World's largest Wendy's franchise owner stands with Chick-fil-a after controversy

[dowmace]

I think the issue has exploded because it was fairly recently discovered that he donates significant amounts of money to causes that work to prohibit equal marriage. So it has moved from Cathy simply having an vocal opinion to actively opposing through his financial backing.

I'm not trolling you, I intend this to be a honest response to what I believe was a genuine question.

\\

It was an honest question, i won't lie I am not 100% on the up and up of the chik fil a news.

 

[soonerwings]

<snip>This is squarely those who wish to limit the rights of a people they feel inferior, versus those who support an equal right to marriage for all consenting individuals.<snip>

Seems to me this whole fight is over the definition of a word. Christians (myself included) tend to look at the word marriage as two people being united in the sight of God rather than the state. Those who disagree with the Christian belief system (who have every right to do so) tend to look at it as two people united in the sight of the state rather than under God. Personally, I don't see why more LGBT people aren't satisfied with the term "civil union". If all you really want is equal treatment under the law, then the term "civil union" should suffice nicely. Maybe the word "marriage" should be discarded entirely in favor of two different terms like "church union" and "civil union" so people would stop fighting over it?

 

[LightningCrash]

Whose business is it what he does with his money? Do I get a say in how you spend yours?

What is a boycott? What does it do? Why have one?

 

[winehead]

hey, i say its his money to do with as he sees fit

 

[gregorius]

I am pretty sick of hearing about all of it, honestly. I have never eaten at CFA willfully - though I have been dragged there by family members (and was disappointed by how mediocre it all was). The biggest problem I have is people lining up to buy fast food as a political statement. I think that it is a pretty apt illustration of the state of America's political discourse - reactionary, superficial, lazy, embarrassing and really unhealthy.

 

[Trashboat]

Unhealthy? You can get a grilled chicken sandwhich on wheat or a salad. Unhealthy?

 

[soonerwings]

I am pretty sick of hearing about all of it, honestly. I have never eaten at CFA willfully - though I have been dragged there by family members (and was disappointed by how mediocre it all was). The biggest problem I have is people lining up to buy fast food as a political statement. I think that it is a pretty apt illustration of the state of America's political discourse - reactionary, superficial, lazy, embarrassing and really unhealthy.

I tend to agree and disagree with you at the same time. It really depends on what political statement is being made. If people are buying the chicken to support the chain's right to have and express their opinions, then I don't have a problem with it. I'd eat there myself (if I were stateside) in support of their right to free speech. If people are eating there as a reaction to "those silly gays" then yeah...it's unhealthy.

 

[gregorius]

Unhealthy? You can get a grilled chicken sandwhich on wheat or a salad. Unhealthy?

You took that a bit too literally.....

 

[gregorius]

I tend to agree and disagree with you at the same time. It really depends on what political statement is being made. If people are buying the chicken to support the chain's right to have and express their opinions, then I don't have a problem with it. I'd eat there myself (if I were stateside) in support of their right to free speech. If people are eating there as a reaction to "those silly gays" then yeah...it's unhealthy.

I gotcha, but I am getting the very distinct impression that many of the people lining up want to say its about free speech when it really is about "those silly gays". A lot of people really seem to be obsessed with the gays, man - and that is pretty unhealthy.

 

[inactive]

Seems to me this whole fight is over the definition of a word. Christians (myself included) tend to look at the word marriage as two people being united in the sight of God rather than the state. Those who disagree with the Christian belief system (who have every right to do so) tend to look at it as two people united in the sight of the state rather than under God. Personally, I don't see why more LGBT people aren't satisfied with the term "civil union". If all you really want is equal treatment under the law, then the term "civil union" should suffice nicely. Maybe the word "marriage" should be discarded entirely in favor of two different terms like "church union" and "civil union" so people would stop fighting over it?

I can buy that. So long as the word is applied equally to all under the law, I don't think much should be made of it. Let all consenting parties get a civil union license from the state. Let whatever groups or churches or persons perform whatever marriage ceremony for whom they see fit.

But if the law says one nuptial is a marriage, and the other nuptial is a civil union, and the only difference is the gender of those involved, I find it discriminatory. It's that whole "separate but equal" thing.