Without emotion this stuff can be fascinating

[JoeBob]

Ah packsaddle,

 

Again with the broad brush?

[Eagledad]

>>I think we're missing an important subtlety.

[packsaddle]

Eagledad, I think the answer is what Rush Limbaugh has said on many occasions, it's all about money. You said it yourself in the other thread, "the bottom line (dollars) is the primary motivator of the change." I couldn't agree more. Whether it's Disney attractions and films or Chick-fil-A fast food, it's simple economics: products and customers. I think the vast majority of us want to purchase a product we like for a good price and we're ready to let that override many other factors. This is why I don't eat at Chick-fil-A and why lots of others do. I don't like the product and evidently a lot of other people do. Most of us don't really care what the blowhard CEO says, or at least not enough to change what really matters, which is the economics of the choice.

 

Yes, we will protest loudly and make all kinds of empty statements designed to show how pious we are and how faithful we are to our religions, brands, local economies, etc. But in the end, just as with the textile industry and so many other aspects of the economy, people will complain about jobs going to China, for example, while they purchase clothes made in China at WalMart (or the scout shop). We are NOT hypocritical, really. We really would like to think we are faithful to our principles but the only REAL principle and the only REAL faith we have is based in money. It's who we are. And it explains nearly everything. And to THAT we are perfectly faithful.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

Huh? What boycott?

 

The chicken at Chik-Fil-A is adequate. The milkshakes are nice.

 

But the real magic of the place is the employees.

 

Chik-Fil-A must have more effective measures in place than many large franchise outfits do to encourage/require careful hiring, training, and personnel quality control at Chik-Fil-A franchises.

 

The employees, more than in other fast food places, tend to be articulate, practiced at and comfortable with courtesy, attentive, alert..... and have you seen a crew of these Chik-Fil-A kids handling the dinner rush? It's a study in teamwork, efficiency, grace under pressure. It's the most impressive thing about Chik-Fil-A... the high school kid whose got 6 orders waiting, 10 customers waiting to order, the same thing happening at the 4 other registers at the counter with him, the drive-through is packed too, and he's taking your order calmly and courteously (and getting it right), articulating so you can understand him and listening so he understands you, making change like a kid who knows how to make change... and when he, in short order, hands you your correctly put together meal... you say "thank you" he says "my pleasure"... like he means it. And then he's right onto the next customer.

 

 

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

I'm still trying to figure out why people think the gay community is boycotting Chic Fil A. I've seen individual calls from boycotts (from Ed Helms, for instance - some actor I'm told though I have no idea who he is), and I've seen individual statements from politicians like the mayor's of Boston and Chicago that were not very positive towards CFA (and didn't call for a boycott) but I've not seen a general call from any of the national gay rights organizations, like Human Rights Campaign or GLAAD calling for a boycott - maybe I missed it, but if I did, it's because it was buried in all the articles about the anti-boycott and the statements of the mayors of some major cities. I'm about ready to call this anti-boycott a preemptive boycott of a boycott that might have been called given a bit more time.

 

The Dixie Chicks boycott? I think it was successful because at that one particular time, the President was flying pretty high in the polls and the support for the Iraq war was very high - no one was really ready to question the wisdom quite yet. Musical acts have, with a few notable exceptions (the Beatles, Elvis, the Rolling Stones, the Who, and Springsteen amongst those), a limited lifespan anyway. When is the last time anyone heard of a major concert by Billy Ray Cyrus? The boycott was successful because it resonated with a lot of people it might not have resonated with just a year later.

 

The Disney Boycott? I presume we're talking about the apparently ongoing call for a boycott from the Southern Baptist muckety mucks? It was doomed to fail from the start - except for a subset of true believers, I think the Southern Baptists over-estimated their influence on the people of their congregation, just as most other denominations do - we may have a lot of people going to church, but the other 166 hours of the week? It's an afterthought, if that - that boycott will resonate with parents who aren't going to buy their children Disney character toys in the first place - the rest of them? Eyerolls and mutterings of "yeah, right - if there isn't a Disney princess doll under the tree come Christmas morning, my precious daughter is liable to knife me in my sleep". Add to that a fairly successful (though short term) anti-boycott by the gay community and the first year of the boycott, Disney's sales went up (and Toys for Tots got an awful lot of Disney toys that year).

 

I think boycotts against national chains are just too unlikely to succeed - it takes a dedicated core group of people to really make a boycott successful, and a core group of 10 isn't big enough to influence national consumer patterns. However, I think boycotts of local businesses have a pretty good chance of success - a core group of 10 in a small town could really have an impact on the success of a local restaurant, or doctor, or grocery, or gas station.

[desertrat77]

In the '80s, as an Airman I was stationed overseas. One of my neighbors in the dorm was a DJ on Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, darn good at his job, and played all kinds of music on the air.

