Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Food, Dining and Nightlife News
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(09-05-2021, 12:19 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I should not have been surprised that some members here feelings towards Chick-Fil-A, most likely regarding Chick-Fil-A's donations to the Salvation Army  (which is usually the one referred to, as that organizations less than stellar treatment to certain marginalize groups, specifically, our LGBTQ+ community in the past) are not wishing to dine there.

That said, I hope that those same members feel the same way about all the other businesses that donate to the Salvation Army and would treat them just the same way:

Google, Walmart, NFL, Toyota, Ford, UPS, FedEx, Budweiser, Lowes, Bass Pro Shops, Delta, Hanes plus several others. Google is a huge sponsor, in fact. So no more using their services. No more shopping at Walmart. No Bud for you (though who, really does...yech). Find an alternative to FedEx and UPS, and avoid companies that use their services. Perhaps the progressives should run Google and Toyota out of town.

Now, Chick-Fil-A has gone as far as to be decided not to donate to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations, apparently (since, who knows, maybe they still do), but the above mentioned companies, and hundred of other ones, haven't stop donating. I think you can go even as far as places like Sobeys, the malls, Zehrs, etc., that still allow their volunteers to ask for money at Christmas time.

No donations to Salvation Army anymore: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/chick-fi...tests.html

Business that donate to the Salvation Army:  https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/cor...tnerships/

This is my way of saying: if your feelings towards Chick-Fil-A are based on their past (or even present) behaviour -- you need to treat the above mentioned companies the same way. If you can't do that, you're part of the problem.  And it makes you a hypocrite the moment you Google something. The moment you accept a package from UPS or FedEx. The moment you set foot in a grocery store or mall. The moment you watch football. And talk to your councillors regarding the donation that Chick-Fil-A made to the food bank, as they shouldn't have accepted it.

And I know that not many want to hear (read) what I said. It is what it is. Judge Judy used to say something to the effect: you have to come in with clean hands.

And let me be clear: all businesses need to be accepting of all people, no matter their background, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political slant, sexual orientations, their gender, etc. But also no should be allowed to cherry pick which business they support and which business to protest if you're not treating other "like" business the same, nor should anyone tell anyone what businesses they should avoid.

*sigh*....you know, I really didn't want to talk about this again, but here we are with you calling me (and others) a hypocrite with misleading arguments. Worse, you are arguing that I (and others) shouldn't even be allowed to express an opinion about which businesses should be supported and which should not, which is a highly confusing point to take in the name of freedom.

So, I find that pretty that all all a little insulting. But I digress, here's why your argument is misleading.

Chik-a-fil doesn't *ONLY* support Salvation Army (an organization that I also do not support), they (and especially their founders) have also supported a numerous other anti-LGBTQ organizations. And they have made explicit statements against LGTBQ individuals, and have made clear their philanthropy is explicitly about opposing same sex marriage. This is not the same, and in fact, explicitly opposite many of the other companies you have stated which are either neutral, or explicitly supportive of same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.

And yes, they have tried to separate their corporation from this advocacy as of late...because not doing so is a financially and legally precarious thing not to do, it is clear the owners (and primary financial benefactors) maintain this belief and can continue to use their significant financial resources (which one contributes to by patronizing the restaurant) to advocate against LGBTQ rights in private.

You have chosen one tiny piece of information (the support of the salvation army) and tried to form an argument around it, while ignoring all the surrounding context which significantly invalidates the argument that all these companies are the same. As I stated, I don't like Salvation Army, and I don't support them, and I don't like that other companies may support them, but that is not the same as those companies and their owners adopting an explicitly stated agenda against LGBTQ individuals, and you really should know that.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't support them, or that I even care if you do, but if you're going to come here and talk about it, then I (and others) have every right to respond. If our responses make you uncomfortable, you should ask yourself why. If you want to explain it to us why, that's fine too, but I (and others) still have the right to rebut those arguments as well.
Personally, I'd really like to see sources that they continue to support anti-LGBTQ organizations. As far as I can tell when I looked, was that they had stopped. I've seen assertions they continue, but no sources supporting that.
(09-05-2021, 01:53 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, I'd really like to see sources that they continue to support anti-LGBTQ organizations. As far as I can tell when I looked, was that they had stopped. I've seen assertions they continue, but no sources supporting that.

