No, you’re defined by what ideals and values you support. Normally these are not linked to everyday products. My decision to buy a chicken sandwich says nothing about how I feel about SSM.
But Cathy insists on linking his business to anti-gay values, using the money the company makes to support groups who lobby and advocate against SSM. That’s money that comes from the consumers, from me. Even if my money is only an insignificant fraction of what CFA makes and only an insignificant fraction of my money would go to such donations, I don’t want a part of that. Cathy has made it my business, saying that if I spend money at CFA I’m supporting companies who are anti-SSM. Therefore I will not spend money at CFA.
This is the free market here. I’m voting with my wallet using the best information I have available.
If you knew that I ate there and I thought your boycott was stupid and pointless, but none the less your right to do so…would you hold that against me (or somebody else who thought the same)?
Chick Fil A…so damn good you’ll fight gay marriage to keep eating it
The thing is, though, you can only support / fight so much. If you boycotted everything that was in some way a human rights violation, you’d probably best be served living in a hut in the outback, surviving off roots and wearing a loincloth and eschew work or anything else that could divert your time or energy. Because that’d be a full-time position. So, you target the causes that are most important to you and let others take up the mantle on other (equally important, but just not as high a priority to you) issues. Makes sense to me.
So, in my case, I care the most about GLBT concerns. I’m also appalled about sweatshops, sure, but that’s not where my focus lies. And if that means I boycott these idiots or the Boy Scouts, that just leaves the lack of donning Nikes or iPhones to you.
:::hijack::: I really hate (ironic no?) the lame-ass juvenile “hater” tag. Even if your object of ire is a valid one it implies that your hatred is invalid due to being inappropriately emotional (not to mention the overwhelming majority of the time where there is no genuine hatred, just someone calling someone else a “hater” to insinuate that their opinion is invalid.) Personally I don’t hate or not hate CFA.
That said, if I felt a bit more strongly about boycotting CFA, then yes, I would think less of you for not participating. But it wouldn’t turn into full-blown “hate”. There are possible gradations in almost everything and this is no exception. The respect I’d lose for you would come close to the Quantum of Caring, below which it wouldn’t be possible to care less about something.
God’s view of marriage in the eternal sense is apparent in Matthew 22:30, so it appears marriage in it’s ‘human form’ is the result of human failure. I would argue scripturally that God’s system for us in a eternal sense is Love, sex and children without marriage.
Dude, who do you think you are fooling? If even I, who generally has no problem with sanctimonious posts (making them often myself) can see what you are doing. You keep telling LHOD that he’s wrong to complain about something. He repeatedly points out that, by your own logic, if it’s okay for the Chick-Fil-A guy to say what he believes, then it’s by definition okay for him to say what he believes. If you continue to believe something after it’s been shown to you to be illogical, we are free to infer about your beliefs and intentions.
Speaking of which, “U mad bro” is something said by trolls, and, since I assume you are not one, you might want to say that, especially being a newer poster, where we’re more likely to just assume your troll status based on your actions. The entire statement is about the idea of enjoying the fact that someone is mad, and deliberately designed to make them even madder, so you can enjoy it more. Again, assuming your goal here is to have productive conversations, you might want to refrain from such language. Particularly since you’ve given away by your actions that you are also anti-gay or might as well be because you refuse to do anything about the problem.
Though Sam Eagle and, disappointingly, Professor Honey-dew both issued statements opposing the move and vocalizing their support for Chik-Fil-A’s decision. Sam Eagle also called for the annexation of Canada, but then when has he ever missed a chance to do that?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
God’s view of marriage in the eternal sense is apparent in Matthew 22:30, so it appears marriage in it’s ‘human form’ is the result of human failure. I would argue scripturally that God’s system for us in a eternal sense is Love, sex and children without marriage.
[/QUOTE]
Yet it doesn’t exist in heaven, where nobody will be bound by marriage vows one way or other other, which makes one wonder how important it could possibly be to Him.
Much to my surprise, my wife (who is usually both more moderate and less activist in her political views than I am) decided not to patronize Chick-Fil-A on account of this, before I’d even thought about it.
I’ve been aware that they’re owned by pretty right-wing people, but wasn’t aware until recently that they were throwing their money around in support of causes like opposition to gay marriage. I was also giving them some progressive cred for adhering to history’s oldest labor law, the one about not having your people do work on the Sabbath. (They’re not open on Sundays. Nowadays, they’re very much the exception that way, and they’ve got to be leaving serious money on the table by doing so.)
But if my wife is going to take her business elsewhere on account of this, I’m not gonna blow against the wind.
Probably not as much as you’d think. At least judging by the CFA near my house, they’re busy enough on the other 6 days to coast through Sunday, and I doubt their desired clientele is big on eating out on Sundays anyway.