 

Prior to the AF, he had several years experience as a DJ on a country station. He enjoyed the experience thoroughly, but wanted to see the world, so he enlisted.

 

Shooting the breeze one night in the day room, he talked about country music fans. He said "One thing about country fans--they are consistently loyal. To their favorite artist, the radio station, their brand of truck, and especially America. If someone criticizes America, country fans will never forgive them."

[acco40]

Go ask a five year old. These people are allowed to do this. These people are not. Is that fair? So, anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay? That must be something that is being spread by talk radio heads somewhere.

 

Mr. Boyce - so, women past child bearing age should not be allowed to be married? Neither should infertile men or women?

 

Yes, marriage is a social structure and thus, by definition society should define what the accepted structure is about. We have age limits, "who" limits (I can't marry my mom for instance) and in most states gender limits. I don't think I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, my sister, my cat nor the foxy married lady next door. As for gay marriage? I'm actually somewhat conflicted about that. I have no issue with "civil unions" - i.e. treating a gay couple as a business enterprise wrt insurance, health decisions, etc.

 

We, the USA, also have sort of a "local option" on marriage - in the Catholic Church (some exceptions do exist) priests may not be married but that is not an issue with the state.

 

 

 

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939]

"Go ask a five year old."

One might be forgiven for assuming that a five year old is not well informed enough on the matter to form an opinion worth consulting.

 

But anyway, if one does ask a five year old...

"These people are allowed to do this. These people are not. Is that fair?"

one should not be surprised if the answer is...

"I want to go to the Chik-Fil-A that has the play area."

And the child might even appreciate that he/she is allowed to play in the play area, but teens are not.

 

Discrimination CAN be unfair, even evil. But it can also be wise. He who never discriminates in any way is... indiscriminate.

 

[JoeBob]

I had no intention of pursuing this topic until I read a related story about the media (99% liberal) burying the outcome of Chik-Fil-A appreciation day. That's when it dawned on me that most of you probably don't have a clue about what actually happened on Wednesday. (When leftists lose a fight, they either claim that they weren't fighting or lie about the score.) So have a look at the photos:

 

http://ureport.foxnews.com/assignment?groupId=23679&type=1,2#

 

288 different photos of massive crowds of people lined up and waiting for hours to support a business entity that they felt was being unjustly persecuted. Lines running out through shopping malls. Four-lane highways with traffic blocked by the folks trying to turn in. Many Chik-Fil-As ran out of food to sell before the end of business, and had to close.

(Leftist reply: "See! We won! We forced them to shut down!")

 

Hate does not motivate this kind of reaction, despite what many media types will try to claim. When big government blowhards improperly throw their authority at innocent private businesses, that plucks a chord in the hearts of Americans who believe in fair play.

 

Final comment: With boycotts like this, who needs to buy advertising?!?!

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Yeah, I'm still trying to remember where I heard there was a boycott of Chick-fil-A? I did hear Huckabee's call for a show of support...is that really a boycott?

Around these parts, the news of the NOT-boycott (huge turnouts) was all over the news. NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, and yes, FOX.

Anyway, JoeBob writes, "With boycotts like this, who needs to buy advertising?!?!"

And THAT I agree with. It was a brilliant marketing move. I wonder what's next?

[BrentAllen]

When we were backpacking on Cumberland Island a year or so ago, I started hearing the boys say "36 HUCK" and later "24 HUCK"... After hearing it enough times and not being able to figure it out, I asked, what in the heck is 24 HUCK? One of the Scouts replied - 24 HUC is "24 Hours Until Chick-Fil-A! Our trip was over a holiday weekend, meaning we were driving back on a Monday, which meant Chick-Fil-A would be open! CFA is the unanimous choice of our Scouts, when they are open. Our SPL is currently working at one of the local CFA's.

 

If anyone here still thinks there isn't a God, watch the video and read the story here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/totally-heterosexual-anti-chick-fil-a-tough-guy-fired-for-bullying-drive-thru-girl/

 

This idiot got exactly what was coming to him - along with his free water. Smooth move, X-Lax!

[AZMike]

"These people are not. Is that fair? So, anti-gay marriage is not anti-gay? That must be something that is being spread by talk radio heads somewhere."

 

Or just common sense. One can oppose gay-bashing, believe that gay people should be treated with compassion, accept the idea of a civil union - but still think that the idea of a man marrying another man or a woman marrying another woman is ridiculous, and not what marriage is. It is also common-sense to presume that American's constitutional right to the free practice of their religions, including condemning such practices in public, does not end when LGBT people insist on their right to marry people of the same gender. It is also common-sense, and just plain American, to insist that public officials cannot and should not threaten to use their office to punish people for their 1st Amendment rights to free speech and the free practice of religion.

 

"Mr. Boyce - so, women past child bearing age should not be allowed to be married? Neither should infertile men or women?"

