Webb Simpson and Stewart Cink Show their Support for Chick-fil-A

[bamagrad03]

Quote:

In the same way, you may not discriminate based on sexual orientation

But if commitment ceremonies and gay marriages aren't about sex (which they're not), and you've worked with gay folks in the past, how is turning down a commitment ceremony or a gay marriage sexual discrimination? Not a single person in this thread has addressed the fact that both businesses in discussion had previously worked with gay people.

We're going in circles at this point.

I SERIOUSLY doubt you guys would be screaming from the rooftops like this if it was a Christian who was told to go find someone else to photograph their wedding or print their retreat tshirts...(and you shouldn't - because people shouldn't be FORCED to take part in someone else's religious practices)

[Wisguy]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

1)    We're going in circles at this point.

2)  because people shouldn't be FORCED to take part in someone else's religious practices)

1.  Let me correct my earlier statement:  you're turning this dead horse into a pool of mush at this point.

2.  EXACTLY.  It's called separation of church and state.  Keep religion out of legislation - the religious right has no business defining who can or cannot get married.

[Wisguy]

Via George Takei

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

2.  EXACTLY.  It's called separation of church and state.  Keep religion out of legislation - the religious right has no business defining who can or cannot get married.

Nothing to do with separation of church & state. Like, not even a little bit.

[newtogolf]

Sure it does, the law makers in the past took a religious ceremony and sacrament and based laws on it, basically they turned it into a legal contract.  Marriage according to Webster means;

• the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage >

The church can't have the term marriage back because there are too many laws regarding it and the parties of a marriage to change the term to include civil unions.  The church would be better off to come up with a new term for the religious sacrament and fight to ensure that it's kept for religious purposes only and isn't tied into any existing laws that they wish to exclude homosexuals from.

Originally Posted by bamagrad03 

 

Nothing to do with separation of church & state. Like, not even a little bit.

[Doctorfro]

Originally Posted by Wisguy

I like how those who defend bigotted viewpoints try to flip it back on those who support equality for all be claiming the latter group is intolerant.  Yes, I'm intolerant of bigotry.  Unless you yourself happen to be a bigot, you should be too. ...........

(eight gigantic paragraphs later)

The irony of anti-gay bigotry is that a lot of it is based on some narrow and antiquated conception of wild gay promiscuity of the 1980's NYC or SF club scene.  Marital equality has absolutely nothing to do with promiscuity, it's about couples who want to commit to monogamous relationships.  If heterosexual couples are rewarded with benefits when they choose to be (presumptively) lifelong partners, why shouldn't gay couples have the same rewards for the same level of commitment to each other?

Dang, dude.  Got issues? or good drugs? (sorry, couldn't help myself)

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Sure it does, the law makers in the past took a religious ceremony and sacrament and based laws on it, basically they turned it into a legal contract.  Marriage according to Webster means;

the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

The church can't have the term marriage back because there are too many laws regarding it and the parties of a marriage to change the term to include civil unions.  The church would be better off to come up with a new term for the religious sacrament and fight to ensure that it's kept for religious purposes only and isn't tied into any existing laws that they wish to exclude homosexuals from.

No, he was referring to my situation about how I said a Christian shouldn't be able to cry discrimination about a tshirt printer not printing a church related tshirt. And he said "of course they can't separation of church and state."

But clearly that isn't the case. Because if you can cry discrimination based on sexual preference if a guy doesn't want to print gay pride tshirts, then you can cry the same discrimination, under religious grounds, if they wouldn't print church tshirts. Which is sad.

You can't say "they don't have to print the church shirts - separation of church and state." It's not a valid or related argument.

[bamagrad03]

Guys, I think I'm going to bow out of this one. 12 pages is plenty for me.

Thanks for a really great back and forth. For a topic as potentially divisive as this, it's been a really civil debate for the most part. I certainly respect everyone's opinion on the matter and thanks for some wonderful insight.

[zipazoid]

From a First Amendment perspective, there's nothing wrong with what the CFA CEO said. He has every right to say it.

From a business perspective, it was extremely stupid. Why would you want to endanger your bottom line? He's risking alienating a large amount of people; not just gays but those that support gay marriage. Jeez man, know your place - you sell chicken sandwiches...you're just not that important, and certainly your opinion on issues that have nothing to do with selling chicken sandwiches isn't.

[Doctorfro]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

From a First Amendment perspective, there's nothing wrong with what the CFA CEO said. He has every right to say it.

From a business perspective, it was extremely stupid. Why would you want to endanger your bottom line? He's risking alienating a large amount of people; not just gays but those that support gay marriage. Jeez man, know your place - you sell chicken sandwiches...you're just not that important, and certainly your opinion on issues that have nothing to do with selling chicken sandwiches isn't.

You're right. In another day and time, what he said would not be national news.  But because of the instant media we have, stuff like that spreads like wildfire.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Doctorfro

You're right. In another day and time, what he said would not be national news.  But because of the instant media we have, stuff like that spreads like wildfire.

Well true, but still...if he wants to sell chicken sandwiches he'd be best served by keeping his mouth shut. If instead he wants to be a siren for his beliefs, then he can go with his bad self...and sell less chicken sandwiches.

In other words, it's not the 'instant media' that's to blame, it's him.

[newtogolf]

CFA has always been one of those companies that felt the need to broadcast their corporate culture.  They force their franchises to close on Sundays and talk about their family values.  I wasn't aware of their overly religious values until recently (which I could do without).  I always thought it was cool that they looked out for their employees quality of life and it's something we have always done in my business as well.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Well true, but still...if he wants to sell chicken sandwiches he'd be best served by keeping his mouth shut. If instead he wants to be a siren for his beliefs, then he can go with his bad self...and sell less chicken sandwiches.

