| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/27/2012 08:22:36 PM · #5726 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Of course the man can do with his money as he wills. |
So can his customers. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 08:32:00 PM · #5727 |
I have a few more reasons to boycott Chick-fil-A
THIS being the biggest one. I don't want to support a bully. To gays, small business owners, or otherwise.
Another note. A friend of a friend had his franchise taken from him because he got divorced.
So I guess they don't just discriminate against gays... |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 08:37:44 PM · #5728 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Another note. A friend of a friend had his franchise taken from him because he got divorced.
So I guess they don't just discriminate against gays... |
Frankly that is a mark in their favor IMHO, at least they have the courage of their opinions. better than someone like Limbaugh bellowing about the sacred nature of marriage while looking forward to his fifth wife. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 08:39:26 PM · #5729 |
Tried to find an article on similar stories this is the best I found so far:
"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Article
How is that legal? I don't get it...
Oops should have read the whole thing:
"Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)"
and this just... terrible.
"Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms."
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 20:43:01. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 08:50:01 PM · #5730 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Tried to find an article on similar stories this is the best I found so far:
"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Article
How is that legal? I don't get it...
Oops should have read the whole thing:
"Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)"
and this just... terrible.
"Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms." |
They are open about everything and they have convictions. So just don't WORK for them. Seriously. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 09:14:09 PM · #5731 |
I don't have time to read this entire thread and appologize if this has been discussed but I wanted to mention how absurd it is to quote the bible about gay marriage while at the same time disregarding one of the ten commandments which I'm sure Mr. Cathy holds dear. Thou shalt not lie. In Chic-Fil-A's across America there is a sign posted which states that their are no toys available for the kids meals due to a recall. It should read, "our stance on same sex marriage has caused the Jim Henson company to remove all toys made by their company." Horray to the Jim Henson Company for pulling money away from Chic-Fil-A and giving it to Glaad instead.
It sickens me how many people use only the parts of the bible they like to push their own agenda. I guess we should go back to stoning brides who are not virgins. Come to think of it....a few concubines would be nice too. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 09:22:47 PM · #5732 |
Originally posted by SEG:
I don't have time to read this entire thread and appologize if this has been discussed but I wanted to mention how absurd it is to quote the bible about gay marriage while at the same time disregarding one of the ten commandments which I'm sure Mr. Cathy holds dear. Thou shalt not lie. In Chic-Fil-A's across America there is a sign posted which states that their are no toys available for the kids meals due to a recall. It should read, "our stance on same sex marriage has caused the Jim Henson company to remove all toys made by their company." Horray to the Jim Henson Company for pulling money away from Chic-Fil-A and giving it to Glaad instead.
It sickens me how many people use only the parts of the bible they like to push their own agenda. I guess we should go back to stoning brides who are not virgins. Come to think of it....a few concubines would be nice too. |
Don't get me wrong, the Henson company made the right choice, and I applaud them for it. However, Chick-Fil-A is completely in their right (IMO) to do business any way they wish to. If that means they lose customers and sponsors, GREAT. But they still have that right. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 09:29:50 PM · #5733 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Don't get me wrong, the Henson company made the right choice, and I applaud them for it. However, Chick-Fil-A is completely in their right (IMO) to do business any way they wish to. If that means they lose customers and sponsors, GREAT. But they still have that right. |
I can also agree with that. My biggest point was just a rant on using parts of the bible only to further your agenda while ignoring the ones that are so extreme now you just CAN'T follow them. No matter how Christian you are.
I believe in God and am a christian but probably not in the traditional sense. I don't keep fellowship and follow the bible as a great teaching and learning tool but do I believe Noah build a boat, Dinosaurs never existed and the Earth is 7000 years old....not at all. I believe in peace and love. I admit that I don't understand how a man can love a man or women love a women but just because I don't understand it I'm not going to refuse them rights as a human being.
Message edited by author 2012-07-27 21:30:13. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 10:37:03 PM · #5734 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Tried to find an article on similar stories this is the best I found so far:
"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Article
How is that legal? I don't get it...
Oops should have read the whole thing:
"Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)"
and this just... terrible.
"Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms." |
They are open about everything and they have convictions. So just don't WORK for them. Seriously. |
I never would in a million years. But for someone to lose their job because they are a Muslim. That is not within their rights. Not at all. |
|
|
|
07/27/2012 10:50:55 PM · #5735 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Tried to find an article on similar stories this is the best I found so far:
"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
Article
How is that legal? I don't get it...
Oops should have read the whole thing:
"Is it legal? There are no federal laws that prohibit companies from asking nosy questions about religion and marital status during interviews. Most companies don't because it can open them up to discrimination claims, says James Ryan, a spokesman for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Chick-fil-A has more freedom to ask whatever it wants of franchisees because they are independent contractors and not necessarily subject to federal employment discrimination laws. (Employees, however, may sue under those laws.)"
and this just... terrible.
"Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms." |
They are open about everything and they have convictions. So just don't WORK for them. Seriously. |
I never would in a million years. But for someone to lose their job because they are a Muslim. That is not within their rights. Not at all. |
He wasn't fired because he was muslim. He was fired because he wouldn't participate in a company mandated activity. If you really want to get to the bread and butter. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 12:57:17 AM · #5736 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
He wasn't fired because he was muslim. He was fired because he wouldn't participate in a company mandated activity. If you really want to get to the bread and butter. |
If as a condition for your employment I asked you to spit on the flag and pledge your soul to Satan, ya think that would be OK? There is no difference between discriminating based on religion, and forcing all your employees to practice a particular religion during a "company event". Firing a Muslim for not praying to Jesus is illegal, that is why they settled the case. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 09:59:08 AM · #5737 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
He wasn't fired because he was muslim. He was fired because he wouldn't participate in a company mandated activity. If you really want to get to the bread and butter. |
If as a condition for your employment I asked you to spit on the flag and pledge your soul to Satan, ya think that would be OK? There is no difference between discriminating based on religion, and forcing all your employees to practice a particular religion during a "company event". Firing a Muslim for not praying to Jesus is illegal, that is why they settled the case. |
I think it should be ok, personally. Businesses that really stuck to it wouldn't survive though, which is why you don't see more of it. I know many businesses that force employees to engage in a number of rituals. Of course, they are usually smarter about it and find more 'genuine' ways of firing you if you don't engage in their rituals, but it's there. To be honest, what's the harm in pretending for a few minutes a day anyway? If you REALLY want to be a fry cook at Chick-Fil-A :P |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 11:06:08 AM · #5738 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
To be honest, what's the harm in pretending for a few minutes a day anyway? |
Honestly, you want people to lie? |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 11:27:11 AM · #5739 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
To be honest, what's the harm in pretending for a few minutes a day anyway? |
On a personal note, I have not been able to do that and got some very interesting posting because of it. Mind you, it has paid off in that I am no longer asked for my opinion on contentious issues... seems I am a rebel of sorts.
Ray |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 11:52:58 AM · #5740 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If as a condition for your employment I asked you to spit on the flag and pledge your soul to Satan, ya think that would be OK? |
Depends on the timing......if they told you that at the interview that's a no-brainer......don't take the job. If they told you after you've been hired, that's a whole different story, and I would imagine, illegal.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
To be honest, what's the harm in pretending for a few minutes a day anyway? If you REALLY want to be a fry cook at Chick-Fil-A :P |
This is where I get stuck......I understand being highly principled........but if you're truly that highly principled, what are you doing working at a Chick-Fil-A anyway?
|
|
|
|
07/28/2012 12:17:48 PM · #5741 |
I like how DrAchoo just totally glosses over my point that he's completely wrong about how he has characterized Cathy's behavior given the facts, and even after I clearly point out to scalvert precisely what I am doing.
Do you still care to support this statement, DrAchoo?
All that has happened is the CEO has stood up and said, "hey, we're traditional marriage people."
Or will you admit there's a big difference between 'supporting tradition' and 'denigrating gay marriage', with Cathy performing the latter?
I'm not going to let this one slide. You've played the role of echo chamber. You're part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
07/28/2012 12:33:58 PM · #5742 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Depends on the timing......if they told you that at the interview that's a no-brainer......don't take the job. If they told you after you've been hired, that's a whole different story, and I would imagine, illegal. |
Discussing race, sex, religion, national origin, birthplace, age, disability or marital status during a job interview is against the law, as is hiring or firing on that basis.
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 12:35:07. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 03:23:39 PM · #5743 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I like how DrAchoo just totally glosses over my point that he's completely wrong about how he has characterized Cathy's behavior given the facts, and even after I clearly point out to scalvert precisely what I am doing.
Do you still care to support this statement, DrAchoo?
All that has happened is the CEO has stood up and said, "hey, we're traditional marriage people."
Or will you admit there's a big difference between 'supporting tradition' and 'denigrating gay marriage', with Cathy performing the latter?
I'm not going to let this one slide. You've played the role of echo chamber. You're part of the problem. |
I glossed it because it's all in the eye of the beholder. You see it as denigrating gay marriage because you're sensitive to that. Others see it as supportion tradition because they are sensitive to that. Either way, the man does not support gay marriage and isn't afraid to stand his ground. He's open and straightforward. He picks his position and then sticks and lets the chips fall where they may. Even if you disagree you must admit that's commendable in this day and age of bendable moral values in the name of profits. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 03:34:09 PM · #5744 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I like how DrAchoo just totally glosses over my point that he's completely wrong about how he has characterized Cathy's behavior given the facts, and even after I clearly point out to scalvert precisely what I am doing.
