Oooo an argument, I haven't had one of these in a while. Thank you for moving this in here; I actually looked here for it before I looked in the LOL thread b/c, ya know....
topics. If you don't mind, I'll respond paragraph by paragraph like the arrogant motherfucker I am.
Lord Hosk wrote:goat wrote:Actually two different reasons. Starbucks and Target take the "for" side because it's good for their liberal middle class white people demographic that makes up a majority of their business. Even if it is the "morally correct" stance (and if you say it isn't, we need to have words), no company would ever risk alienating their customers like that unless it were profitable. Even if they have always been secretly for it, where the fuck have they been for the last 30 years?
The chicken chain that shall go unmentioned has taken the "against" stance because their founders are crazy-ass, bible-banging motherfuckers who force the views of their management on the rest of the company. Notably, it's not money in this case, as the fact that they've been slipping money to anti-gay rights lobbyists has surfaced a couple of times, but this is by far the biggest press it has ever gotten.
So that's why. 1)money and 2)top-down "moral" choices
Oh, and if the WBC supporting unnamed chicken restaurant isn't lawl worthy, I don't know what is.
You are putting one side of the argument as right and the other as wrong and saying that the wrong side is not only wrong but "crazy-ass, bible-banging motherfuckers." and that if I or I assume anyone else doesn't support giving benefits to same sex partners we are immoral.
I said we would have to have words, and now where are going to have them. If you seriously believe that GSM individuals and partners don't deserve the same rights as everyone else (and I'm not saying that you necessarily do, I'd like to believe you're playing the devil's advocate), you are categorically incorrect. Incorrect on a level heretofore unknown except to people who believe that black people shouldn't have the same rights as white people.
I'd like to apologize for lumping "bible-banging motherfuckers" and "crazy-ass motherfuckers" into the same group, though. That's unfair to both parties. However, the cross-section of the two groups represents a large body of the anti-GSM rights movement.
I'll address that bit about morals further down.
Lord Hosk wrote:Both corporations are forcing their employees to abide by the head of the corporations moral choices. If you are a manager at Starbucks and opposed to homosexuality it doesn't matter you have to provide benefits to same sex partners of your employees. If you are a manager at a Chick-Fil-A and in support of Same sex marriage, it doesn't matter because a portion of every one of your sales goes to oppose it.
The senior leadership of both companies do things they feel are right, which you are free to agree or disagree with and financially contribute to or not. One is supporting and one is opposing same sex relationships and both are doing it in a financial way. They both do it in part because it is what their customer base supports so it makes them look favorable. Chick-fil-A is all over but their base is in the "bible belt" yes this is loosing them some business but it is also gaining them business. A few of my wife's family members are "reformed Christians" who live in S.C. based on their recent facebook posts and the responses that some of their friends have posted they have all eaten there several times over the past couple of weeks just because of the controversy when they "typically don't eat out that much".
Your wife's family? They're bad people. You should give them shitty gifts at christmas and forget to call on their birthdays. My point was more (as you address in the next paragraph) that CFA has ALWAYS been anti-GSM rights while Target and Sbucks are only recently, fashionably pro-GSM rights. I would submit that CFA has a LOT more to lose nationally by being publicized as against GSM rights.
CFA has always been like this, but they've lacked any publicity for it. CFA isn't trying to drum up business by gay bashing, they prefer to just quietly go about funding an organized subjugation of a minority rather than announce it to the world.
On the other hand, Sbucks and Target are loud and proud. Sure, they've always been liberally run and have probably slipped money to the liberal parties for a while now, but you can't help but feel that they're trying to ride a wave of pro-GSM feel good energy with their target demographics. CFA benefits tangentially in the same way, but anti-GSM rights is a view that is clearly passing out of fashion and stands to trigger a bigger backlash than coming out "for". I don't think many people have been protesting their local Starbucks lately (at least for that reason, crazy people sure do love coffee).
Lord Hosk wrote: The President of Chick-fil-A has ALWAYS been clear about his opposition to gay marriage as you said this isn't a new thing, only the current level of protests and counter protests are new. I don't really understand why its such a big deal NOW when it has always been their stance and has rarely caused a stir.
Supporting and opposing homosexuality both fall under being "moral" since morality is following ones belief of what is right.
Okay, technically that is an accurate definition, but morality is also a social concept that is a conglomeration of popular opinion. Popular opinion is heavily swaying towards pro-GSM rights at the moment. So, in that light I would argue that it is immoral to be anti-GSM rights. Similarly, a priest would argue that homosexuality is "immoral" and "a sin" because a book says so. But his congregation will regurgitate the same thing, and it becomes part of the "social mores".
But if we're not going to nitpick about definitions like that, I'd submit that, yes, on a personal level, it is immoral to not want equal rights for all people, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. It's immoral in the exact same way that owning slaves is immoral. They are "morals" and individually "a moral" each, but they are immoral, categorically socially unacceptable.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Also, good work, Fenrir. You've officially chatted up more people in one conversation than I have all month.