Jim Henson Company breaks ties with Chick-fil-A over gay marriage stance

[Mott the Hoople]

genetic makeup to be queer? That means you agree with me that it is an aberrant condition like cancer correct? I mean if you believe in evolution 100%, then you must agree that those things that cannot make the species stronger are not fit to survive. According to the evolutionists, it is all about procreation and since queers can't procreate........

as for my children, they are well adjusted and doing just fine. no genetic makeup to being queer, but since being queer is a choice it won't be a problem. Now this is where you ask the question "When did you choose to be straight". Didn't have to choose. It is just normal to be straight. QUeers choose to be ABNORMAL.

I bet James Holmes watched lots of PBS

Wow. Not only are you a bigot your profoundly ignorant on biological evolution too.

 

[Onceler]

The businesses we boycotted didn't "set the policy" either .. but you know what happened? WE WON.

The doors were kicked open by demand and by squeezing the life-blood out of those who kept the doors locked.

Chick Fila a can do whatever they want .. as can those who are asked to buy their products.

You can offer them whatever you want .. I'll stick to what has worked.

In fact, boycotts work so well that they had to come up with all kinds of new laws to run from them.

It's still a ridiculous comparison. The businesses you boycotted participated in the policy. And the boycott itself had the intent of CHANGING that policy; not merely silencing an opinion you didn't like.

 

[blackascoal]

This is an area on which we have to agree we will always disagree. My boycott is a physical means of protest.

Activism at its finest.

Thanks again.

 

[Phantasmal]

We can disagree respectfully. I'm a big fan of opinions, even ones I disagree with vehemently. Boycotts just seem like a hamfisted way of countering them.

I remember listening to Hannity once, and he and a caller were both commiserating, because they both had "Shawshank Redemption" as one of their favorite movies, but had vowed not to watch any more Tim Robbins' flicks, and were sad that they'd never get to see it again.

At the very least, that gets a, "Really?"

Yes, we can, and I see your point and i respect it. Thanks. I just feel by using their product or service that I am agreeing with their position, and I just can't do that. It is why I won't watch a Tom Cruise movie, ever, again or read a book by Ann Coulter.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Remember our Dixie Chicks discussion years ago? Since then I am not so much a boycotter. But I don't think badly of those who do either, since I used to be apt to join them.

I just think it's dumb that when you're running a business that you enter into such divisive politics. It can't help your business and it can only hurt it as a business man you may have important principles but you also have an obligation towards that business.

 

[blackascoal]

It's still a ridiculous comparison. The businesses you boycotted participated in the policy. And the boycott itself had the intent of CHANGING that policy; not merely silencing an opinion you didn't like.

The boycotts CHANGED the policy. I'm sorry if you don't know that history.

The Montgomery Boycott changed the policy in Montgomery and ignited history.

Not sure how you missed that.

 

[Onceler]

The boycotts CHANGED the policy. I'm sorry if you don't know that history.

The Montgomery Boycott changed the policy in Montgomery and ignited history.

Not sure how you missed that.

Jeez, BAC - I expect the righties here to have reading issues. Not you.

I know they changed the policy. That's not an obscure piece of history. I didn't say that they did not. I was talking merely about intent for comparison's sake.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Chick-Fil-A is not setting the policy on gay marriage.

We shouldn't be afraid of opinions. If we don't like their opinion, we should counter it with one of our own. ADD to the marketplace of ideas, instead of just seeking to silence an idea we don't like.

And no, a boycott isn't offering an opinion. Win your agenda by offering better logic and more sound reasoning.

I'm not advocating a boycott. I'm just not eating there.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

That's not correct my wise friend.

We boycotted businesses AGAINST their policies no differently than the boycott of 1955 boycotted the Montgomery Bus Service against their policies.

Rights in this country are ONLY granted by what you can demand.

Gays are coming into their rights now because they are now in a position to demand them .. no differently than it was for women, workers, or people of color.

Do you expect Chick-Fila to join the march for you? Chick-Fila isn't discriminating against anyone. They aren't banning queers from their establishment. The owner has an opinion. You are nothing more than a bully thug. Chick-Fila will be fine

 

[Phantasmal]

I just think it's dumb that when you're running a business that you enter into such divisive politics. It can't help your business and it can only hurt it as a business man you may have important principles but you also have an obligation towards that business.

They tried to boycott the Chicks, but people who agreed with them came out in larger numbers, their sales increased and sodid concert attendance. Chick fil a may see the same thing happen. Fundamentalist Christians and anti gay marriage supporters could come out in support and their sales could surge! Time will tell.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

The boycotts CHANGED the policy. I'm sorry if you don't know that history.

The Montgomery Boycott changed the policy in Montgomery and ignited history.

Not sure how you missed that.

You obviously don't know your history. The boycotts changed the laws that were created to discriminate against black people by democrats. Yet you support democrats. Ironic isn't it? Did they say they were sorry to you and your people?

