What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
Just wondering people’s opinions on officials in Chicago/Boston keeping (new) Chick-fil-a restaurants out of their cities. ([Story](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120725/us-chick-fil-a-chicago/) and [Story](http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/23/boston-mayor-blocks-chick-fil-a-franchise-from-city-over-homophobic-attitude/))
I think there are a number of things that can be discussed about these – gay marriage being one of them. However, I’m hoping more for the discussion to be along the lines of power of government to do this kind of thing / rights and freedoms (of gays and businesses and people in general) / roles of businesses in politics / etc.
I don’t think I have a problem with local government (city level at most, honestly) banning companies for discrimination. I’m sure it will be argued, but if a company is actively discrimination against a portion of the population, then the city should be allowed to keep them out.
However, I don’t see anything about Chick-Fil-A discriminating against anyone, only that their president has made some ‘homophobic’ remarks. (Really, the first link only indicates he is for the ‘traditional meaning’ of marriage.) If he isn’t actually guilty of discrimination, then I don’t think they should refuse Chick-Fil-A.
Of course, the person not allowing the new Chick-Fil-A is also claiming he can make an argument against building it that doesn’t rest on the supposed discrimination, so I don’t think Chick-Fil-A will get their building regardless of discrimination.
Chick-Fil-A should be banned because it is inferior in every way to KFC.
Also I can see Chick-Fil-A taking the bait and fighting back in court. I say taking the bait because it will mean they will have to try and justify their homophobia. It is impossible to make yourself look good while saying another group of people are inferior and deserve fewer rights.
You mean there’s something out there even more disgusting than KFC?!
I had to look this one up, as I don’t think they have any outlets in the UK. KFC on every street corner, but no chick-fil-a. According to the article on Wiki, this alleged case of discrimination is not their first offence. In 2002 they settled out of court in a case involving allegedly sacking a muslim worker for his religious beliefs. I see that the head honcho is a religious zealot who runs the business to glorify God. Can’t you even buy fast food in America without having God thrust down your throat for dessert? In my book, that in itself is a good enough reason to boycott them.
As the Chicago mayor points out, there are consequences to freedom of speech. If this Cathy bloke thinks it’s OK to use it to promote his pet values, he’s in no position to complain when someone else uses it against him to promote theirs.
I’m with Ketsky on this one. I mean, I can get on board with barring businesses that discriminate, particularly since there are federal laws against it.
However, while the President may have views that are offensive to a group of people, or are even prejudiced, I haven’t seen any evidence of discrimination, and I’ve been on top of the story pretty well.
Remember that rainbow oreo thing a while back? If it would be wrong for a local government to ban oreos because of their public show of support, then it would be equally wrong to ban chik-fil-a for expressing an opposing view. Before you decide you don’t agree, remember also that chik-fil-a isn’t running ads on the topic, as, to my knowledge, all of the controversy simply comes from a personal statement by the president, and isn’t present in the companies policy or behavior. So, in other words, the message from chik-fil-a isn’t being presented near as strongly as the oreo thing was.
I feel like any local gov has no right to ban chik-fil-a because of a personal belief of the President of the company with no evidence of discrimination of any sort from the business itself. If they were discriminatory (say, in hiring practices), then the federal government would be interested as well.
EDIT: I guess what I’m saying here, to summarize. Is Chik-fil-a homophobic? Or is the president? Is that the same thing?
We are casually saying things exactly like “if chik-fil-a is homophobic” “chik-fil-a justifies its homophobia” “chik-fil-a shoves religion down our throat”.
They do not hand out bibles with the happy meal, they do not refuse to serve or hire homosexuals, to my knowledge, and, frankly, I see no discrimination. I see prejudice from the guy who runs it. Those are completely different things. Sure, you could speculate that it will come out in company policy, but until there is clear evidence of that, and not knee-jerk reactions to how prejudiced the “chik-fil-a” (as if it were a person handing out sandwhiches), judgement on the company needs to be held.
Ha, no arguement there Azolf. I think that’ll always be true with fast-food.
I’m not sure what you mean by the “save a cow” ad campaign, though. You mean the whole “eat more chicken” shtick? I always thought that was just a joke. You know, “haha look cows are advertising for a chicken place. How appropriate”.
Or are they really trying some kind of animal friendly save a cow thing I just haven’t seen? What does it have to do with northerners?
Personally, it seems like a bit of an overreach of a government to deny a company to try to profit in a municipality simply because they don’t like their political views. If you think that people who don’t support gay marriage are bigots, homophobs, etc., then fine, that is your prerogative. But, the company, at least not yet, has not shown to discriminate against anyone. Freedom of political expression is a bedrock on which this country was built and it seems like a couple mayors are flexing muscle that they really don’t/shouldn’t possess.
They aren’t being discriminatory. They aren’t saying “Hey fuck you homos, get the hell out of our restaurant!” They still serve homosexual customers. They just believe that gay marriage is not appropriate in our society. That is their choice. That is their opinion. Quit whining. The municipality, state, and/or the federal government has no right saying that Chic-Fil-A can’t open its business somewhere because of its political views. It’s simply exercising its 1st Amendment Rights. If you don’t like what Chic-Fil-A stands for, then stop being a little bitch and do what Capitalism tells you to do: STOP FUCKING EATING THERE.
