Half-Hour Wait at Chic-fil-A Today

[Thomas Rogers]

Mark K,



I think you are on to something. If the ethos and culture of the franchize, which starts with its corporate purpose statement, "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.", is centered around Christian values and family values, then ultimately the CEO, the franchize owners, and most everyone working for the company will have to "work" that purpose, and if true to the purpose and its ideals, have to live that purpose.



For Cathy, living that purpose means following his convictions as to what "family" means.



I have absolutely no problem with his RIGHT to do that.



I personally think he is WRONG as a business owner in doing it, because I think his definition of family is too biased, too out-dated. That's my opinion.



Though Chick-fil-A will serve anyone and provide excellent service and great food to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, you have to bet that they wouldn't HIRE just anyone. Would they hire a lesbian mom married to her partner in a state that allows such marriage? I tend to HIGHLY doubt it, and if one of their stores did so tomorrow it would be skeptically viewed as a publicity stunt.



If, however, that lesbian mom applied for the job, was qualified, and rejected as an applicant, the store better never give any hint that her not getting hired was because she wouldn't be a "good fit with the corporate image", or what not, because, folks... that would be breaking the law. You can't make hiring decisions of sexual orientation... you just cannot.



This is not a free speech issue, because no one is being silenced. I agree with most that say that no local government should be able to ban Chick-fil-A from moving into their town/city because of the CEO's position, no more than I think the Boy Scouts of America should be told to leave, or not come in because they don't allow homosexual leaders.



My point is, the definition of "family" is being changed. Cathy doesn't like that. As a citizen he has the right to his opinion. As a corporate owner with millions to donate to causes, he has the power to influence that definition. With great power comes great responsibility. I, personally, feel that Cathy used is power recklessly. The "buycott", IMHO, was nothing more than an over-reaction by people that feel like him, but that I predict will ultimately be on the "losing" side of the debate.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

Mark K, and TJR

That was precisely my point. As the owner of a business he should have never made his opinions about gay marriage out into the public. It is just his opinion and he is intitled to it, but he also speaks for the company and already people now see Chic-Fil-A as a symbol for Anti-Gay, or at least, Anti-gay marriages.



If there is a boycott, backlash or reprisals from the pro-gay community, his statement would be considered the trigger. His unnecessary statement may jeopardized his business, and the safety of his customers, and his employees.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Richard L,



I'm not even really saying he shouldn't have said it in public. Again, I have no problem with him, even as the CEO, taking a stand for what he believes in as long as what he believes in isn't against the law, etc.



He and his convictions make him think that he is doing the right thing, and many that support him and his right to say it think that those convictions will help, not hurt his business. They actually might.



The great part about this country is people get to say what they want. We are not a majority rule, however. Even if a majority of the country is against gay marriage, just as at one time a majority of the country was pro-slavery, pro-segregation, etc, it doesn't mean that such will ALWAYS AND FOREVER be the case.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

The backlash has already begun!



http://www.mail.com/business/economy/1475326-police-graffiti-chick-fil-a-calif.html#.7518-stage-subhero1-2



...Rich

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I personally think he is WRONG as a business owner in doing it, because I think his definition of family is too biased, too out-dated.

I am just agreeing with what you said in the above quote? His right or reason for saying it really don't matter since the end results is the same....It only serves to incite people of both extremes.



As I just previously posted, the backlash has already started....hopefully it will not become violent.





....Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Yeah, I see I said that. I should have read what I wrote. ;-)

 

[H D]

Let me simplify my position. I am a Christian. The church should marry whomever fits its beliefs. The government currently has unconstitutional laws concerning homosexual unions. Cathy should run his business however he sees fit and say anything he wants. People should eat wherever they want.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I agree with everything you say above.



And I will restate my position:



The easiest, quickest, fairest, least destructive way for the people (because we are a government of the people) to give homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy is to stop the opposition to gay marriage, stop the lobbying against it, and make it clear that "we the people" want equality for all.



Note how if all states simply allowed gay marriage and recognized it like any other marriage how it wouldn't "break" anything you say above.



Churches could still marry whomever fits with their beliefs. There would be no difference in laws, regulations, benefits, etc as they related to gay versus traditional marriage, because then a "government recognized marriage" would encompass both.



Cathy could continue to give to whatever organizations he wants that will help strengthen the family, even the traditional family. That is a good cause because Lord knows there are many, many issues out there plaguing American families...and I submit whether or not gays are allowed to marry, or begin to marry in droves it isn't going to change or amplify those issues.



Oh, and people would still be able to eat where they want.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

Oh, and people would still be able to eat where they want.

But would anybody be allowed to park at the Mall.



I have said it before and I will say it again. The same sex marriage issue is about benefits, not religion or rights. Follow the money.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



So, for Cathy he opposes same sex marriage because it will cost him money? Cleary his stance is making him money this past week.



Not sure I follow.



I do recognize that our country benefits from not having same sex marriage. A lot of what would otherwise be survivor benefits (SSI) goes back to the govt today because our govt doesn't recognize gay people that have lived a life together as "married."



