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

[colin007]

It's totally not a big deal. Anybody who gives even half a shit about this, from either side of the debate, is blowing it out of proportion...

[rustyredcab]

Have not been able to eat a Chick Fil-A for years. Love the product but will not support a firm that actively supports groups that are anti civil rights.

They are a private firm and can do what they want with their profits. I'm just not willing to help them. BTW, they will not tell the Chicago Alderman blocking their zoning variance if they discriminate in hiring. All he has been asking for for months is a clarification of their policies. They will not share any hiring policies and their founders have suggested that discrimination "depends" on the circumstances.

[Dave2512]

I don't eat there because I'm not into the food enough to bear the freaky Pleasantville/Twitlight Zone vibe.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

Have not been able to eat a Chick Fil-A for years. Love the product but will not support a firm that actively supports groups that are anti civil rights.

They are a private firm and can do what they want with their profits. I'm just not willing to help them. BTW, they will not tell the Chicago Alderman blocking their zoning variance if they discriminate in hiring. All he has been asking for for months is a clarification of their policies. They will not share any hiring policies and their founders have suggested that discrimination "depends" on the circumstances.

I understand and respect that.

What I don't respect is people like Roseanne Barr saying that she hopes people who eat there "get the cancer".  I hope that bitch gets lockjaw.

[clubchamp]

Originally Posted by bwdial

I understand and respect that.

What I don't respect is people like Roseanne Barr saying that she hopes people who eat there "get the cancer".  I hope that bitch gets lockjaw.

I think a lot of people have felt this way for years... remember the national anthem?

[JetFan1983]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwdial

I understand and respect that.

What I don't respect is people like Roseanne Barr saying that she hopes people who eat there "get the cancer".  I hope that bitch gets lockjaw.

I think a lot of people have felt this way for years... remember the national anthem?

Still trying to forget it....

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't know.

I happen to be very (can there be degrees of this?) pro-gay marriage and think that anybody against it is wrong.  I even "shared" one of those popular meme's today equating the people rallying outside chick fila to people rallying for segregation in the 60's with the tagline "Imagine how foolish you will look in 40 years."  However, I know a lot of people who disagree with me, and that is fine.  Even some of my close friends.  I am annoyed by that, but am not going to stop being their friends.  If I give one of those friends a ride to the airport, I am "supporting" somebody who is anti gay marriage, one could say.  Is that all that different than buying chicken from a guy who is against gay marriage?  Or if I buy girl scout cookies from their daughters?

The general point being, if I'm going to make a big deal of this, then shouldn't I - to be fair - look into the beliefs of every human I associate with or every business that I patronize before doing so?  As far as I know, the owner of Carl's Jr. could be ex KKK, or the guy from the little pizza place around the corner a nazi.

I kind of liken it to everybody's "hate" of Tiger Woods for being a cheater - not like all those other pro golfers who are all good husbands.  But how do we know?  (Same is true for steroids in baseball in the 90's.  I can't really chastise McGwire, Sosa and Bonds as much as I'd like because I just don't know about all the rest of them)

Oh, I was really just being flippant. And, to the extent that I was being sincere, I did include "sometimes," which applies because not everyone who buys the sandwich is making a statement in support of the social beliefs of their owner.

Personally, I find their food to be pretty foul, so I get an escape from the question of whether to boycott over this. I do tend toward supporting the boycotts (but see below), and I reject the idea that this is somehow "intolerant." The reason is that the "anti" side is (generally) doing more than having a private belief that same-sex marriages are wrong: they are preventing others from choosing to marry a person of their choice. I have no problem with anyone believing that same-sex relationships are wrong (although I strongly disagree) and I object to harrassment over that belief. But trying to enforce that belief on others---preventing a marriage that you're not a part of because you're uncomfortable with it---is flatly not acceptable in our free society, which is founded on freedom from religious tyranny.

There is a bit of a wrinkle here, in that the statements that triggered this situation were apparently the owner/founder/whatever expressing his own belief. On the basis of that alone, I think the boycotts are unnecessary. However, I recall past evidence that the corporation was, in fact, using its funds to support anti-same-sex marriage groups, which is why I tend toward supporting the boycott. While I might avoid doing business with someone whose personal beliefs I found abhorrent, I don't think it would be appropriate to protest their right to earn a living.

It's certainly complicated by the existence of the business as a somewhat independent entity, and by its size. As for Simpson and Cink, well, much as I don't give a whit about Tiger's personal life, I'm less than uninterested in their opinions on the matter. I mean, dude, they're golfers.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by zeg

Oh, I was really just being flippant. And, to the extent that I was being sincere, I did include "sometimes," which applies because not everyone who buys the sandwich is making a statement in support of the social beliefs of their owner.

