Ugh, Embarrassed this Douche is on "My side" (Chik-fil-a)

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by elucidator

We will certainly give your opinion on the matter all the serious consideration it is due. Ah! There. Done.

*shrugs*

Bigots gonna' bigot.

(Channeling my inner liberal there.)

On a more serious note, though, did you not see how huge the turnout for "CFA Appreciation Day" was and how paltry the turnout for the alleged boycott was?

[Vinyl Turnip]

Wow, that is serious. See how my brow just wrinkled?

[Omg a Black Conservative]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Wow, that is serious. See how my brow just wrinkled?

I'd say "yes", but that'd just be plain weird considering it's the internet and all.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I use to work at a store, and I had people bitch at me for things I had nothing to do with. This guy's a tool, yes. The person at the window handled it well, yes. I don't know... maybe it's a big deal because he recorded it, but shit like this happens all the time. The girl was just doing her job. I would have acted the same way if I were in her shoes. I'm sure most people would. That's how they are trained to act.

Sure, this guy's an idiot that deserved what he got. He did apologize, and he seemed to really regret what he did. I think he just made a mistake. Filming it was disastrous.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by MyFootsZZZ

I don't know... maybe it's a big deal because he recorded it, but shit like this happens all the time.

That's the underlying theme of this whole thing.

CFA and tons of other companies have been giving to anti-gay groups. Some folks knew and cared, some folks knew and didn't care, some folks didn't know and/or cared. It's been a low-key thing for years. Then suddenly Cathy wakes up, spouts some well-publicized bullshit, and everyone's up in arms, because a lot of people feel that they just can't ignore it any more.

In the same vein, there have always been insane asshole customers. NotAlwaysRight is filled with stories which, if even a fraction of them are true, are simply mind-boggling. But once you record one of those asshole customers and put it on Youtube, the people responsible for him feel that action has to be taken; they can't just ignore it.

In other words, it's another consequence of our increasingly media-driven and video-recorded society. Things we don't know about can be ignored, but in general there's a good deal fewer things we don't know about than in the past.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Was that directed to brazil84?

It was, I had quoted his post above.

If you're referring to me calling out Nzinga's name, it was a toung 'n cheek reference to a little squabble we had up thread. NBD.

Anyhow, see how b84 will now take the most tangential aspect of an issue, inflate to the size of Everest, fill it with ambiguous minutia, until he will ultimately accuse you of weaseling and building up brazil84 shaped strawmen. He'll then put you on his "ignore" list due to a set of rules of internet debate of his own invention of which only he sticks to, and doesn't apply to himself.

According to these rules, he should be first on his own list. Seriously, the guy's eff'd in the head.

All have been now adequately warned by VT and myself. Here there be dragons.

[Typo Negative]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

On a more serious note, though, did you not see how huge the turnout for "CFA Appreciation Day" was and how paltry the turnout for the alleged boycott was?

You have to show up for a boycott?

[Loach]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

You have to show up for a boycott?

Of course. How else are you going to get credit?

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Sorry mhendo, but I did warn you...

Yes. Yes you did. I'm done with him.

Maybe if i'm lucky, he'll put me on his banned debaters list.

[elucidator]

Apparently, I'm not. Must be my charm.

[Trion]

Originally Posted by Loach

Of course. How else are you going to get credit?

I got my card punched.

(Yes, that a euphemism. No, I'm not going to tell you what for.)

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Loach

Of course. How else are you going to get credit?

Or the free water.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Apparently, I'm not. Must be my charm.

Lucky!

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Omg a Black Conservative

*shrugs*

Bigots gonna' bigot.

(Channeling my inner liberal there.)

On a more serious note, though, did you not see how huge the turnout for "CFA Appreciation Day" was and how paltry the turnout for the alleged boycott was?

Perhaps you mean the protest, the "Kiss-In," which I think is fair to say fizzled. I don't think one can fairly measure a boycott by counting the people that show up.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Typo Negative

You have to show up for a boycott?

No, the person you're punishing should know what they did wrong!




Heh, sorry, that's a girlcott.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Yes.

Ok, then it seems there's more at issue than a simple exchange of money for services.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Yes. Yes you did. I'm done with him.

Maybe if i'm lucky, he'll put me on his banned debaters list.

If you continue to weasel, strawman and evade reasonable questions about your position, then I surely will. Perhaps it gives you pleasure to pretend to disagree with me, but I have no interest in engaging with people who insist on using these types of tactics.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by brazil84

Ok, then it seems there's more at issue than a simple exchange of money for services.

Something I have not denied, and never would have.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Something I have not denied, and never would have.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood your position.

Please answer my questions from Post #149:

1. Under what circumstances does an employee of an evil corporation or institution deserve criticism for voluntarily serving as an employee of an evil corporation or institution?

Please tell me your general principle as best you can. Or are you saying that the question is impossible to answer?

2. Ok, so if a person is knowingly working for an evil corporation and has some degree of choice about it, then they deserve criticism?

