categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

freedom tastes good

I do not oppose homosexual marriage; in fact, I firmly believe that mature, adult human beings should be able to freely enter into whatever contractual arrangements they so desire, so long as they are doing so of their own free will.  Furthermore, I believe that the federal, state, and local governments should get their happy little noses out of the “marriage” business entirely; that is a matter between the the persons getting married, their god(s) (if applicable), and whatever entity is presiding over the ceremony itself.  And, yes, that means no more tax breaks, no more automatic powers of attorney (you would have to draft those up on your own), and so forth. 

All that said, I stood an hour in line today to eat at Chick-Fil-A

chickfila

And I was far from alone

But wait!  Chick-Fil-A opposes homosexual marriage, right?! 

Apparently, they do.  And that is a shame.  However, while I disagree with that stance, I absolutely despise the notion that the government can punish them because of it

I do not really like their position, but they are welcome to hold and express that opinion however they so desire, just as you are welcome to eat, or not eat, at their establishment based upon your own personal desires.  But when it comes to the government stepping in and informing a corporation that, because of the opinions of its president, “there is no place” for that corporation in that government’s jurisdiction? 

Screw that noise.  I did not sacrifice four years of my life just so some pissant who won a popularity contest can discriminate from a position of power based on his own prejudices. 

And speaking of pissants and discrimination, Chick-Fil-A never claimed to “discriminate” against homosexuals, and, so far as I know, they never have, so you can take that idiotic claim and shove it, “Alderman” Joe Moreno. 

On a slightly unrelated note, while I was standing in line, periodically updating my twitter feed as to my progress, a person in front of me stepped out, looked at me, and said, “Linoge?”  Turns out commenter Beaumont saw my pictures on Oleg’s site, and, well, the sideburns are kind of hard to miss.  I guess you are famous when people start “making” you on the street? 

(Oh, and those spicy chicken sandwich thingies?  Pretty damned good, despite having probably the heaviest customer load ever.) 

24 comments to freedom tastes good

  • Lynn H

    What!! No mention that there was a river a blood running out the door; screaming, panicky hordes and at least a dozen squad cars outside because of the hundreds of “man with a gun” calls that were made because someone (i.e. Linoge) openly carried a firearm. Oh the horror of it all!!

  • rickn8or

    RE paragraph 1: Glad to know that I’m not the only one that thinks that way.

    And I’m thinking that the problem Chick-Fil-A had in Chicago and Boston was not so much their owner’s beliefs, but the right palms didn’t get greased.

    I mean, it’s not like companies are falling all over themselves to invest in those cities.

    Wonder how many of Chick-Fil-A’s vendors are in those two cities and if an alternate source of supply could be located.

  • ASM826

    Yes, exactly right. I’m a libertarian, in favor of people being free to form relationships and call them whatever they like.

    I am also in favor of people being free to discuss their beliefs and ideas. I call that freedom.

    So I went and stood in line after work today. I was still in line when they ran out of food.

  • Rebecca B

    Just FYI, it’s not that Chick-Fil-A’s owner is anti-gay that’s the reason for the boycott. It’s that he uses Chick-Fil-A’s profits (as opposed to only his own money) to fund groups like Family Research Council that actively push for legislation to keep gay marriage from being accepted. From FRC’s website (http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality#homosexuality):

    ‘We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools. Attempts to join two men or two women in “marriage” constitute a radical redefinition and falsification of the institution, and FRC supports state and federal constitutional amendments to prevent such redefinition by courts or legislatures. Sympathy must be extended to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions, and every effort should be made to assist such persons to overcome those attractions, as many already have.’

    If it was just about his personal opinion, there would be less issue with it. I do think it isn’t government’s business to get involved. It’s exactly what’s going on currently – people voting with their wallets not to give their money to a company that’s going to turn around and spend it on people working to prevent something they feel is important.

  • rickn8or

    It’s that he uses Chick-Fil-A’s profits (as opposed to only his own money)…

    Uh, Rebecca, Chick-Fil-A’s profits are his own money. And as low regard as I have for FRC, he is free to do with it as he sees fit. Personally, I’d rather see him burn it in a fireplace, but that’s just me. (See above, where I said I’d just as soon the government butt completely out of involvement in personal relationships.