In other words, it's not the 'instant media' that's to blame, it's him.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

CFA has always been one of those companies that felt the need to broadcast their corporate culture.  They force their franchises to close on Sundays and talk about their family values.  I wasn't aware of their overly religious values until recently (which I could do without).  I always thought it was cool that they looked out for their employees quality of life and it's something we have always done in my business as well.

Closing on Sundays is a real nice benefit for CFA employees, but it's also a good business decision since your overhead drops by 14.3% (1/7th) - you only have to staff & run your operation for 6 days instead of 7. So the closed Sunday thing gave CFA a dual benefit. I'll state it differently - I am sure he didn't decide to close on Sundays solely for the benefit of his employee's well-being. It made sense business-wise.

Stating his comments publicly on gay marriage is not a good business decision. What - anti-gay/pro-traditional marriage people are gonna buy more chicken sandwiches to offset the business he stands to lose from those who take exception to his comments?

Bottom line in all this is, as I stated earlier, keep your damn mouth shut. Or sell less chicken sandwiches. Your call, Cathy.

[newtogolf]

I agree on all points.  As a business owner I avoid discussions regarding religion and politics with my customers and vendors.  I will tend to just let them talk when they insist on discussing such issues, especially if they differ from mine.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Closing on Sundays is a real nice benefit for CFA employees, but it's also a good business decision since your overhead drops by 14.3% (1/7th) - you only have to staff & run your operation for 6 days instead of 7. So the closed Sunday thing gave CFA a dual benefit. I'll state it differently - I am sure he didn't decide to close on Sundays solely for the benefit of his employee's well-being. It made sense business-wise.

Stating his comments publicly on gay marriage is not a good business decision. What - anti-gay/pro-traditional marriage people are gonna buy more chicken sandwiches to offset the business he stands to lose from those who take exception to his comments?

Bottom line in all this is, as I stated earlier, keep your damn mouth shut. Or sell less chicken sandwiches. Your call, Cathy.

[Doctorfro]

My daughter used to work for the Cathy's and you can be sure, the closing on Sundays is because they truly care about their employees.  They go above and beyond what most employers would do to take care of their employees. But, knowing what we know about todays wired world, you definitely need to keep things on the down low.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Closing on Sundays is a real nice benefit for CFA employees, but it's also a good business decision since your overhead drops by 14.3% (1/7th) - you only have to staff & run your operation for 6 days instead of 7. So the closed Sunday thing gave CFA a dual benefit. I'll state it differently - I am sure he didn't decide to close on Sundays solely for the benefit of his employee's well-being. It made sense business-wise.

That's not really how running a business works. Otherwise they'd close 6 days out of the week and cut their overhead by 6/7ths.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Stating his comments publicly on gay marriage is not a good business decision. What - anti-gay/pro-traditional marriage people are gonna buy more chicken sandwiches to offset the business he stands to lose from those who take exception to his comments?

Well, that's exactly what happened in the initial days after this first made the news - CFA supporters came out in droves and it resulted in record-breaking sales at many stores. Certainly that may not continue in the long term, but by the same token all the people who initially boycotted might not do so indefinitely either. So, not saying you're wrong, just saying one can't make a definitive statement either way.

[jetsknicks1]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Well true, but still...if he wants to sell chicken sandwiches he'd be best served by keeping his mouth shut. If instead he wants to be a siren for his beliefs, then he can go with his bad self...and sell less chicken sandwiches.

In other words, it's not the 'instant media' that's to blame, it's him.

He didn't siren his beliefs. He was asked a question in an interview and he answered it. If the result of that is that he sells fewer sandwiches than so be it. Just because he owns a business doesn't mean he shouldn't state his opinions.

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by Doctorfro

My daughter used to work for the Cathy's and you can be sure, the closing on Sundays is because they truly care about their employees.  They go above and beyond what most employers would do to take care of their employees. But, knowing what we know about todays wired world, you definitely need to keep things on the down low.

I don't think you need to keep things on the down low. I do not hide my faith from others with whom I work. I do not discriminate based on others' faiths either in hiring or with whom I do business. I own the business and the business should reflect a lot about me. We won't take certain kinds of business. But if I publicly did a Woody Allen or a Mel Gibson, I should expect people to punish my business. (I used to love Woody Allen movies and now I can't watch them.)

In CFA's case, some of their managers have taken the "values" of the company beyond what Cathy likely intends for business purposes and the managers' actions have brought a number of discrimination suits on the company. Charges range from anti-gay discrimination to firing a woman because the manager believed she should stay home with her child instead of work. In any big company, that kind of thing can happen. But, as a result of these cases, a Chicago Alderman has been asking (since long before Cathy's comments aired) for the hiring policies of the company. The company will not share the policy that could demonstrate that their have a policy of non-discrimination. CFA's owners take their free speech beyond words and financially support anti-gay groups and even an anti-gay hate group -- presumably to support the fight against same sex marriage and not the other hate based activities. The lack of a policy against discrimination, the public views of the owners, and the pending lawsuits, and the financial support of organizations that are classified as hate groups, warrant a delay in approval of a zoning variance in the opinoin of the Alderman. And, those actions have increased the cry for a boycott by groups supporting gay civil rights.

It is the actions of the company more than simply the words of the company owners that have created the stir. The interview was news because the family has not publicly talked about these things before. And the interview confirmed, allowed for distortion, created questions about the firm's practices, and thrust CFA into a polarized national debate.

Back to the OP, If Simpson and Cink meant to take sides in this debate and knew what support of CFA means to many supporters of gay rights, it was an interesting choice. I think they took the simplistic view that a guy spoke his mind about his faith (which agrees with theirs) and there is nothing wrong with that.

Does it make me a bad man that I felt good every time I saw Webb make a boogie yesterday?