The tricky bit is what is meant by 'they', here. My understanding it that it was previously the corporation itself who made direct donations to such organizations; when they made that promise, it did indeed stop.

However, I understand that the company's majority shareholders, the family that founded it, continue to donate privately (from the profits made by the company).
(09-05-2021, 12:19 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I should not have been surprised that some members here feelings towards Chick-Fil-A, most likely regarding Chick-Fil-A's donations to the Salvation Army  (which is usually the one referred to, as that organizations less than stellar treatment to certain marginalize groups, specifically, our LGBTQ+ community in the past) are not wishing to dine there.

That said, I hope that those same members feel the same way about all the other businesses that donate to the Salvation Army and would treat them just the same way:

Google, Walmart, NFL, Toyota, Ford, UPS, FedEx, Budweiser, Lowes, Bass Pro Shops, Delta, Hanes plus several others. Google is a huge sponsor, in fact. So no more using their services. No more shopping at Walmart. No Bud for you (though who, really does...yech). Find an alternative to FedEx and UPS, and avoid companies that use their services. Perhaps the progressives should run Google and Toyota out of town.

Now, Chick-Fil-A has gone as far as to be decided not to donate to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations, apparently (since, who knows, maybe they still do), but the above mentioned companies, and hundred of other ones, haven't stop donating. I think you can go even as far as places like Sobeys, the malls, Zehrs, etc., that still allow their volunteers to ask for money at Christmas time.

No donations to Salvation Army anymore: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/chick-fi...tests.html

Business that donate to the Salvation Army:  https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/cor...tnerships/

This is my way of saying: if your feelings towards Chick-Fil-A are based on their past (or even present) behaviour -- you need to treat the above mentioned companies the same way. If you can't do that, you're part of the problem.  And it makes you a hypocrite the moment you Google something. The moment you accept a package from UPS or FedEx. The moment you set foot in a grocery store or mall. The moment you watch football. And talk to your councillors regarding the donation that Chick-Fil-A made to the food bank, as they shouldn't have accepted it.

And I know that not many want to hear (read) what I said. It is what it is. Judge Judy used to say something to the effect: you have to come in with clean hands.

And let me be clear: all businesses need to be accepting of all people, no matter their background, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political slant, sexual orientations, their gender, etc. But also no should be allowed to cherry pick which business they support and which business to protest if you're not treating other "like" business the same, nor should anyone tell anyone what businesses they should avoid.

Articles from 2021 and not 2019.

https://www.esquire.com/food-drink/resta...ality-act/
Chick-fil-a’s Owner Is Newly Connected to Anti-Equality Act Donations

https://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fi...ned-2021-6
Chick-fil-A is under attack over its CEO's ties to a Christian charity accused of trying to squash proposed LGBTQ protections. Here's what we know about the chain's donations.
(09-05-2021, 07:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-05-2021, 12:19 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I should not have been surprised that some members here feelings towards Chick-Fil-A, most likely regarding Chick-Fil-A's donations to the Salvation Army  (which is usually the one referred to, as that organizations less than stellar treatment to certain marginalize groups, specifically, our LGBTQ+ community in the past) are not wishing to dine there.

That said, I hope that those same members feel the same way about all the other businesses that donate to the Salvation Army and would treat them just the same way:

Google, Walmart, NFL, Toyota, Ford, UPS, FedEx, Budweiser, Lowes, Bass Pro Shops, Delta, Hanes plus several others. Google is a huge sponsor, in fact. So no more using their services. No more shopping at Walmart. No Bud for you (though who, really does...yech). Find an alternative to FedEx and UPS, and avoid companies that use their services. Perhaps the progressives should run Google and Toyota out of town.

Now, Chick-Fil-A has gone as far as to be decided not to donate to anti-LGBTQ+ organizations, apparently (since, who knows, maybe they still do), but the above mentioned companies, and hundred of other ones, haven't stop donating. I think you can go even as far as places like Sobeys, the malls, Zehrs, etc., that still allow their volunteers to ask for money at Christmas time.

No donations to Salvation Army anymore: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/chick-fi...tests.html

Business that donate to the Salvation Army:  https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/cor...tnerships/

This is my way of saying: if your feelings towards Chick-Fil-A are based on their past (or even present) behaviour -- you need to treat the above mentioned companies the same way. If you can't do that, you're part of the problem.  And it makes you a hypocrite the moment you Google something. The moment you accept a package from UPS or FedEx. The moment you set foot in a grocery store or mall. The moment you watch football. And talk to your councillors regarding the donation that Chick-Fil-A made to the food bank, as they shouldn't have accepted it.