    If he doesn’t discriminate in hiring his employees or serving his customers is something we to be concerned with.

  • rickn8or

    Unnnnnh!

    relationships.)

    …something we NEED to be concerned with.”

    Been a long day.

  • MAJ Mike

    Hmmmm! Again the Lib-Cong prove to be more fascist than Conservatives.

  • A person is free to do what they wish with their money.

    That includes donating to causes I find repellant, even if that money comes from chicken sales. And it includes buying, or not buying, chicken.

    The thing that rankles is the naked intolerant and hypocritical protection racket here: see Obama’s “evolution”, Rahm’s support for Farrakhan, and Menino’s support for the Islamic Society of Boston. They’re going after the Chik because they can, because it props up the Two-Minutes hate, because they wanted an example.

    They want businesses to follow the Party line. Even if the Party changed its position only a couple months ago, *especially* if the Party just changed its position. I thought Raspberry Reich was a ridiculous movie, given the innate hostility all those “revolutionaries” had to homosexuality, but it turns out that movie was simply ahead of the curve.

    This also shows a positive sign for the general orneriness of Americans. That when told not to do something by our Lords and Masters we will just to spite them.

  • Rebecca B.

    rickn8or wrote:

    “It’s that he uses Chick-Fil-A’s profits (as opposed to only his own money)…

    Uh, Rebecca, Chick-Fil-A’s profits are his own money. And as low regard as I have for FRC, he is free to do with it as he sees fit. Personally, I’d rather see him burn it in a fireplace, but that’s just me. (See above, where I said I’d just as soon the government butt completely out of involvement in personal relationships.

    If he doesn’t discriminate in hiring his employees or serving his customers is something we to be concerned with.

    They are apparently very, very careful in their hiring practices, to make sure a new employee is the ‘right’ sort of person. Forbes has an interesting article on them at http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html. There are some other interesting pieces, but I tend not to quote sites I don’t trust to be fairly factual.

    I am curious, though. Would you feel the same way if they were giving their money to the Brady Campaign? I certainly would. Rights are Rights. I don’t believe in only fighting for one kind of Right. People campaigning to deny someone their Pursuit of Happiness is just as important to me as someone campaigning to deny my Liberty. I’m not trying to tell others what decision to make on the matter. I’m simply explaining why this matters enough to some people to affect their own purchasing choices.

  • The issue is not boygotting a company that gives money to the Brady campaing, the issues is if a city banned a company that gives money to the Brady campaign. Why not cut out the middle man? How about banning the Tides Foundation or the Joyce foundation?

    Why not simply ban gun control groups? Or gun rights groups?

    It’d be like if Rahm said there can’t be a certian outdoor shop in Chicago if it donates too much money to the NRA. Or if it donated too much money to MAIG. Or the ACLU or FIRE or the CPUSA

  • [...] I do not oppose homosexual marriage; in fact, I firmly believe that mature, adult human beings should be able to freely enter into whatever contractual arrangements they so desire, so long as they are doing so of their own free will.  Furthermore, I believe that the federal, state, and local governments should get their happy little noses out of the “marriage” business entirely; that is a matter between the the persons getting married, their god(s) (if applicable), and whatever entity is presiding over the ceremony itself.  –  More. [...]

  • eli

    “…well, the sideburns are kind of hard to miss…”

    D00d,I bleached my eyes after seeing a pic of you with disheveled hair wearing a bath robe. Weapons grade modeling, right there.

  • rickn8or

    @ The Jack:
    Right, we all vote with our wallets at the store.

    It’s not whether I personally care about same-sex marriage, it’s the arrogance of Emanuel and Menino deciding who can and cannot open a business in their city based on some PC agenda. (And again, I think it was because some palms didn’t get greased during the approval process.)

  • Oh certianly Rick. By their actions Emanuel and Menino have shown they don’t mind doing buisness with homophobes and people that openly wish for the death of gays. What they care about is ring kissing, plam greasing, and Two-Minute Hating.

