CFA = suppressing free speech. Disagreement is also a form of free speech. Buying Chik-Fil-A does not mean you are a free speech crusader. But that doesn't seem to stop anyone from publicly proclaiming this. Thus, mayors expressing their personal disapproval of CFA's policies and how they don't want to see them in their cities apparently also means they're legally blocking them from entering the city limits...even though it doesn't.