And I know that not many want to hear (read) what I said. It is what it is. Judge Judy used to say something to the effect: you have to come in with clean hands.

And let me be clear: all businesses need to be accepting of all people, no matter their background, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political slant, sexual orientations, their gender, etc. But also no should be allowed to cherry pick which business they support and which business to protest if you're not treating other "like" business the same, nor should anyone tell anyone what businesses they should avoid.

*sigh*....you know, I really didn't want to talk about this again, but here we are with you calling me (and others) a hypocrite with misleading arguments. Worse, you are arguing that I (and others) shouldn't even be allowed to express an opinion about which businesses should be supported and which should not, which is a highly confusing point to take in the name of freedom.

So, I find that pretty that all all a little insulting. But I digress, here's why your argument is misleading.

Chik-a-fil doesn't *ONLY* support Salvation Army (an organization that I also do not support), they (and especially their founders) have also supported a numerous other anti-LGBTQ organizations. And they have made explicit statements against LGTBQ individuals, and have made clear their philanthropy is explicitly about opposing same sex marriage. This is not the same, and in fact, explicitly opposite many of the other companies you have stated which are either neutral, or explicitly supportive of same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.

And yes, they have tried to separate their corporation from this advocacy as of late...because not doing so is a financially and legally precarious thing not to do, it is clear the owners (and primary financial benefactors) maintain this belief and can continue to use their significant financial resources (which one contributes to by patronizing the restaurant) to advocate against LGBTQ rights in private.

You have chosen one tiny piece of information (the support of the salvation army) and tried to form an argument around it, while ignoring all the surrounding context which significantly invalidates the argument that all these companies are the same. As I stated, I don't like Salvation Army, and I don't support them, and I don't like that other companies may support them, but that is not the same as those companies and their owners adopting an explicitly stated agenda against LGBTQ individuals, and you really should know that.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't support them, or that I even care if you do, but if you're going to come here and talk about it, then I (and others) have every right to respond. If our responses make you uncomfortable, you should ask yourself why. If you want to explain it to us why, that's fine too, but I (and others) still have the right to rebut those arguments as well.

If you learn how to Google things you'll find other companies that have done the same thing, involving donations to people, organizations, etc.

This was the first my first hit, with thousands of others:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021...ions-study

Remember, thousands of companies that we deal with every days are just as guilty as Chick-Fil-A. The difference with Chick-Fil-A is that it's easier to target (like we did in Kitchener) a small business (because it's a franchise) that hires many new Canadians and less than stellar wages (because they are willing to work for less). I personally find this racist. Why, because the same folks won't picket corporations that have deep pockets and are oozing white privilege. That's an opinion, though, just so we're clear.

Sorry that I triggered you though, that was unintentional. It was done more to educate people, but you didn't see it that way. Though my guess is because you worked at Google and felt uncomfortable with what I was saying. That's an opinion, though, just so we're clear.

And, Dan, I didn't call anyone a hypocrite -- I said IF they (people) decide to continue to support so-called anti-LGBTQ+ businesses and organizations, THEN it makes you a hypocrite when you cherry pick other businesses out. This isn't an opinion, just so we're clear.

That said, if the real reason for calling out Chick-Fil-A is due to their religious beliefs, then say it. Because this is what it could be about. Which is fine -- but religions don't have to go out of their way to support certain groups if they feel it's against their core religious beliefs (despite many churches hypocrisy when it comes to things of this nature). Just say you don't like their religious beliefs and how their religion deals with the LGBTQ+ community. Not that I think (to be clear, in my opinion) it absolves anyone if they're dealing with other companies, but at least it makes it a little more clear.

Transparency, people.
(09-06-2021, 01:04 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-05-2021, 07:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh*....you know, I really didn't want to talk about this again, but here we are with you calling me (and others) a hypocrite with misleading arguments. Worse, you are arguing that I (and others) shouldn't even be allowed to express an opinion about which businesses should be supported and which should not, which is a highly confusing point to take in the name of freedom.

So, I find that pretty that all all a little insulting. But I digress, here's why your argument is misleading.

Chik-a-fil doesn't *ONLY* support Salvation Army (an organization that I also do not support), they (and especially their founders) have also supported a numerous other anti-LGBTQ organizations. And they have made explicit statements against LGTBQ individuals, and have made clear their philanthropy is explicitly about opposing same sex marriage. This is not the same, and in fact, explicitly opposite many of the other companies you have stated which are either neutral, or explicitly supportive of same sex marriage and LGBTQ rights.

And yes, they have tried to separate their corporation from this advocacy as of late...because not doing so is a financially and legally precarious thing not to do, it is clear the owners (and primary financial benefactors) maintain this belief and can continue to use their significant financial resources (which one contributes to by patronizing the restaurant) to advocate against LGBTQ rights in private.

You have chosen one tiny piece of information (the support of the salvation army) and tried to form an argument around it, while ignoring all the surrounding context which significantly invalidates the argument that all these companies are the same. As I stated, I don't like Salvation Army, and I don't support them, and I don't like that other companies may support them, but that is not the same as those companies and their owners adopting an explicitly stated agenda against LGBTQ individuals, and you really should know that.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't support them, or that I even care if you do, but if you're going to come here and talk about it, then I (and others) have every right to respond. If our responses make you uncomfortable, you should ask yourself why. If you want to explain it to us why, that's fine too, but I (and others) still have the right to rebut those arguments as well.

If you learn how to Google things you'll find other companies that have done the same thing, involving donations to people, organizations, etc.

This was the first my first hit, with thousands of others:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021...ions-study

Remember, thousands of companies that we deal with every days are just as guilty as Chick-Fil-A. The difference with Chick-Fil-A is that it's easier to target (like we did in Kitchener) a small business (because it's a franchise) that hires many new Canadians and less than stellar wages (because they are willing to work for less). I personally find this racist. Why, because the same folks won't picket corporations that have deep pockets and are oozing white privilege. That's an opinion, though, just so we're clear.

Sorry that I triggered you though, that was unintentional. It was done more to educate people, but you didn't see it that way. Though my guess is because you worked at Google and felt uncomfortable with what I was saying. That's an opinion, though, just so we're clear.

And, Dan, I didn't call anyone a hypocrite -- I said IF they (people) decide to continue to support so-called anti-LGBTQ+ businesses and organizations, THEN it makes you a hypocrite when you cherry pick other businesses out. This isn't an opinion, just so we're clear.

That said, if the real reason for calling out Chick-Fil-A is due to their religious beliefs, then say it. Because this is what it could be about. Which is fine -- but religions don't have to go out of their way to support certain groups if they feel it's against their core religious beliefs (despite many churches hypocrisy when it comes to things of this nature). Just say you don't like their religious beliefs and how their religion deals with the LGBTQ+ community. Not that I think (to be clear, in my opinion) it absolves anyone if they're dealing with other companies, but at least it makes it a little more clear.

Transparency, people.

"Just the same"...you find this "racist"...oh boy that's rich, and ridiculous to a level I don't think is worth touching.

And you did call people, including myself hypocrites. You pretend to qualify it but you qualify it with using some of the most common companies around (and I already explained why your reasoning is false).

Yes, I worked at Google, but I have no emotional attachment to any company I work for, so at least that one made me laugh.

I have no religious objection to them, I have many friends who attend Christian churches, none of them see my other friends in the LGBTQ community as less deserving of rights as the owners of Chik-a-fil do--THAT is what I object to.

I'm not triggered, I am calmly and coherently replying to your points, because I believe it is an important issue to discuss. If anyone is triggered, it's the person randomly playing the race and religion cards.

Look, with this rambling and accusatory response here it's clear you're very defensive about this. I have no idea why.
(09-05-2021, 09:44 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]Articles from 2021 and not 2019.

https://www.esquire.com/food-drink/resta...ality-act/
Chick-fil-a’s Owner Is Newly Connected to Anti-Equality Act Donations

https://www.businessinsider.com/chick-fi...ned-2021-6
Chick-fil-A is under attack over its CEO's ties to a Christian charity accused of trying to squash proposed LGBTQ protections. Here's what we know about the chain's donations.

Thanks Chris, and that's pretty disappointing to see. If they say they stopped donating to anti-LGBTQ charities, but it's now only one-step removed from them (Dan Cathy = Chick-fil-a), that's pretty disingenuous and deceitful.
(09-06-2021, 07:24 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Chris, and that's pretty disappointing to see. If they say they stopped donating to anti-LGBTQ charities, but it's now only one-step removed from them (Dan Cathy = Chick-fil-a), that's pretty disingenuous and deceitful.

