Jeez I'm not even halfway through reading your post and it's so completely awful I can barely continue.

You know, I thought you were just misguided at first. But I was wrong. You have some pretty horrible views, and it seems you're more interested in "winning the discussion" than in actually giving serious thought to what I have to say.

Yeah I'll admit I lack clarity of who the guy that said it exactly was in the companies structure. I thought he WAS the owner then someone told me he was the owner's son (wait what), then I was told he just didn't own the company, now you are telling me he does. Some people say one source is more legit than the other so I'm seriously lost on that.

But yeah saying every manager and employee of Chik-Fil-A is a gay hater basically a statistical impossibility. Maybe MAJORITY. But how would you even know that? what is your sources? Was their a survey? An depth investigation? from who?

See, this is what I'm talking about when I say you look like you're a right-wing conservative. Whenever something is doubtful or not immediately clear, you immediately jump to the extreme right-wing side of the story by default, just as you are doing here.

First of all, let's just think about what's rational for a second. Would it make sense for a protest movement to spawn solely because the CEO of a medium-sized fast food chain is anti-gay? Or do you think it's more likely that it's their extremely deep pockets that are actively funding homophobia and the destruction of civil rights that has caused this boycott, and that the CEO's comments were just a way of unequivocally proving the point? Which of the two do you think is the better reason for people to start and take part in a protest? Again, I tell you, open your eyes. Then we look at the literature. Take a look at the protest movement and what they're putting out and notice that the facts are being reported as I said it: the company is funding homophobia, and that's why you shouldn't give them your money, because then you'll be actively working to oppress your fellow citizens. You can find these things out very easily.

I don't think you're interested in anything but denouncing and defaming the protest movement, because if only you can make them look as bad as possible, it doesn't matter so much that you'd rather have a chicken sandwich than support them. It's a pretty serious case of cognitive dissonance, and the fact that you've chosen the side of the oppressor (there is no middle ground, because you either do or you don't fund a homophobic hate group) is very disturbing.

Again, I've heard conflicting reports on how bad the organizations exactly are. I took the rightwing stance "that they aren't so bad" because 'innocent until proven guilty'. In my eyes they are still not proven guilty. By default I assume innocent. So if you could, link me some sources. I'm getting most of my shit from second hand (talking to people in person, especially multiple people, makes it hard to fact check everyone even with access to Google.)

Sorry, but I'm not going to hand you everything on a silver platter. The fact that they're massively funding homophobic hate groups has been well documented, and it's not being disputed by anyone. Do some research.

Its just TEAM A VS TEAM B.

No it isn't. It wasn't back when Martin Luther King Jr. was marching for civil rights for black people, and it isn't now. You'd have to be painfully oblivious and privileged to not know how deeply homophobic US society is, both in its people as well as in its institutions. This is not a regular disagreement. This is people who are actively working to oppress your fellow men and women, and you're standing there like furniture gawking at the "discussion" and wondering why people take such extreme measures as a boycott. Yeah, if you're completely oblivious to the world you might think of this as a simple A vs B discussion where both sides are equally entitled to their opinions and both sides should just be calm and orderly.

I still look at them as aliens for giving up something they really like.

I'm not surprised someone as privileged as you thinks it's alien to boycott a company that's actively funding homophobic oppression groups. You seem to not understand that there are certain people in this world who aren't full citizens and who are actually actively hurt by this. I'd certainly like to see you tell that to someone who can't marry, can't have the same partner benefits, and can't adopt children because of Chick-fil-a's funding.

No I stated that I don't think it should be illegal. I DON'T TOUT THEIR BELEIFS AS A GOOD THING C'MON MAN YOU READ MY POST. I'm saying on a level from 1 to 10 of being dicks they are on the lower scale of dickery and dumbness.

I'm not sure I believe you. You sure seem to be extremely intent on proving the protest useless and denouncing us for questioning the moral standard of Chick-fil-a. At any rate, whether you believe, you're actively working to bolster the anti-gay side. That's indisputable as long as you keep funding that company.

My next question is how am I supposed to know that Southern Poverty Law Center is well respected? And I know I talk about SOURCES AND SHIT even my mind turns to: WAIT ISN'T THAT A FALLACY? Appeal to authority.

Again, this is a matter of reading and keeping yourself informed. The SPLC is an extremely well-respected civil rights group, and if you'd read newspapers and other civil rights organizations and literature you'd know that.

The reason why I brought them up is because you said they weren't a hate group. They are a hate group. Obviously though, the question of whether something is a hate group or not is a matter of what your definition is and how diligently you do your research. I linked to the SPLC because they're known for getting it right. When an organization is labeled "hate group" by the SPLC, they'll have very good reasons for it.

This is a matter of informing yourself. Apparently you didn't even read the link I provided where they explain very succinctly why the FRC is a homophobic hate group.

Shit its almost like its technically impossible to know anything as a fact (because it is). I just go by whats statistically most likely.

There's a word for this. It's "guessing".

But yeah I defend them so much in that I didn't place them in the hole of "Morally bankrupt" like the KKK and Westboro. Again though it was second hand knowledge passed to me so... now I guess I'm not so sure. (I bet your at least somewhat satisfied that I've that I might have been wrong? But I always know that I might be wrong. I don't really trust any information completely. This was more of "I HEARD THIS ARGUMENT, HOW DO YOU RESPOND?" Should I not do that? I kind of like doing that.)