Honestly, it’d be worse for Chick-Fil-A if they got to open businesses, but it was completely boycotted and they made no money. It’d serve as more of a lesson then what these cities are trying to do, which I personally think is a bit of an overreach. Sure, it’s terrible, but so is Apple and who knows how many other companies these cities are letting open stores. To take a moral stance against a particular one seems wrong, especially when you’re a government.
So all of this is about Chick-Fil-A expressing a stand against gay marriage? I don’t see the problem as far as the operations of their business is concerned. We have free speech in this country and as such their expressing their opinion one direction is as valid as a restaurant owner expressing they were in favor of gay marriage. Who cares, really.
To be fair, I think that CFA and Dan Cathy are fully within their rights to say and do what they have.
For the record, it’s not _just_ about personal politics, though. CFA has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups over the years, some of which are listed as active hate groups by the SPLC.
That being said, I think that Boston/Chicago are also within _their_ rights to respond as they have.
If you’re going to come out and say that you don’t support the equality of a group, then be prepared for the response.
In this case, that response was two cities that _do_ support those rights stating that they do not want CFA operating within their limits.
If CFA was that concerned about such matters, they probably should have kept their corporate culture to themselves. Instead, they intentionally contributed to the politic via donations and the CEO’s statements.
CFA made it political. The politic is just responding.
> *Originally posted by **[softest\_voice](/forums/9/topics/283517?page=1#posts-6121555):***
> To be fair, I think that CFA and Dan Cathy are fully within their rights to say and do what they have.
> For the record, it’s not _just_ about personal politics, though. CFA has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay groups over the years.
> That being said, I think that Boston/Chicago are also within _their_ rights to respond as they have.
> If you’re going to come out and say that you don’t support the equality of a group, then be prepared for the response.
> In this case, that response was two cities that _do_ support those rights stating that they do not want CFA operating within their limits.
> If CFA was that concerned about such matters, they probably should have kept their corporate culture to themselves. Instead, they intentionally contributed to the politic via donations and the CEO’s statements.
> CFA made it political. The politic is just responding.
But is it really within the rights of politicians to only let businesses in their cities with political views the same as theirs? Doesn’t seem like it, but who knows.
Edit: Holy crap, even the ACLU of Illinois supports Chick-fil-a on this issue.
See, the difference is that a pro-gay marriage entity isn’t discriminating against anyone.
They’re supporting equal rights for all. You know, one of those ideals the US supposedly upholds?
CFA is doing the opposite of that.
Further, by not only speaking against those rights, but contributing large amounts of money to political activist groups, they are basically fund-raising for hate groups.
Maybe you should think about that a bit.
> *Originally posted by **[softest\_voice](/forums/9/topics/283517?page=1#posts-6122278):***
> See, the difference is that a pro-gay marriage entity isn’t discriminating against anyone.
> They’re supporting equal rights for all. You know, one of those ideals the US supposedly upholds?
> CFA is doing the opposite of that.
> Further, by not only speaking against those rights, but contributing large amounts of money to political activist groups, they are basically fund-raising for hate groups.
> Maybe you should think about that a bit.
Using the term ‘hate group’ is a misnomer, even from an ultra-liberal perspective. Being against gay marriage does not make a person or group a hateful person or a ‘hate group’
When I say that it’s in reference to a couple of the groups that CFA has donated money to; groups that the Southern Poverty Law Center has classified as hate groups.
I still am appalled that we believe it is more fair to use our right to free speech to speak out against equal rights than actually having those equal rights (protip, America is far from having equal rights). When a random, insignificant and lowly educated person shares his supposed opinion that America should not have equal rights, it is not a disaster. When a political person or director of a firm makes this stance? Media coverage all over. Can’t say if it’s for better or worse, but until you actually do have these equal rights, this is a type of tension that should _not_ be taken lightly.
> The municipality, state, and/or the federal government has no right saying that Chic-Fil-A can’t open its business somewhere because of its political views.
The source states they do, but you seem to just want to rant any way.
I guarantee you that if this was a Muslim owned, or a Black owned business NO ONE would be saying a word, wouldn’t have even made the news. So, why are we not protesting Muslim owned businesses that do not carry our same beliefs? Because we would be labeled RACISTS and anti-Muslim by the ACLU and LULAC.
It’s EASY to target a white, christian owned business and not get labeled a racist or anti w/e. Chick-fli-A has made it KNOWN since they were first opened they carried heavy Christian beliefs, so why a big deal now?
I’m also surprised the token President hasn’t weighed in on this issue yet…
They’re a restauraunt. Who is the idiot who thought it would be a good idea for them to get political? They sell food, it doesn’t matter who buys the food, they still make money off of it. If they make it look like they don’t like a certain group of people, then those people won’t want to buy thier food, then they lose potential business. It was sort of a stupid move.