Can you elaborate the money trail (follow the money) you are talking about?



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

All I am saying is that: Cathy, protesters (for and against) and religious beliefs have nothing to do with federal and state governments changing laws to allow same sex marriages. Not to say that these individuals don't effect the vote and public endorsements of politicians. However, the actual changing of the law is money driven.



A multitude of financial questions and litigation that would arise out of some of these decisions. The cost could very well bankrupt the Country or any State.

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

Redfish is speaking of the financial situation that benefits married couples like Joint Tax Returns, etc. There is a slight advantage given to married couples filing a joint return over those who file separately. Also, there are many state laws regarding probate if one dies the spouse often inherits the home, and other assets of the marriage. If you just live together, you don't have any rights....and the spouse family and direct relatives can contest any wills.



Of course there is always the financial aspects of Divorce which also leads to the equal distribution of the marriage assets, assuming there is no Pre-Nup agreement.



There are other legal advantages to being married rather than just living together, and that's why most people prefer marriage because there certain legal definitions, commitments and responsibilities to ensure people take marriage seriously.



So, permitting gay marriage does not cost Cathy any money, but it can save the married couple some money and perhaps a lot of legal redtape should one die.



...Rich

 

[Richard L]

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



I am not sure if that was condescension, sarcasm, or both in the closing of your last post, either way it seems like deliberate, intentional hostility which if the case seems uncalled for as I have not struck any such first blow here.



I am convinced that states and the federal government might enjoy some money savings (or cost avoidance) by not allowing gays to marry for the reasons like the example I gave, but I am not as convinced that there would be added costs due to litigations if gay marriage were no longer prohibited in most states. Maybe, but I can't think of any. But then if we are talking about people (or municipalities, etc) suing the state government for laws passed, then I guess that happens... I am just not well versed in examples of that.



We didn't see state bankrupting litigations arise when desegregation took place (did we?) People like to think that is a different circumstance, but I find it a very good analogy.



Case-in-point, New York state, a state seemingly always on the verge of financial troubles. It allows gay marriage, and it seems no more or no less financially stable since doing so... No real litigations (yet?)



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL,



I understand, appreciate, and was aware of the examples you just said, but I didn't get that was what Redfish was talking about from his original or follow-on post.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

It appears that Redfish has changed his reply, which make my reply mute since he appears he was talking about different financial issues....either way, I don't see any sarcasm in Redfish's reply....? At least not any more than his usual naturual sarcasm...:grin:



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

I have removed the offending statement.

Case-in-point, New York state, a state seemingly always on the verge of financial troubles. It allows gay marriage, and it seems no more or no less financially stable since doing so... No real litigations (yet?)

Search "NY State gay marriage ban" and see what the litigations are. Understand how they can expand when upheld. Individuals are suing for damages (money), not rights. It is a tip of the iceberg thing compounded times over and over. SS benefits, Retirement Benefits, Healthcare and all government assistance programs. Who pays a lot of these benefits. Who bails out the States? "We The People" Considering all the programs that could be effected the cost could be off the charts.





Strictly factious example.



A. Male B. Female. C. Male number 2. E. Child of C.



"A" is retired and gets $20 month in retirement. "A" dies, Then "B" gets all retirement (Reduced to say $10) funds for life. After 10 years "C "steps in and claims common law marriage with "A" (they lived together when in college for four years). Under present law 1st marriage takes president over any second marriage. Court recolonizes common law marriage between "A" and "C "and awards retirement funds to "C". "C " now gets $10 a month for his life. "C" dies. Government is finally of the hook. "E" steps in and as a minor child claims retirement funds of "A" and additionally claims funds not paid to "C" for 10 years previous when "B" got them, plus 10 years compounded interest. "B" no longer gets any retirement funds and goes on welfare.

I have said it before and I will say it again. The same sex marriage issue is about benefits, not religion or rights. Follow the money.

 

[Richard L]

I have said it before and I will say it again. The same sex marriage issue is about benefits, not religion or rights. Follow the money.

OK, that was the original statement that I was responding to regarding same sex marriage and it's financial and legal benefits.



Redfish,

While some courts do recognize common law marriages, not all states do. Neither does any Federal institutions such as Social Security or Civil Service, Military, or VA pensions and healthcare benefits.....They all require proof of marriage in the form of an official Certificate of Marriage.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

Rich,



You are correct concerning common law marriages as it stands now. What I suspect will happen is that when, say marriage between same sex couples is law of the land, then the same types of arguments (fore and against) that now are presented for same sex marriage will change to common law marriage. It is about expanding benefits. Expand the whole system to same sex certificate marriage, then expand the whole system to common law marriage, multi-partner marriage, etc. etc.

 

[H D]

I think Train Trac hit the nail on the head about what the real issue is concerning Chic-Fil-A. Gay marriage will become legal; that we know, just not when. What is more scary is the precedent of nobody politicians deciding what businesses fit their values for their community.