 

[CanceledB]

Boycotting Chik-fil-a won't make the owner change his opinion. Changing his opinion isn't the point. Deciding not to enrich a bigot, is the point. No need to help scumbags prosper, is the point.

 

[Onceler]

They tried to boycott the Chicks, but people who agreed with them came out in larger numbers, their sales increased and sodid concert attendance. Chick fil a may see the same thing happen. Fundamentalist Christians and anti gay marriage supporters could one out and their sales could surge! Time will tell.

That boycott hurt the Chicks. Sales didn't really increase, and they had to find a whole new audience. Nashville abandoned them, and they canceled concerts in the south and toured the north & Canada more than they would have.

They went through hell. I hated that boycott.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It's still a ridiculous comparison. The businesses you boycotted participated in the policy. And the boycott itself had the intent of CHANGING that policy; not merely silencing an opinion you didn't like.

That's a false premise on your part Oncie. No one is telling Chic-fil-a they are not entitles to their point of view. They're saying that if this is their opinion and public position then we choose to not do business with them. What is wrong with that? Don't I have the right to spend my dollar where ever and when ever I want?

 

[Onceler]

That's a false premise on your part Oncie. No one is telling Chic-fil-a they are not entitles to their point of view. They're saying that if this is their opinion and public position then we choose to not do business with them. What is wrong with that? Don't I have the right to spend my dollar where ever and when ever I want?

As I said before, if you want to stop buying their stuff, that's cool. I don't like the organized boycotts. Obviously, I respect the right of people do engage in them in this kind of case, but to me, it's just not what we're about - trying to silence an opinion we don't like through economic intimidation. It's BS.

 

[leaningright]

That boycott hurt the Chicks. Sales didn't really increase, and they had to find a whole new audience. Nashville abandoned them, and they canceled concerts in the south and toured the north & Canada more than they would have.

They went through #%€£. I hated that boycott.

Exactly right. They had alter things to appeal to a whole new audience. If they hadn't been talented ...

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Wow. Not only are you a bigot your profoundly ignorant on biological evolution too.

Not at all puddin. I have a complete understanding of evolution. You see, the entire theory rests on the premise that random mutations occur. If they provide a competitive advantage to the species, then they will be propagated forward in future generations. Now, lets apply that theory to queers shall we?


Your claim is that being queer is not a choice. If so, then it must be genetic. In order for it to be genetic, that must mean a gene exists carrying the trait to only want to have sex with the same sex. For that to happen, the gene must be carried on the X and Y chromosome. Now it could be a recessive gene that sits on one chromosome similar to color blindness and baldness, but then that would mean you would only see queers in one sex and not the other. So we can rule that out.

So since it is difficult to argue that a heterosexual couple carry a queer gene to pass along (otherwise they wouldn't be heterosexual and normal) one can only conclude that the queer gene is a genetic mutation. So we agree that queers are mutations.

Now, how would these mutants pass along their DNA to propagate the species? Well, it is impossible unless they have some interaction with the opposite sex. Therefore, if it is genetic as you claim then being queer is a mutation. Or is it a choice?

Lastly, if they ever find the queer gene, would you be OK with parents wanting to abort their children based on that reason alone? My guess is that you would become pro life in a new york minute

 

[leaningright]

As I said before, if you want to stop buying their stuff, that's cool. I don't like the organized boycotts. Obviously, I respect the right of people do engage in them in this kind of case, but to me, it's just not what we're about - trying to silence an opinion we don't like through economic intimidation. It's BS.

And this is what I respect about Oncelor. He had the same stance when the Dixie Chicks boycott was going on and we debated boycotting back and forth. Again, I am still not against boycotts but am less likely to participate in them. I don't like Tom Hanks politics but he is a great actor and I will still watch his movies. I already ate at Chick-Fil-A because they have good tasting food AND I greatly respected them letting their employees have Sunday off. They will be fine, much like the Dixie Chicks, even with boycotts.

 

[Phantasmal]

That boycott hurt the Chicks. Sales didn't really increase, and they had to find a whole new audience. Nashville abandoned them, and they canceled concerts in the south and toured the north & Canada more than they would have.

They went through hell. I hated that boycott.

They lost the South, but gained the North, won several Emmy's. I dont see that as a successful boycott. The sales of their music remained high, or from what I have read. Another area where we must agree to disagree!

 

[anatta]

As I said before, if you want to stop buying their stuff, that's cool. I don't like the organized boycotts. Obviously, I respect the right of people do engage in them in this kind of case, but to me, it's just not what we're about - trying to silence an opinion we don't like through economic intimidation. It's BS.

ppl have a right to assemble, boycotting by a group is the right to assemble, to advance their political ideas.

While the 1st only says petition the government for a redress of grievances; an economic boycott is basically an assembly(not a petition), and that is not just restricted against the government.

Chic-a fil-A has a right to a political position(if it's a non public owed sompany) , but they do so at their own risk to customer volume
This is how the 1st is set up, and has been used many times, it's perfectly legal, constitutional, amd is what the framers actually wrote