The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 11:53 AM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
(23-08-2012 11:36 AM)Chaos Requiem Wrote:  
(22-08-2012 10:17 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Chickens can marry?

Yes, because humans are weird. Actually, humans have animals marry each other often enough that I question their sanity. (The human's sanity, not the animal's, of course.) O.o;;;

Are humans not animals? Smartass

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 12:44 PM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
(23-08-2012 11:53 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 11:36 AM)Chaos Requiem Wrote:  Yes, because humans are weird. Actually, humans have animals marry each other often enough that I question their sanity. (The human's sanity, not the animal's, of course.) O.o;;;

Are humans not animals? Smartass

Not according to Christians. Tongue
And I meant non-human animals, smart aleck. XD

I doodle.
A lot.
My humor can also be very perverse, so forgive me if I make sexy fart jokes. :'D
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chaos' Requiem's post
23-08-2012, 08:33 PM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
I think his comment on questioning the humans sanity for having animals marry so often stands as a fine comment with the accepting of meaning, humans as animals.

I can't wait to see what chaos erupts when the Chick-Fil-A Bowl occurs in December.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-08-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
Why are we even still talking about this, You realize Chick-Fil-A had its best sale day in history because of this. Now other corporations have come out against something (Papa Johns- Obamacare etc.) We have bigger problems then this, if people would just shut up and stop concentrating on this bullshit can you imagine how far we would be ahead in getting our message across?

I don't have Attention Deficit Disorder. Your disorderly world has a deficit of things worth paying attention to. -Tj
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 01:49 AM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
(16-08-2012 01:28 PM)RR Edwards Wrote:  In 2009, American Psychological Association rejected sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) as harmful with a 125-4 vote. The fact is when homosexual children are raised in homes where SOCE is considered a viable option, they have a statistically higher suicide rate that translates into about 6 suicides a day in the USA. To be clear, cultures in the USA that support or promote SOCE are silently torturing 6 homosexuals to death each and every day in the USA.

The current Chick-Fil-A controversy is no more about "freedom of speech" than the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's that Rosa Parks inspired was about "bus seats". "Freedom of speech" is simply the striking point that caught the national media attention.

The real story behind the Chick-Fil-A protests can be teased out by paraphrasing their corporate attitude and simply replacing "homosexuals" with "blacks" and "SOCE" with "the KKK" and you have something like this: "We love blacks. We welcome blacks into our business. We even hire blacks. However, we support the work of the KKK. The KKK gives us an answer to the problem of blacks in our society. Therefore, we take millions of dollars from our earnings and give it to the KKK."

Do not fool yourself into thinking that a comparison of SOCE to the KKK is hyperbole. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the organization that is largely responsible for dismantling the KKK through legal battles. They maintain a list of organizations that are the modern day equivalent to the KKK. On their list you will find most, if not all of the SOCE organizations that Chick-FIl-A supports with annual million dollar contributions, directly from their profits.

One last thing to consider. SOCE is killing 6 innocent homosexuals a day in the USA. Even at its most virile and disgusting stages, the KKK never had such a "successful" record of torture and terror.

Supporting documents:
Sexual orientation change efforts are harmful
doi:10.1037/a0019553

Impact of social environment on homosexual suicides
doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3020

Homosexual and heterosexual suicide comparisons
doi: 10.1177/0044118X06287689

Suicide rates
ISBN-10: 0-309-08321-4

Major driving organizations of the anti-homosexual crusade
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2005, Spring)

The organizations Chick-Fil-A donates to
WinShape 2010, IRS Form 990

Record of KKK murder and terror campaigns
ISBN-10: 0684856573
From what I have read I tend to look at the situation differently, I think. Please correct me if I am out of order or incorrectly informed, I have not dived into this but am relying only on what I have read on news articles (not where I would find enough accuracy for a paper but perhaps for this discussion). When the CEO made his famous remark about guilty as charged, it came out that corporate profits were being used to fund things like the family research council, exodus international (that one really got to me), and other similar anti-equality groups. When that broke a boycott was staged, the CEO had the right to freedom of speech however, that does not mean that there is not repercussions to that speech. Then the Right Wing (fox) went crazy and was talking about his first amendment rights bla bla, still not infringement on any 1st amendment rights. They had their heart attack grease appreciation day (I have never seen that many "Christians" to help the homeless but thats another subject). Most fox followers though don't think they listen, repeat, and believe. So they believed they were going out and defending this mans constitutional rights. Then of course Democrat Mayors played into their hands, saying they would stop any chick fil a from building , which is obviously illegal and I'm sure they were fully aware if they actually did follow through they would lose in a court. But its politics. Then though the crazy right tea baggers actually did have a little to complain about because government officials were technically threatening discrimination based on speech and religious freedom, and probably many other laws. So in the end it could be argued there was a little bit of repression talk by the mayors in their government role threatening the business due to the personal freedoms they exercised. I personally wil never eat there, but after this discussion with my mother (my entire family religious and hard core right winged) I pointed out that what needs to happen is no corporate profits should be disbursed to businesses. The consumer is unaware that if they give money that money could go to planned parenthood (gasp! for my mom) but then she said but what if they supported the military and planned parenthood? I can't check everything its impossible. Exactly my point. We must get to the root of the problem and then this problem wouldn't be here.. Just my 2 cents.