Well, that’s standard operating procedure for fundamentalists.

Cites: the entire “pro-life” movement (really anti-choice or forced birth); all creationists; and their dishonest quotemining of the Bible.
(09-06-2021, 01:04 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]That said, if the real reason for calling out Chick-Fil-A is due to their religious beliefs, then say it. Because this is what it could be about. Which is fine -- but religions don't have to go out of their way to support certain groups if they feel it's against their core religious beliefs (despite many churches hypocrisy when it comes to things of this nature). Just say you don't like their religious beliefs and how their religion deals with the LGBTQ+ community. Not that I think (to be clear, in my opinion) it absolves anyone if they're dealing with other companies, but at least it makes it a little more clear.

Depends what you mean by this. I don’t dislike the Chick-Fil-A people’s religious beliefs in the same way I dislike asparagus. Their beliefs in this area are (to borrow a phrase from some Roman Catholic bigot, if I remember correctly) objectively disordered and repugnant to civilized society, and their use of their funds to promote hatred is not a legitimate exercise of free speech rights. I don’t know the exact destination of their specific funds, but if they have been funding anti-gay efforts in Africa then they are effectively murderers just as much as if they were funding terrorist bombings.
(09-06-2021, 09:27 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2021, 01:04 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]That said, if the real reason for calling out Chick-Fil-A is due to their religious beliefs, then say it. Because this is what it could be about. Which is fine -- but religions don't have to go out of their way to support certain groups if they feel it's against their core religious beliefs (despite many churches hypocrisy when it comes to things of this nature). Just say you don't like their religious beliefs and how their religion deals with the LGBTQ+ community. Not that I think (to be clear, in my opinion) it absolves anyone if they're dealing with other companies, but at least it makes it a little more clear.

Depends what you mean by this. I don’t dislike the Chick-Fil-A people’s religious beliefs in the same way I dislike asparagus. Their beliefs in this area are (to borrow a phrase from some Roman Catholic bigot, if I remember correctly) objectively disordered and repugnant to civilized society, and their use of their funds to promote hatred is not a legitimate exercise of free speech rights. I don’t know the exact destination of their specific funds, but if they have been funding anti-gay efforts in Africa then they are effectively murderers just as much as if they were funding terrorist bombings.

I agree with you.

Personally, I have always believed that religion needs to stay out of politics (and the power politicians have) entirely. As I had mentioned, it's hypocritical of them, since one of the core values of a Christian religion (but often ignored) is to not interfere with the superior authorities, and to be no part of that world.

My point though on the whole thing is that many corporations, including larger ones, donate to individuals and organizations that can spread hate. And what I have a difficult time understanding: when it comes to a place like Chick-Fil-A -- these are franchise businesses. A owners could be a married gay couple, or not. They could be atheist, Muslims, or whatever. Whatever the case, the might be fully inclusive of everyone. These people have no say on how the corporation spends its money. But should we, a members of any community, centre them (the franchisee) out? I don't think so. I think time is better spent in front of Ford, or Walmart, or Google, and the like, and revealing what these companies do. And likewise, avoid business dealing with them if they don't change.

2nd to my point though: if you are avoiding a business because of how they spend their profit, you need to avoid other companies that do the same.
(09-06-2021, 06:36 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2021, 01:04 AM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]If you learn how to Google things you'll find other companies that have done the same thing, involving donations to people, organizations, etc.

This was the first my first hit, with thousands of others:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021...ions-study

Remember, thousands of companies that we deal with every days are just as guilty as Chick-Fil-A. The difference with Chick-Fil-A is that it's easier to target (like we did in Kitchener) a small business (because it's a franchise) that hires many new Canadians and less than stellar wages (because they are willing to work for less). I personally find this racist. Why, because the same folks won't picket corporations that have deep pockets and are oozing white privilege. That's an opinion, though, just so we're clear.

Sorry that I triggered you though, that was unintentional. It was done more to educate people, but you didn't see it that way. Though my guess is because you worked at Google and felt uncomfortable with what I was saying. That's an opinion, though, just so we're clear.

And, Dan, I didn't call anyone a hypocrite -- I said IF they (people) decide to continue to support so-called anti-LGBTQ+ businesses and organizations, THEN it makes you a hypocrite when you cherry pick other businesses out. This isn't an opinion, just so we're clear.