Do you still care to support this statement, DrAchoo?
All that has happened is the CEO has stood up and said, "hey, we're traditional marriage people."
Or will you admit there's a big difference between 'supporting tradition' and 'denigrating gay marriage', with Cathy performing the latter?
I'm not going to let this one slide. You've played the role of echo chamber. You're part of the problem. |
I glossed it because it's all in the eye of the beholder. You see it as denigrating gay marriage because you're sensitive to that. Others see it as supportion tradition because they are sensitive to that. Either way, the man does not support gay marriage and isn't afraid to stand his ground. He's open and straightforward. He picks his position and then sticks and lets the chips fall where they may. Even if you disagree you must admit that's commendable in this day and age of bendable moral values in the name of profits. |
Gimmie a break.
As Mousie quoted:
"Twisted", "deprived" [sic], "victim", "foolishness", "suffering", "tragic", "inviting God's judgement", "shake our fist at him", "prideful", "arrogant", "audacity". All in the span of two brief quotes.
Those are not words in the eye of the beholder. Those are pretty agreed upon words in the English language that are used in a denigrating way. Don't sell me a cow and tell me it's a tomato. I'm not that dumb. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 03:34:50 PM · #5745 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if you disagree you must admit that's commendable in this day and age of bendable moral values in the name of profits. |
Discrimination is never commendable. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 04:30:12 PM · #5746 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Even if you disagree you must admit that's commendable in this day and age of bendable moral values in the name of profits. |
Discrimination is never commendable. |
+1000 |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 04:31:27 PM · #5747 |
DrAchoo,
Eye of the beholder?
Really?
Frankly, I'm disgusted. I find it impossible to believe that you can't parse the two quotes I've posted at face value, and can only assign your reticence to prejudice at this point. You're willing to give a Christian the benefit of doubt, and unrepentantly distort facts to minimize and even excuse his actions in an attempt to make the reaction against them seem invalid, but you're unwilling to acknowledge the negativity of pointedly negative words when they're used against gays. Thanks for being a shining example of precisely what I am trying to point out.
One more chance: Are you in fact equating:
"hey, we're traditional marriage people"
with:
"â€Â¦I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say 'we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about"
Really?
Really?
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 16:32:18. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 05:45:49 PM · #5748 |
Really.
Maybe I should just ask you for an example of language you would find acceptable without being denigrating. What would you say if you were him and you wanted to show your support for traditional marriage and someone asks you if you are for or against gay marriage?
The man is outspoken. No doubt. But I'm not sure anybody on rant can call him out for that and do it with a straight face. Do you think being outspoken is improper? really? ;)
Listen. If you want to hear it from me, I don't like language like that either. I find it somewhat arrogant to claim to know what will invoke God's judgement (although I suppose he hedged by prefacing with "I think"). We ALL are ripe for judgement so it's somewhat hypocritical to think one set of improper actions are more likely to set it off than another. God's judgement and forbearance is equally available to all.
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 17:51:51. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 06:06:39 PM · #5749 |
Doc, the dude's calling down hellfire and damnation on us. He says we, as a nation, will suffer God's wrath because we have the temerity to accept as fellow souls those who would choose to park their gear in non-standard orifices. He's backing this up by requiring that employees of his (very large and successful) company pay at least lip service to his beliefs if they want a job with Chik-Fil-A.
You find this defensible at what level, exactly? This is straight from the Jim Crow Lawbook. It's just not about color anymore... |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 06:11:48 PM · #5750 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe I should just ask you for an example of language you would find acceptable without being denigrating. What would you say if you were him and you wanted to show your support for traditional marriage and someone asks you if you are for or against gay marriage? |
"I'm all for traditional marriage (not the Greek/Roman tradition or the anti-interracial tradition or anti-interfaith tradition), however it isn't my place to judge or interfere with anyone else's."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The man is outspoken. No doubt. But I'm not sure anybody on rant can call him out for that and do it with a straight face. |
Maybe you missed the, "Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving" thread, where it's been pointed out repeatedly that the guy has done a lot more than speak?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I find it somewhat arrogant to claim to know what will invoke God's judgement (although I suppose he hedged by prefacing with "I think"). We ALL are ripe for judgement so it's somewhat hypocritical to think one set of improper actions are more likely to set it off than another. God's judgement and forbearance is equally available to all. |
What's somewhat hypocritical is claiming to know that God's judgement is coming and who it's available to in the same post where you criticize others for claiming to know all about God's judgement. Wow.
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 18:13:30. |
|