 

Women past child bearing age are still known to have children, as have supposedly infertile men and women. Can you tell me one case where a man has knocked up another man? Marriage is and has always been based on the idea of union between a man and a woman, for the ultimate purpose of creating children and nurturing them, whether that is likely or not. Even the marriage of an infertile or elderly couple celebrates the creation of new life.

 

"Yes, marriage is a social structure and thus, by definition society should define what the accepted structure is about. We have age limits, "who" limits (I can't marry my mom for instance) and in most states gender limits. I don't think I should be able to marry a 12 year old girl, my sister, my cat nor the foxy married lady next door. As for gay marriage? I'm actually somewhat conflicted about that. I have no issue with "civil unions" - i.e. treating a gay couple as a business enterprise wrt insurance, health decisions, etc. "

 

In truth, I don't have a problem with a "civil union" concept as a secular social arrangement, with the rights attendant on any business relationship. You can call a relationship a marriage and deluded people can agree with you if you and they want to so so. Heck, you can stick a Mercedes emblem on a Ford pick-up and tell people it's a Mercedes, just don't expect me to agree with you.

 

Also don't expect me to agree with LGBT activists that gay adoption is desirable for children. For one thing, there is conflicting research on this. And for another thing, under the 1st Amendment, I don't have to compromise my religious beliefs just because the government tells me to. And don't expect me to agree that religious-based organizations have to agree to cowtow to the new party line that gay couples should have the same rights to adopt as a married couple. The city of Chicago (where else?) ended 40 years of financial support for Catholic Charities' adoption services because Catholic Charities could not violate their conscience, and the city political machine insisted that any organization with state contracts now had to be willing to place children in gay households. Catholic Charities lost the appeal, lots of children suffered, all in the name of LGBT votes and political contributions to Chicago machine politics.

 

As you say, we place all kinds of restrictions on who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry, such as incest and polygamy. But why, if not for religious/moral reasons? One could argue that the restrictions against incestuous marriages are to prevent genetic problems, but then why would most people agree that two brothers should not be allowed to get married? Or a father and his (adult) son? Or a mother and an adult son, if one is sterile? There's no problem with possible births, is there? If they are all consenting adults, why not, based on the same arguments as used for gay marriages? Why shouldn't any of those hypothetical couples be allowed to adopt? Or a polygamous family, if they are all adult and none were married under duress?

 

(I'm aware that some of you may actually agree that such people should be allowed to adopt children. There is a reason you feel that way, but unless some of you are crazy enough to admit you do, we can save that debate for another time.)

 

The idea that gay marriage and gay adoptions MUST be supported is a very recent phenomenon in American politics - Obama himself did not accept it (famously saying that he believed marriage was only between a man and a woman during the presidential debates), and only "evolved" in his thinking after his vice-president forced his hand. Support for gay marriage is now de rigueur for all Democratic candidates, and has been quickly incorporated into the party platform for the Democratic Party Convention - the one where Bill Clinton will nominate Obama, and not the vice-president (ahem), as is normally the case. That would be the same Bill Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act ("I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position"), whose repeal is now called for in the Democratic Convention Party Platform...

 

So were Obama and Clinton neanderthal anti-gay bigots in the minute before they opposed gay marriage, and suddenly were no longer bigots in the minute after they decided they no longer opposed gay marriage?(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[BSA24]

I do not understand why anyone cares if gay people get married.

 

* "Marriage" is not a person you can offend or injure - it's just a word we use to reference people who are legally paired up

 

* I don't understand why we have government involved in marriage at all.

 

* Consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want: Polygamy or whatever. The boys in the Bible certainly had plenty of wives to go around.

 

* I don't think married people should get discounts on taxes. There are too many children in the world already. Please stop making more.

 

* Kim Kardashian and other Hollywood nutjobs already did whatever damage was going to be done to the concept of marriage as serious business. No more damage can possibly be done.

 

I do not understand why I have any say so in who lives with who or whether they call themselves married or not.

 

I keep hearing speeches about how marriage is threatened? Who is this Marriage guy that feels threatened? Where is he? Marriage is not a person. It is not threatened. It doesn't care.

 

Monogamous marriage is a modern fashion. It was not popular for most of human history, and will likely vanish as a cultural habit in the future as well.

[AZMike]

" I don't think married people should get discounts on taxes. There are too many children in the world already. Please stop making more."

 

As the American population falls below the replacement rate (and which can't be restarted quickly - it takes a few generations to catch up) and there are fewer new Americans to pay taxes and pay for your entitlements, I will remind you of that.

 

I happen to think more children is a good thing. Every new kid born is another chance to get it right.

 

If anything, I should get an additional vote for each kid I have, until they reach the age of majority.

[Eagledad]

>>Eagledad, I think the answer is what Rush Limbaugh has said on many occasions, it's all about money.