    It’s like this case: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2012/08/quisling.html

    Yes, the owner of Tactical Firearms of Katy, Texas is advocating gun control.
    Yes, gunnies are spreading the word to boycott him in the hopes of hurting his buisness.

    No, we don’t want the State to shutter his shop because we don’t like what he said.

  • freddyboomboom

    This post encouraged me to Google the Chik-fil-a employee handbook, and read what it says about discrimination.

    It specifically says, in more than one location, that discriminating (or harassing) anyone based on race, religion, sex, etc (including sexual orientation) is prohibited and can result in termination of employment. Including franchise operators.

    Doesn’t sound like they discriminate against the LGBT community to me.

    They talk about hiring people that have a good work ethic, and believe in providing the customer the best customer service experience possible, and treating everyone (customer, employee, and vendor) with fairness.

    They say they are closed on Sunday as a corporate policy to enable everyone to have a day off to worship or not, and to have a day of rest and time with their family.

    Sounds to me that they’re not all that bad of folks.

  • @ Lynn H: It is wierd how that just never seems to happen.

    I must be doing something wrong.

    @ rickn8or: Honestly, in so far as I have “polled” the community I run around in on the intertubes, I would dare to say that opinion trends towards the plurality of those out there I am aware of, if not the majority. Of course, it runs straight in line with the notion of minimizing governmental influence in our lives, so there is that too.

    But, yes, there may have been some… financial implications… in the reactions of certain cities.

    @ ASM826: Ours had to shut down their computers for a while – apparently if you start putting too many orders in the system and not clearing them out fast enough, it just starts deleting things at the back of the queue – but thankfully they never ran out. Hopefully they saw this coming and compensated accordingly.

    @ Rebecca B: So there are two issues at play here, and we have to be careful not to conflate them.

    First, we have the matter of money, and I am talking about everyone’s money, not just that of Chick-Fil-A. As I said in the post, I firmly believe that all people and entities should be free and capable of spending their money – or not spending their money – wherever they see fit to do so. That includes fast-food restaurants, organizations that do things we are not terribly fond of, and whatever the hell else. Likewise, I may, or may not, express my disapproval of those expenditures by spending my own money somewhere else, but that is my choice as well.

    For that reason, I have no problems with the boycott, or where Chick-Fil-A’s management decides to spend that corporation’s money. I do not agree with the latter, but it is not my choice.

    Second, we have the government – at various levels – informing Chick-Fil-A that, due to the opinions held by their management, their establishments “are no longer welcome” in certain geographical areas. That, specifically, is what I was quasi-protesting over, and what I have a problem with. It is not our government’s job to regulate speech, whether that speech is individual or corporate – in fact, it is expressly notour government’s job to regulate speech. And it needs to be shown it will not be tolerated.

    So yes, I do disagree with their support of the continued suppression of persons’ rights, but it is, as always, their choice.

    @ MAJ Mike: Agree with them or be silenced!

    @ The Jack: Like I tweeted in line, I have to wonder how soon until “because f*ck you” is identified as a legitimate marketing technique. Hell, I have to wonder how soon corporations start going out of their way to piss of “liberals” just to generate days like this…

    @ eli: Cannot say I am terribly fond of that photo either, but at least the message is a good one.

    @ freddyboomboom: Hell, our local outdoor store is closed on Sundays too, expressly because the owners firmly believe that a single day a week should be set aside for the employees ot spend time with their families, go have fun, and do whatever it is they want to do. And said store is about as yuppie as you can get in Knoxville.

    Much though I might disagree with the law, discrimination is against said law, and if anyone is awrae of any instances where a Chick-Fil-A actually did discriminate, the evidence should be brought forward and appropriate charges should be filed. If there is no such evidence, any claims of discrimination verge on slander, and should be regarded as such.

  • Rebecca B

    Linoge wrote:

    @ Rebecca B: So there are two issues at play here, and we have to be careful not to conflate them.

    You are well ahead of many in acknowledging that, believe me. The government officials were wrong. No question there. They were the ones that jumped on the bandwagon though, not those choosing to boycott the restaurant. I’m seeing too many who are using the actions of those officials to dismiss a reasonable choice by people who are choosing to vote with their wallet.