If you don't mind looking like a fool for eating up and spitting out right-wing propaganda, go right ahead. But if you're serious about understanding things, and perhaps your reputation for being pro-civil rights, you should check these things before you make a post. You can't post these things and then perform a karma houdini by saying "well, who knew?" and then expect everybody to just forget you ever said it.

Well, I guess I should have known you thought was wasn't very intelligent.

Actually it's more a matter of being lazy and not doing basic, easy research before you open your mouth.

The fast food isn't more important that the rights of gay people. But I think losing out on the sandwich is unnecessary in fixing the problem. I'd rather just replace all the people that hate gay people in Chik-Fil-a with people that don't or destroy the anti-gay organizations they fund directly.

You can't replace the people running the company (you probably couldn't even do that if it were publicly traded, but it isn't), and if you destroy one anti-gay organization the people who used to run that one will just start a new one. There's always going to be a market for homophobia, and there's really nothing you can do to destroy them to begin with.

The problem here is that you expect to be able to go forward without exerting any effort or giving anything up. That's naive. And it's very typical of someone as privileged as you who doesn't actually have to face the consequences. It's a distinct lack of empathy on your part.

OK, you got sources? (really I just want all the sources so I can absorb them later, I kind of want to shelve this dicussion untill I read more i guess. but I'll still obviously respond to further responses)

Nope. Go look it up yourself. I have no obligation whatsoever (morally or otherwise) to hand you everything on a platter.

But actually, it's not even about that small town I mentioned earlier that tried to ban Chick-fil-a. The "first amendment" argument gets misused everywhere in all sorts of pursuits, particularly conservative ones. The argument is that by trying to financially hurt a company for their anti-gay views, you're actually attacking the freedom of speech. Well, that has absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is something any sane person would know after reading it once (it's not very long, so go do that). You're perfectly entitled to boycott a company. That's, in fact, a use of free speech. But nevertheless, the First Amendment is invoked almost everywhere. It's a common trope in conservative politics.

OK I suppose this is jsut a case of me not wording things very well: Whether or not their effective, I think boycotting/or stuffing you face in reaction to this controversy is dumb.

This is why I'm so seriously disturbed by what you're saying. You actually think boycotting a company that gives money to anti-gay hate groups is "dumb". It's completely beyond me how any decent person could say that.

At least say "it's a good, valiant attempt to end oppression" and then say "but I can't support it because I love my chicken sandwiches too much". That would at least be honest and fair, if still awful.

Boycotting can have an effect. But what you get isn't worth what you sacrifice for when you can jump right over the sacrifice part. While I don't know of to many things we can do, I'd be shocked if our only option was to sacrifice something like this to get legalized gay marriage.

So you think people are "dumb" for boycotting a company that actively funds anti-gay hate groups that actively work to circumvent civil rights, and you're "shocked" that you should be forced to give up your chicken sandwich for basic dignity for your fellow men and women, and you think everybody should just stop this whole civil rights protest business until we come up with a way to do it that doesn't include giving up fast food.

Yeah, you're a fucking nutjob.

Yeah, I know that this is the only issue. I'm saying that the people are mostly delusional and stubborn. Sure there are probably a couple that are truly hateful of gays. but you are assuming to much of these people that they even understand what the fuck they are doing. They all live in a republican 1950's dream world.

It's pretty amazing that you're reduced to trying to assert that those people "just don't understand what they're doing". You're literally trying to convince me that even though these people are taking part in an anti-gay protest, you can't conclude that they're anti-gay because, who knows, maybe they're just idiots who don't know what they're doing.

Again: giving the benefit of the doubt (even though the doubt only exists in your mind, and not in anybody else's) in favor of the extreme right-wing. Almost as if you count yourself amongst them.

You can't see my face.

Sigh.

And I was never telling them to not care. I'm telling them you can care but I think you are crazy for giving up this delicious food.

And you're a crazy super-privileged guy who's never had to face homophobia and therefore have a very easy time telling activists they're "dumb". You're literally like those men who tell women they can't have abortions. Yeah, that's easy for them to say.

Also semi-related:
The American spirit is "TYPE A PERSONALITIES ARE THE BEST" which I don't even closely resemble. American spirit is "You can always succeed if you work hard enough. If you are failing its your own fault and you have earned our disgust."

You don't understand the point I was making, but I'm not going to go through the trouble of explaining it.

See my above statements. I think its pretty absurd to suggest someone avoiding such a fight is 'cheering on the bully'.

See the quotes I used by Desmond Tutu and Howard Zinn. You can't be neutral. If you buy Chick-fil-a, you're funding homophobia. Unless you're still in denial about the serious nature of these organizations, which have already received $5 million partly from your business. You're either a bully or you're fighting the bullies. One way or the other.

sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here?

It's difficult to explain, but a good starting point is this article by bell hooks.

btw I can't stress this enough. The question is: will you continue to buy Chick-fil-a? The answer can only be yes or no. There's no middle ground. There's no neutral position. You either help fund the fundies or you help fight back (or perhaps this can be the neutral option if you're simply completely uninterested in their food).