That said, if the real reason for calling out Chick-Fil-A is due to their religious beliefs, then say it. Because this is what it could be about. Which is fine -- but religions don't have to go out of their way to support certain groups if they feel it's against their core religious beliefs (despite many churches hypocrisy when it comes to things of this nature). Just say you don't like their religious beliefs and how their religion deals with the LGBTQ+ community. Not that I think (to be clear, in my opinion) it absolves anyone if they're dealing with other companies, but at least it makes it a little more clear.

Transparency, people.

"Just the same"...you find this "racist"...oh boy that's rich, and ridiculous to a level I don't think is worth touching.

And you did call people, including myself hypocrites. You pretend to qualify it but you qualify it with using some of the most common companies around (and I already explained why your reasoning is false).

Yes, I worked at Google, but I have no emotional attachment to any company I work for, so at least that one made me laugh.

I have no religious objection to them, I have many friends who attend Christian churches, none of them see my other friends in the LGBTQ community as less deserving of rights as the owners of Chik-a-fil do--THAT is what I object to.

I'm not triggered, I am calmly and coherently replying to your points, because I believe it is an important issue to discuss. If anyone is triggered, it's the person randomly playing the race and religion cards.

Look, with this rambling and accusatory response here it's clear you're very defensive about this. I have no idea why.

You are saying that I am calling you a hypocrite. You clearly didn't read the entire paragraph to understand the context. And I am not the one that is 'defensive'.

Whatever the case with Chick-Fil-A:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fact...244765001/

Same can't be said about the other companies.

BTW: At least I provide links. If you know that the franchisee of the Kitchener Chick-Fil-A is anti LGBTQ+, please post your evidence.
For me, the primary reason not to eat at Chick-Fil-A is that I have no desire to eat factory-made chicken sandwiches. I have eaten at Chick-Fil-A once, and while it was OK, I don't have the urge to eat there again.

There are so many other things I would rather eat.
Does anybody know a a sushi restaurant with a decently spaced patio area, and a reasonable amount of non-sushi items on the menu for people who don't like raw fish?
(09-06-2021, 01:34 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]Does anybody know a a sushi restaurant with a decently spaced patio area, and a reasonable amount of non-sushi items on the menu for people who don't like raw fish?

Kinkaku has a decent selection of izakaya-ish (mostly warm) food available in addition to sushi. And they have a patio.

On the downsize (at least for me), they are AYCE, but then are nearly all sushi places in town.
(09-06-2021, 12:35 PM)jeffster Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-06-2021, 06:36 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: [ -> ]"Just the same"...you find this "racist"...oh boy that's rich, and ridiculous to a level I don't think is worth touching.

And you did call people, including myself hypocrites. You pretend to qualify it but you qualify it with using some of the most common companies around (and I already explained why your reasoning is false).

Yes, I worked at Google, but I have no emotional attachment to any company I work for, so at least that one made me laugh.

I have no religious objection to them, I have many friends who attend Christian churches, none of them see my other friends in the LGBTQ community as less deserving of rights as the owners of Chik-a-fil do--THAT is what I object to.

I'm not triggered, I am calmly and coherently replying to your points, because I believe it is an important issue to discuss. If anyone is triggered, it's the person randomly playing the race and religion cards.

Look, with this rambling and accusatory response here it's clear you're very defensive about this. I have no idea why.

You are saying that I am calling you a hypocrite. You clearly didn't read the entire paragraph to understand the context. And I am not the one that is 'defensive'.

Whatever the case with Chick-Fil-A:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fact...244765001/

Same can't be said about the other companies.

BTW: At least I provide links. If you know that the franchisee of the Kitchener Chick-Fil-A is anti LGBTQ+, please post your evidence.

Franchisees are still contributing to the corporate bottom line, the corporation has merely derisked their business by placing risk on the individual operator.

And yes, if you say "If you do very common, ubiquitous and unavoidable activity x, then you are a hypocrite", then you are calling people hypocrites. You are not trying to say that it is possible to not be a hypocrite by avoiding x, you are trying to say that by telling you that I don't agree with Chick-a-fil then I MUST be a hypocrite because there is no way that I avoid all these other companies. That is the context I read.

And I'll say it one more time for those in the back, you are drawing an equivalence that does not exist. I've explained why, it's your choice to disregard that.