“And that’s why I use HITLER’S PRIDE® easy oven cleaner! For a sparkling clean oven, you shouldn’t have to struggle!”
Godwinizing hyperbole…it’s not just for breakfast anymore! 
Reducing civil rights to a simple political stance is kind of shitty. No godwinizing there at all.
False equivalence.
The greater proportion of the profit from the transactions you engage in there will go to the CEOs of the company, which’ll then be funnelled into organisations like Focus on the Family. Should the majority of people choose not to visit such an institution, then the money spent in other institutions will stimulate them enough for them to open another franchise to employ the former employees of Chick-Fil-A, or, when their profitability declines as a result, Chick-Fil-A will decide to reverse their executive decisions. I really dislike protectionist “job creator” arguments since they don’t jibe with libertarian (natural collapse of industry) or socialist (worker control of means of production) economics.
Edit:
If you agree with the “conservative” part of his post, you may want to give McDonalds a miss. They contribute to Planned Parenthood, afaik.
To put this statement into context:
From here.
I literally have no idea what you are talking about here. Not only is it clearly ‘godwinizing’ (note the ‘Hitler’ reference? Or are you using some other definition of this term??), who is ‘Reducing civil rights to a simple political stance’??
What I meant I am not godwinizing by telling you that reducing civil rights to a simple political stance is kind of shitty, which is what Vinyl Turnip was implying and you dismissed with the godwinization bullshit.
Reducing civil rights to a simple political stance is what you are doing by saying you don’t care about other people’s politics. So it’s kinda shitty to do that.
When we get to Hell, it will always be Pledge Week.
I think they mean (and I agree with the sentiment), “yes, I could still patronize a business if I disagreed with the owner’s position on Obamacare, or they supported ‘the other’ candidate for congress, but damn, this is a matter of civil rights. I feel as strongly about this as if they were donating money to end* habeas corpus *or make warrantless search and seizure legal.”
I love it.
shrug I guess I’m kind of shitty then by your reckoning. I don’t care about other people’s politics, by and large. I’m a live and let live sort of guy. As for Chick-Fil-A, if they want to waste their money attempting to stand in the path of history, well, it’s their money. Now, if they were actually and actively persecuting homosexuals, instead of using the political process to try and push through their idiotic agenda, that would be something else.
To me, trotting out the Hitler bit is just a stupid, over the top attempt at godwinizing this whole thing. If you think it’s legitimate to compare Hitler to what Chick-Fil-A is doing, well, then we have a fundamental disconnect I guess.
Goldman Sachs funnels a lot more money into anti-gay candidates than Chick Fil A. But GS doesn’t make these statements public. I see why people boycott. I see why they don’t. I can’t see why people don’t like Chick Fil A’s food. IT’S YUMMY.
I think it’s fair hyperbole. Civil rights ain’t politics, it’s treating human beings like fucking human beings.
So, if they were, say, activists for an anti-gun agenda then you’d stop patronizing them if you were pro-gun? Or if they were anti-nuclear, and you were pro-nuclear? Or any number of other hot button political issues (say they were pro-life and you were pro-choice…or vice versa)? To me, this rises to the same level. I’m pretty solidly pro-gay marriage and pro-gay equal rights in all things under the law. Obviously this is not a universally held position in the US, so it’s militantly un-surprising that some companies and people out there don’t agree and are using the political process to try and push through their views and agenda on this issue while this issue is still being debated. As long as that’s all they are doing, well, I don’t care…to me they are wasting their money as I’m confident that the tide of history on this issue is running against them. Them using the political system as it was intended to try and push through their views just doesn’t rise to the level of making me stop patronizing their establishment. If they launched some sort of pogrom to find and fire every homosexual that works for them (I know for a fact some do), THEN we are talking a whole 'nother can of worms. As things stand right now, I don’t see this as an issue.
And, regardless, I still LIKE their food. Saying that it sucks, which was the main thrust of the OP, and that the folks who do like it are idiots because they don’t conform to the OPs taste in food is stupid, IMHO. People have different taste in food as in other things. Obviously, a lot of folks disagree with the OP, since if they didn’t, Chick-Fil-A (who, at least out here is patronized more by yuppy types than toofless NASCAR watching hillbillies, or whatever the OP was implying there) would be out of business rather quickly.
Goldman Sachs supports pro-LGBT candidate.
And there are different levels of anti-gayness, anyway. The Christian Athletes and Focus on the Family try to cure gayness, and promulgate the lie that gays try to *recruit your sons and daughters!
*
Then we have a fundamental disconnect. I think it’s ridiculous to compare what Chick-Fil-A is doing today with either the ACTUAL Civil Rights movement in the 60’s and what they went through OR (especially) with Hitler, which takes it to a whole 'nother level of extreme from even the Civil Rights Movement and the way blacks and minorities were treated in the US prior to that.
So the OP boils down to:
- Fast food is shit.
- Chick-Fil-A is fast food.
- Therefore Chick-Fil-A is shit.
This might may be so, but it seems kinda pointless to aim this argument at a particular fast-food chain.
People who think fast food is all shitty don’t go to Chick-Fil-A or any of its competitors in the first place, so they don’t give a shit about whether Chick-Fil-A is better or worse than other fast food.
And conversely, people who have an opinion about which fast food chain has better food than another generally believe that (1) above is false, so there goes the whole argument.
I eat fried chicken because its tasty, but even more so because I hate chickens. First chore as a child was feeding our chickens, and I learned that their vicious stupidity was the very essence of evil in its purest non-human form.
I have also read that some chickens are homosexual. I demand that Chick-fil-a inspect all its chickens to ensure that they are not serving homosexuals!
Well, yes. Guilty as charged. But if your sole criteria are whether you’re entertained and whether you like the product, then presumably you’d overlook any negative associations or positions a company might have, regardless of how heinous. Otherwise, what you’re really saying is “okay, I would care about XYZ, I just don’t care that much about this issue that YOU care about.” Which I suspect is more accurate.
I do not understand the love for their chicken sandwiches. They’re nasty, even without the side order of bigotry.
Chik-Fil-A’s chicken sucks. Popeye’s is better. Even KFC is better (barring them screwing it up especially badly). I won’t eat it even if CFA is the only place open, and I haven’t eaten in a couple of days…though I would probably have gotten a drink or something before I became aware of their politics.
Well then at least I have an excuse for being a pretentious douchebag. What’s your reason?