Chick-Fil-A Says It Plans to Stop Giving Donations to Anti-Gay Groups: Beautiful or Being Bullied?
AdriHead
2012/09/20 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
625 votes
|
|
40% | |||
|
939 votes
|
|
60% | |||
Chick-Fil-A dealt with a storm of bad press a short while ago because of a statement by Dan Cathy, the president of the fast-food chain, saying he was "guilty as charged" when asked about his opposition to gay marriage. His comments, along with Chick-Fil-A's monetary donations to anti-gay organizations, led to a media frenzy.
But times have changed. Now, a Chick-Fil-A executive has confirmed that the chicken-loving, fast-food chain will stop donating to such anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, according to The Civil Rights Agenda. Do you think this news is a great step for the fast-food company? Or do you feel that Chick-Fil-A was bullied into making this decision?
NYDAILYNEWS.COM reports:
But times have changed. Now, a Chick-Fil-A executive has confirmed that the chicken-loving, fast-food chain will stop donating to such anti-gay groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council, according to The Civil Rights Agenda. Do you think this news is a great step for the fast-food company? Or do you feel that Chick-Fil-A was bullied into making this decision?
NYDAILYNEWS.COM reports:
Chick-Fil-A had plenty of support for its anti-gay-marriage stance, but in the end, the restaurant chain chickened out.
Read More: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chick-fil...
Top Opinion
-
American Nate 2012/09/20 20:43:06
http://www.advocate.com/busin...
Darlings, are you mad??
ANYTHING that helps to stop funding to those MONSTERS that are anti-gay groups and gets them shriveled up back into non-existence faster IS BEAUTIFUL.
I'm sure there are significant differences, but from what I've read on it, it doesn't exactly have a significance as a religion as others do. It wasn't even taught in studies of religions back in high school, and I didn't even hear about it until about a year ago.
So then by your logic, an anti-gay organization, focused on suppressing the rights of a class of people just because of sexual preference, is OKAY, but a peaceful protest to stop this unfairness from happening ISN'T??
We're on our way to a peaceful and more tolerant country, and it's bigots in the anti-gay cults that are merely a nuisance that will eventually shrivel up and disappear with enough time so everyone else can move on with their lives. And judging by how far we've come, we're almost there.
This does not add up. Let's walk through this again.
(1) The powers that be at Chick-Fil-A use their right to free speech for certain speech. Check.
(2) LGBT activists use their right to free speech to express disagreement with the powers that be at Chick-Fil-A’s speech. Check.
So far, so good. Everyone is using their right to speak freely under the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.
Ah, wait, here’s the problem: (3) LGBT activists suddenly felt a need to go beyond disagreeing with the powers that be at Chick-Fil-A’s speech and *start holding them accountable for their speech.*
Sorry, LGBT activists, but free speech, by definition, must be free in order to be free speech. And the idea that bad speech—which alone is a subjective concept to a certain extent—should be punished contradicts how free speech, by definition, works.
And the harder you applaud what happened (like the poster above me does), the more you prove my point. :-)
This does not add up. Let's walk through this again.
(1) The powers that be at Chick-Fil-A use their right to free speech for certain speech. Check.
(2) LGBT activists use their right to free speech to express disagreement with the powers that be at Chick-Fil-A’s speech. Check.
So far, so good. Everyone is using their right to speak freely under the Constitution’s 1st Amendment.
Ah, wait, here’s the problem: (3) LGBT activists suddenly felt a need to go beyond disagreeing with the powers that be at Chick-Fil-A’s speech and *start holding them accountable for their speech.*
Sorry, LGBT activists, but free speech, by definition, must be free in order to be free speech. And the idea that bad speech—which alone is a subjective concept to a certain extent—should be punished contradicts how free speech, by definition, works.
And the harder you applaud what happened (like the poster above me does), the more you prove my point. :-)
You claim to want equal rights when you really want special rights above and beyond all others.
Does your "guaranteed rights to freedom of speech" trump all others including Dan Cathy's?
Only a fool would think so.