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.”
― Baruch Spinoza
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alice's post
25-08-2012, 02:06 AM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
There's no real way to prevent businesses from choosing to sponsor things. You actually can check and see most of what different businesses support if you want to. Plenty of consumer report information out there. But, most people have no interest in looking up every detail before they make a purchasing decision. If people used their consumerism as a moral drive, then many of the biggest businesses would go bankrupt. Well, maybe not, since a large number of the people with the money are the ones who willingly lie and cheat others.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
25-08-2012, 10:47 AM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
(25-08-2012 02:06 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  There's no real way to prevent businesses from choosing to sponsor things. You actually can check and see most of what different businesses support if you want to. Plenty of consumer report information out there. But, most people have no interest in looking up every detail before they make a purchasing decision. If people used their consumerism as a moral drive, then many of the biggest businesses would go bankrupt. Well, maybe not, since a large number of the people with the money are the ones who willingly lie and cheat others.

I would say that taking away their "personhood" they have aquired through the 14th amendment in 1886 would be a start. Over turning Buckley Vs. Valeo (1976) would also be helpful, although a campaign finance case it cemented 1st amendment rights for corporations. It is true you can look that all up but take a grocery store you go to the store what do they donate to? then you want to buy a bottle of juice, who does that manufactorer donate to? How about the packaging is any of it outsourced to be made, like the plastic, then where do they donate to? It is impossible for people to keep track. Corporations obtain their profits from consumers, people can use their paychecks but the profits should only be used to pay employees and be invested into the corporation because that is who the consumer is giving the money to, not a or many third parties.

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.”
― Baruch Spinoza
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 01:43 PM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
I would seriously love if corporate personhood went away. The issue though with what you're saying is that it could hurt good things as well. Not all charities are orrible things, and if a business owner was not allowed to support through a business they may be less likely to support good charities. It would be nice if CEO's were personally the ones doing the charity, but sometimes the way it is right now helps. Right now we're at a point where the web of lies and deceit have been seen as just a normal business practice and everyone is used to it. So if we changed things it would be scary and different for all those people doing the right things with the red tape in place.

Would be nice if it was just about a casual remark from a judge about the rights of businesses written into a record about a case on railroads.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 25-08-2012 02:26 PM by Alice.)
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
(25-08-2012 01:43 PM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  I would seriously love if corporate personhood went away. The issue though with what you're saying is that it could hurt good things as well. Not all charities are orrible things, and if a business owner was not allowed to support through a business they may be less likely to support good charities. It would be nice if CEO's were personally the ones doing the charity, but sometimes the way it is right now helps. Right now we're at a point where the web of lies and deceit have been seen as just a normal business practice and everyone is used to it. So if we changed things it would be scary and different for all those people doing the right things with the red tape in place.

Would be nice if it was just about a casual remark from a judge about the rights of businesses written into a record about a case on railroads.

Ahhh but good to whom? This is part of my point, one charity could really be held up even by only two corporations. If the charity is precious the CEO's along with individuals would have it in their right to contribute as much as they want. Consumers are funding a 3rd party unknowingly. Even if people check some of the profit distribution out it could be that they are supporting something they hate and something they love. A charity surviving off of corporate funds to the point of exstinction without it then really the Board who chose it should pool together to fund it, I doubt it would hurt their check book. Maybe hurtful "charities" like Exodus International (which that form of therapy is now illegal in I believe CA) would go away because who chooses the charity? Normally the board or CEO so basically they can keep their money because it is well in the lines of the law to just use company profits or use it as an extension of the boards/CEO charities they already support and adding a company check too. they don't ask employees (I don't believe) what charities they think should benefit, so I think it's basically just a couple or one individual deciding not even technically the "corporation". Chick Fil A is a good example actually because one branch came out saying they don't think that way, but part of their profits go to the franchise and even though they earned it the higher ups in the franchise make the decisions. If the board who makes the decisions who are usually millionares love the charity then they can support it with their money not corporate money that should be disbursed for pay and other company expenses.

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.”
― Baruch Spinoza
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 02:40 PM
RE: The real deal with the Chick-Fil-A meal
I actually think that if it was left to people to fund the charities on their own it would end up for more money to the evil hate groups. Most of the people with money seem pretty focused on the not so great plans for the world. A lot of the people who want the better ones are much more focused on using the money they get correctly than cheating the system. I know it's awkward to sponsor groups you detest with each purchase you make, but those ceos get plenty of money either way. the money set aside for companies is either bonuses for rich people or sent to others. Making them unable to pay charities would not mean that more employees get hired or they work on better practices.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: