General Food, Dining and Nightlife News

[danbrotherston]

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.