Personally, I find their food to be pretty foul, so I get an escape from the question of whether to boycott over this. I do tend toward supporting the boycotts (but see below), and I reject the idea that this is somehow "intolerant." The reason is that the "anti" side is (generally) doing more than having a private belief that same-sex marriages are wrong: they are preventing others from choosing to marry a person of their choice. I have no problem with anyone believing that same-sex relationships are wrong (although I strongly disagree) and I object to harrassment over that belief. But trying to enforce that belief on others---preventing a marriage that you're not a part of because you're uncomfortable with it---is flatly not acceptable in our free society, which is founded on freedom from religious tyranny.

There is a bit of a wrinkle here, in that the statements that triggered this situation were apparently the owner/founder/whatever expressing his own belief. On the basis of that alone, I think the boycotts are unnecessary. However, I recall past evidence that the corporation was, in fact, using its funds to support anti-same-sex marriage groups, which is why I tend toward supporting the boycott. While I might avoid doing business with someone whose personal beliefs I found abhorrent, I don't think it would be appropriate to protest their right to earn a living.

It's certainly complicated by the existence of the business as a somewhat independent entity, and by its size. As for Simpson and Cink, well, much as I don't give a whit about Tiger's personal life, I'm less than uninterested in their opinions on the matter. I mean, dude, they're golfers.

I read your entire post 5 times trying to find something I disagree with, even one word.  Couldn't do it.  Well said.

I can say that I don't necessarily agree that their food is foul, but I have only eaten there once (my wife hates it) and I don't remember if it was any good or not.

Anyway, good post.

[colin007]

Actually, their food is fowl...;-)

[darkhunter139]

Originally Posted by colin007

It's totally not a big deal. Anybody who gives even half a shit about this, from either side of the debate, is blowing it out of proportion...

I am so tired of reading about this.  In a month no one will even remember this and all the people that said they are outraged and are boycotting chick fil a will be eating there again.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I read your entire post 5 times trying to find something I disagree with, even one word.  Couldn't do it.  Well said.

I can say that I don't necessarily agree that their food is foul, but I have only eaten there once (my wife hates it) and I don't remember if it was any good or not.

Anyway, good post.

Thanks, I didn't want my earlier post to leave you with the wrong idea. :-)

Actually, I've probably only tried them once, and that would have been probably ~20 years ago when they first opened where I lived. All I remember was being unimpressed. Now I'm just generally not into fast food, so you could substitute almost any chain in place of Chik-Fil-A and I'd feel about the same. Well, except McDonald's. Actually, I really wish the flap were about McDonald's---on the rare occasions (maybe once every couple years) I wind up eating there, I regret it in a way that I don't get with any other place. BUT, I digress....

Oh, I did find one of my own words I disagree with. In the third paragraph, where I said "are unnecessary" I should have said "are wrong" or "are intolerant" or similar.

Originally Posted by colin007

Actually, their food is fowl...

Ok, wise guy. That's *two* words I should change. :-)

[joekelly]

I needed about 480 calories yesterday and stopped at CFA for a Peach Milkshake. It was delicious. However, i had to wonder what was behind the clerk's question when he asked me, after he took my order, 'Can i have a name with that?'  What the F?  He wants my name for fast food?  NO, you cannot not, thanks. ' That's OK, I'll remember your face'.  I just want food, not anything more.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by joekelly

I needed about 480 calories yesterday and stopped at CFA for a Peach Milkshake. It was delicious. However, i had to wonder what was behind the clerk's question when he asked me, after he took my order, 'Can i have a name with that?'  What the F?  He wants my name for fast food?  NO, you cannot not, thanks. ' That's OK, I'll remember your face'.  I just want food, not anything more.

LOL... You're getting bent over a clerk asking your name?  You give them a name... I'm 'Mutha****ing Machine Gun Kelly!' Seriously though... They are most likely busy, and call your order by name?  It's not uncommon for places that prepare and serve your food at the counter to do this.  Your first name is suffice.  You don't need to give them your surname.

[Shorty]

The thing about Christians like Cink and Simpson is that because of theur dogmatic and naive beliefs, they tend not to have friendships from varied ways of life and persuasions. Drspite their wealth and supreme golfing gifts, they live very sheltered lives.

You will find that most of their friends are Christians,s o that they would rarely if ever have conversations where their "beliefs" are put under any form of scrutiny.

So, when they tweet about things like "values" and pretend to be mere;y "showing support" they are surprised when their beliefs and viewpoints are called into question.

I'm not particularly interested in the Simpson's or Cink's views about gay marriage, but they shouldn't be surprised when they step into a minefield and have their "tweets" or whatever scrutinised.

How often at a dinner party, for example, do you think either have had a rational discussion about their beliefs with someone who has a sound background in logic?

When you've got the Baddeleys and the Fowlers and the Cinks and the Simpsons all together, their irrational beliefs are heightened and consolidated. They just aren't used to people who aren't like them and tweeting disingenuous comments does them no favours, especially when they pretend to be all innocent and unaware of the controversy, acting all humble and sincere.

Cink has shown himself to be more of a twit than I previously thought he was and it makes me wish even more that Tom Watson had had a slightly softer 18th to hit into a couple of years back.