    Much though I might disagree with the law, discrimination is against said law, and if anyone is aware of any instances where a Chick-Fil-A actually did discriminate, the evidence should be brought forward and appropriate charges should be filed. If there is no such evidence, any claims of discrimination verge on slander, and should be regarded as such.

    There have been some lawsuits, and those are apparently being dealt with in the appropriate legal forum. As they should be.

  • Linoge, as you know, there’s a reason so many companies are churning out AR style rifles and parts. Not to mention the CCW market, the parade of plastic fantastics, the legion of 1911 clones, and even the Judges.

    All guns far from the “Fudd” market.

    While, “because f*ck you” has not become an overt marketing strategy, it’s certianly becoming a larger subtext.

    But add in a few more instances of spike in purchasing and expansion of customer base and more and more will see it as a way to goose your profits, if even for a bit.

    Which is doubly ammusing.

  • @ rickn8or:
    Bingo. Last I heard Chik-Fil-A is a private company with no shareholders. Their CEO has as much right to do what he wants with his money as I do mine.

    Oh, and if I didn’t eat at any establishment that gave money to political groups / causes I disagreed with there’d probably be a pretty short list of places I could actually eat.

    This would be a different matter if Chik-Fil-A turned away homosexual customers, put up “no gays allowed” signs (would bisexuals be ok?) or refused to hire homosexuals. So far, I haven’t seen one Iota of evidence of that.

  • Rebecca B

    mike w. wrote:

    @ rickn8or:
    Bingo. Last I heard Chik-Fil-A is a private company with no shareholders. Their CEO has as much right to do what he wants with his money as I do mine.
    Oh, and if I didn’t eat at any establishment that gave money to political groups / causes I disagreed with there’d probably be a pretty short list of places I could actually eat.
    This would be a different matter if Chik-Fil-A turned away homosexual customers, put up “no gays allowed” signs (would bisexuals be ok?) or refused to hire homosexuals. So far, I haven’t seen one Iota of evidence of that.

    Mike, I’ve yet to hear any individuals claim the man doesn’t have the right to put his money anywhere he wants. He absolutely does. Just as others have the right not to give their money to him to pass along to those anti-rights agencies. It’s pretty much just that simple.

    On the last matter you mention, I have read some what I believe to be genuine interviews with gay employees. They remain as anonymous as possible because they don’t want to be identified by their employer, and this makes it hard to prove they are authentic as opposed to crafted to make a point, so I won’t bother with links. They are an interesting read, though.

  • @ Rebecca B: Well, like I said, I have absolutely no issues with people spending their money however they might so desire, and that includes both Chick-Fil-A itself, and those who would like to see its doors be shuttered.

    @ The Jack: Oh, yeah, it is definitely becoming an unspoken motivation for companies and consumers to produce and purchase all kinds of different things; I just wonder when it will be isolated and identified, rather than being the *winkwinknudgenudge* that everyone knows about and no one speaks of.

    Probably will not be called “because f*ck you”, though, which makes me sad.

    @ mike w.: And, y’know, honestly, I would not have a problem with signs like that. After all, stores already have a right – that everyone acknowledges and respects – to refuse service to whomever they like for whatever reason they like, it is just that no one takes that right to its natural, logical conclusion.

    I, certainly, would not eat at Chick-Fil-A if they discriminated like that, but setting the appropriate laws aside for a moment, I would consider it their right to do so if they wanted.

  • [...] harassment because of that speech, but it’s not stand-in-line-for-more-than-an-hour good. Linoge disagreed, and went on – in his characteristic way – to say in ~400 words what a normal man would [...]

  • Beaumont

    “Hard to miss” might be an understatement. They might more properly be referred to as “muttonchops” rather than “sideburns”, but why not go full Victorian? Frock coat, waistcoat, the works. The facial foliage would complement the outfit.@ eli:

  • And just think… I trimmed them recently!

    Will a kilt do? I should be getting mine from 5.11 next month… ;)



web analytics

View My Stats