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by brazil84

My apologies, I must have misunderstood your position.

Please answer my questions from Post #149:

1. Under what circumstances does an employee of an evil corporation or institution deserve criticism for voluntarily serving as an employee of an evil corporation or institution?

Please tell me your general principle as best you can. Or are you saying that the question is impossible to answer?

2. Ok, so if a person is knowingly working for an evil corporation and has some degree of choice about it, then they deserve criticism?

Adam, Adam Smith?

[Vinyl Turnip]

It's like seeing person after person blunder into the same quicksand. First they're like "huh, this was a bad idea," and they try to extricate themselves, but the more they struggle the deeper they sink. After a while they realize there's no way out, and they wonder how the hell they even got there in the first place.

Not even sand, really. More like quickshit.

[Death of Rats]

Originally Posted by MyFootsZZZ

I use to work at a store, and I had people bitch at me for things I had nothing to do with. This guy's a tool, yes. The person at the window handled it well, yes. I don't know... maybe it's a big deal because he recorded it, but shit like this happens all the time. The girl was just doing her job. I would have acted the same way if I were in her shoes. I'm sure most people would. That's how they are trained to act.

Sure, this guy's an idiot that deserved what he got. He did apologize, and he seemed to really regret what he did. I think he just made a mistake. Filming it was disastrous.

The internet is the worst thing to happen to stupid people. The second worse thing was camcorders.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by Death of Rats

The internet is the worst thing to happen to stupid people. The second worse thing was camcorders.

That's fucking awesome.

[LonesomePolecat]

Originally Posted by gamerunknown

I'm boycotting cookies. I hear they recently came out in favour of Voter ID.

Keebler or Nabisco?

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

Keebler or Nabisco?

Girlscouts.

[elucidator]

So long as they are made from free-range Girl Scouts.....

[elucidator]

An interesting wrinkle has developed. From NewsMax (yes, that NewsMax, but I fumigated myself afterwards...)

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rom...8/06/id/447703

The Romney campaign’s decision to duck the Chick-fil-A controversy over gay-marriage appears to have reopened old wounds with social conservatives, who were never fully sold that the former Massachusetts governor would represent their concerns in the marbled halls of Washington.

“This is the most disheartened that certainly I’ve felt looking at this entire race,” said Catholic League president Bill Donohue. He told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that social conservatives will now have to decide whether to sit out the race....

Laugh? I thought I'd surely die.

[Chimera]

Originally Posted by brazil84

1. Under what circumstances does an employee of an evil corporation or institution deserve criticism for voluntarily serving as an employee of an evil corporation or institution?

2. Ok, so if a person is knowingly working for an evil corporation and has some degree of choice about it, then they deserve criticism?

I work for a company with > 100,000 employees. I'm quite certain that there are a fair few people who believe them to be evil.

But as they only have me strangling kittens with the severed penises of orphans on alternate thursdays and they pay quite well, I think I can live with it.

OTOH, it's the alternate Tuesdays one month later when we have to force feed the now rotting kitten/penis combinations to battered warcrime rape victims that really bothers me. I probably deserve some criticism for that.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by LonesomePolecat

Keebler or Nabisco?

Depends -- does Ernie pay those elves over time?

[Blackberry]

I'm a little late to the party here but I wanted to get through this whole thread before I responded because I thought I must be missing where this is a big deal. Yeah, the guy was a smug jerk and especially for youtubing it; yeah the employee handled it as well as could be expected, but still nothing amazing...but so what? When I first heard about this and hadn't seen the video yet I was expecting it to be about a million times worse. If I'd seen it and didn't know about the hoopla I would have just rolled my eyes and maybe reminisced a little about how much working in fast food sucks.

[brazil84]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Adam, Adam Smith?

Lol, no. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Laugh? I thought I'd surely die.

In fairness, Bill Donohue only has three modes: disheartened, astonished, and outraged--- so if he's only disheartened and astonished, then Mitt's probably doing okay.

[BigT]

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with this. Chick-Fil-A employees are not innocent--they are working for a bigoted organization. Plus, based on past practices, it's quite likely that, if you aren't a good enough Christian, you won't be hired. And the owner has made it clear that hating gay people is on the side of being a Christian.

Did he go too far?, Yes. But is he this horrible person everyone makes him out to be, not hardly. The basic idea of ordering water and taking up their time, while reporting his message, is sound.

It honestly flabbergasts me that so many people are so upset about this, especially here in the Pit, where 99% of the people here say worse things than this guy does all the time. You'd think this was the Sunshine and Rainbows forum by the responses here.

[BrainGlutton]

Look, this is America. Our national culture is moralistic and self-righteous like that. It's not enough to be right and know you're right; you have to be a dick to everybody who doesn't think like you.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by BigT

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with this. Chick-Fil-A employees are not innocent--they are working for a bigoted organization. . . .