[Doctorfro]

Originally Posted by Shorty

The thing about Christians like Cink and Simpson is that because of theur dogmatic and naive beliefs, they tend not to have friendships from varied ways of life and persuasions. Drspite their wealth and supreme golfing gifts, they live very sheltered lives.

You will find that most of their friends are Christians,s o that they would rarely if ever have conversations where their "beliefs" are put under any form of scrutiny.

So, when they tweet about things like "values" and pretend to be mere;y "showing support" they are surprised when their beliefs and viewpoints are called into question.

I'm not particularly interested in the Simpson's or Cink's views about gay marriage, but they shouldn't be surprised when they step into a minefield and have their "tweets" or whatever scrutinised.

How often at a dinner party, for example, do you think either have had a rational discussion about their beliefs with someone who has a sound background in logic?

When you've got the Baddeleys and the Fowlers and the Cinks and the Simpsons all together, their irrational beliefs are heightened and consolidated. They just aren't used to people who aren't like them and tweeting disingenuous comments does them no favours, especially when they pretend to be all innocent and unaware of the controversy, acting all humble and sincere.

Cink has shown himself to be more of a twit than I previously thought he was and it makes me wish even more that Tom Watson had had a slightly softer 18th to hit into a couple of years back.

And you know this stuff because....??  Way to "pigeon hole" most Christians.  If you got over your hangups and stereotypes and interacted with a few you might find a different viewpoint.  Those who truly follow Christ tend to do what he teaches which is love God and love people.  Unfortunately, the media feeds into the sweeping generalizations and sensationalizes the fanatics who sometimes get it wrong.  And the sheep follow right along.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by Shorty

The thing about Christians like Cink and Simpson is that because of theur dogmatic and naive beliefs, they tend not to have friendships from varied ways of life and persuasions. Drspite their wealth and supreme golfing gifts, they live very sheltered lives.

Unlike the Chik-Fil-A boycott, this is intolerant and unfounded.

[bamagrad03]

Originally Posted by Shorty

The thing about Christians like Cink and Simpson is that because of theur dogmatic and naive beliefs, they tend not to have friendships from varied ways of life and persuasions. Drspite their wealth and supreme golfing gifts, they live very sheltered lives.

You will find that most of their friends are Christians,s o that they would rarely if ever have conversations where their "beliefs" are put under any form of scrutiny.

So, when they tweet about things like "values" and pretend to be mere;y "showing support" they are surprised when their beliefs and viewpoints are called into question.

I'm not particularly interested in the Simpson's or Cink's views about gay marriage, but they shouldn't be surprised when they step into a minefield and have their "tweets" or whatever scrutinised.

How often at a dinner party, for example, do you think either have had a rational discussion about their beliefs with someone who has a sound background in logic?

When you've got the Baddeleys and the Fowlers and the Cinks and the Simpsons all together, their irrational beliefs are heightened and consolidated. They just aren't used to people who aren't like them and tweeting disingenuous comments does them no favours, especially when they pretend to be all innocent and unaware of the controversy, acting all humble and sincere.

Cink has shown himself to be more of a twit than I previously thought he was and it makes me wish even more that Tom Watson had had a slightly softer 18th to hit into a couple of years back.

While I'm totally new here, I have already noticed your penchant for being grumpy and closed minded. Not surprising that you'd post something like this. Your opinions couldn't be more ill-informed.

As far as CFA is concerned, I wish both sides would just shut up. We've gotten to the point in the world that disagreements lead to opposition painting their foes with broad strokes. And even worse, disagreement is now met with knee-jerk wild swings of portrayals of the other party as being the worst possible human being. "You disagree with my opinion? Well, you're a hateful bigot." - No grey area, no nuance. Just the worst possible thing.

It used to be that folks would discuss their disagreements and listen to the other side. We don't do that anymore. We immediately project the worst character traits we can think of onto the person who shares a different opinion from us. Which only serves to shut down lines of communication and respectful debate.

Both sides need to get it together or things are gonna get worse, quickly.

[Roblar]

Originally Posted by bamagrad03

...snip...And even worse, disagreement is now met with knee-jerk wild swings of portrayals of the other party as being the worst possible human being. "You disagree with my opinion? Well, you're a hateful bigot." - No grey area, no nuance. Just the worst possible thing....snip...

But isn't this the point?  As with civil rights / race 'debates' in the 60's, this *is* bigotry.  Is there a grey area for nuance there?  The anti-gay-marriage side certainly can't say, "You disagree with my opinion? Well, you're a hateful bigot."  What?  I guess "Well, you're a progressive, bleeding-heart liberal who cares about social justice!" just doesn't have quite the right ring to it...

The irony to me is that most of the 'christian' right that is supporting Chick-fil-a and actively working to prohibit others from freely entering into relationships of their choice, would also tell you that they love America because of our freedoms. Hypocrites.