Simply put, that is stupid. I doubt very few employees would show up for work there if they were told there would be no more paychecks. They aren't working there to fill some corporate agenda, they are working there because they need the damn paycheck.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

Simply put, that is stupid. I doubt very few employees would show up for work there if they were told there would be no more paychecks. They aren't working there to fill some corporate agenda, they are working there because they need the damn paycheck.

"They're doing immoral things, but for MONEY, so it's okay."

This would be a good time to remind you that the function of the cog in the Chick Fil A machine is to take in money supporting not just marriage discrimination (which is bad enough in itself and a sign of how thoroughly Christian immorality dominates our society that it's considered a "political issue" to disagree on) but the actual murder of gay people for being gay. CFA supports organizations which, literally, are working to engineer a gay Holocaust ( http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/08/01/45430 ).

How do you justify working for this without blanketly accepting anything that provides you a financial benefit? What is the difference, morally, between working for Chick Fil A and working as a contract killer?

[Frylock]

I hate to be the guy that defends the Family Research Council, but, the Uganda thing is widely misreported. The FRC specifically objected only to the phrase in the resolution which says that Homosexuality is an internationally recognized civil right. The explicitly reject the view that anyone ought to kill anyone for being homosexual.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Frylock

I hate to be the guy that defends the Family Research Council, but, the Uganda thing is widely misreported. The FRC specifically objected only to the phrase in the resolution which says that Homosexuality is an internationally recognized civil right. The explicitly reject the view that anyone ought to kill anyone for being homosexual.

When can we meet to sign the closing papers on this bridge I have?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

When can we meet to sign the closing papers on this bridge I have?

That joke does not apply to what I said.

Their advocating against the Uganda resolution is not evidence that they support the execution of homosexuals. To insist that it is would be to do the same dishonest thing politicians are always doing when they attach irrelevant and unacceptable riders to otherwise awesome bills--then claim their opponents don't support the awesome part when they reject it because of the unacceptable part.

[Condescending Robot]

They didn't lobby to remove the part of the resolution that labeled homosexuality a right, they lobbied to blanketly vote against the resolution condemning the murder of homosexuals. Their actions do not support their claims and why you would ever give them such an extraordinary benefit of the doubt is beyond me.

[Morgenstern]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

"They're doing immoral things, but for MONEY, so it's okay."

What the fuck is immoral about working for a living? They don't set corporate policy. They trade time for money. They trade money for living necessities. Gawd, how many generations of inbreeding does it take to have logic as screwed up as yours is?

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

They didn't lobby to remove the part of the resolution that labeled homosexuality a right, they lobbied to blanketly vote against the resolution condemning the murder of homosexuals. Their actions do not support their claims and why you would ever give them such an extraordinary benefit of the doubt is beyond me.

Do you have a cite for that? I'm not trying to get in your face, but my understanding is the same as Frylocks.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

What the fuck is immoral about working for a living? They don't set corporate policy. They trade time for money. They trade money for living necessities. Gawd, how many generations of inbreeding does it take to have logic as screwed up as yours is?

So, working as a secretary for the KKK would be alright with you?

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

Do you have a cite for that? I'm not trying to get in your face, but my understanding is the same as Frylocks.

I put a citation in my original post on the topic. The link states:

the Family Research Council, a certified anti-gay hate group run by Tony Perkins, spent $25,000 lobbying Congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill The Gays” bill.

[Morgenstern]

We're talking about working for CFA, not KKK. The problem is that you're consumed by hate, and, like Adam Smith, you are showering that hate on innocent people. If you have a problem with CFA, it's with the management, not the restaurant employees.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

We're talking about working for CFA, not KKK. The problem is that you're consumed by hate, and, like Adam Smith, you are showering that hate on innocent people. If you have a problem with CFA, it's with the management, not the restaurant employees.

So working for one group that uses its resources to destroy minorities is unacceptable, but for another is noble. Why?

[Labrador Deceiver]

Originally Posted by Condescending Robot

I put a citation in my original post on the topic. The link states:

That's not a cite. That's something a journalist wrote with no supporting evidence. You said their actions spoke louder than words, but I haven't seen any evidence of said actions.

Upon review, I'm not even sure if the author of that article is a journalist.

[Morgenstern]

What the fuck does the hourly employee have to do with how CFA uses it's resources? It's asinine to expect someone to quit gainful, legal employment because the company president spends his money in a way you disagree with.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Morgenstern

What the fuck does the hourly employee have to do with how CFA uses it's resources? It's asinine to expect someone to quit gainful, legal employment because the company president spends his money in a way you disagree with.

The fucking corporation donated its money, not the CEO personally, which is the whole motherfucking reason this is an issue now, you lying sack of shit.

I'm guessing you don't really have much of a problem with the "kill the gays" bill, either.

[Condescending Robot]

Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver

That's not a cite. That's something a journalist wrote with no supporting evidence. You said their actions spoke louder than words, but I haven't seen any evidence of said actions.

Upon review, I'm not even sure if the author of that article is a journalist.

Screenshots of the federally submitted lobbying report are in the article, you dumbfuck.