unless something better comes along.

with the company.

.

what is taught in the churches here.

jobs are scarce, they should hang onto them.

and they pay no attention to the politics of ownership.

People need jobs. You have to take care of your needs to survive to fight for any cause. Big corporations like that, who fight against equal rights for all people are the ones who should be ashamed.

I'm curious about this because of the number of people calling for a boycott of Chik-Fil-a - if you succeed in shutting down Chic-fil-a the people who work there will be out of work.

Bryant

That ain't gonna happen.

why don't you make up your mind which question you're asking of us?

What chick-fil-a does is sell chicken sandwiches and various other chicken related products. The commentary of their leader, reprehensible as it is, doesn't actually affect the product you are eating - the food.

In the case of Limbaugh - he is the product. His views and opinions and noxious commentary are what you are buying when you listen to him. If you don't find his show appealing - and many don't - there's no reason for you to purchase that product.

By the same token if you think that Chick-fil-a food is pretty awful you can't actually boycott them - you wouldn't be shopping there anyway, and if what's his name said "I now support gay marriage and civil equality" you wouldn't start (you might go once, remember that the food isn't very tasty to you and not go back).

Bryant

Besides, the grape boycott was one of the most successful boycotts and caused many progressive changest that helped the very workers you're dating would only be harmed.

Maybe your reasoning isn't as tight or as informed by history as you think.

That particular question - which is as bad as we think the founder of Chick-Fil-A is, do we think the people who work for him are guilty and should be punished.

I am not oppose to boycotts based on the practices of the company. In the case of the Grape Boycott it was to punish a company for treating its workers badly. In the case of those who choose not to shop at Walmart because of there terrible labor practices, it's based on something the company does. In the case of a potential Chick-Fil-A boycott it is based on something the company founder said. That's a relatively big difference in my mind.

If you go to chick-fil-a and spent $5.00 how much of that money goes to pay for political speech you don't approve? How much of it goes to maintain the business, including the folks who work there? Does it matter?

Bryant

Someone else

they probably don't have the means to quit their jobs for ethical reasons. I wish they could, but they're lucky they have jobs.

I think there are a lot of jobs open in the fast food market.

McDonalds in April 2011:

Principles are fine, but you gotta feed the kids, you know?

I can't attack the workers.

it would mean to perish.

No Underground Railway for them, what with credit reports, skip tracing, and the surveillance state.

yes they should quit, but "in a perfect world" there wouldn't be any need for them to quit, because there wouldn't be the bigotry, and jobs would be easy to change at will.

I feel bad for those who work for companies which promote bigotry and hate. But a job is not easy to come by these days.

but if enough people boycott CFA - some of them may not have a choice

Maybe you should quit.

But whether or not it's loaded, its certainly fair, isn't it? I mean if people here are boycotting Chick-fil-a the natural outgrowth of that, if successful, is no more chick-fil-a.

Bryant

Any person who grew up in the USA should know that.

So that's two loaded questions, a straw man, a purpose exaggeration in the form of a misdefinition. and a second misdefinition by comparison. (No loaded question is fair, that's what LOADED means.)

They have to eat and feed/shelter their families.

Those of us with the means to choose where we work/spend our money are better able to show Chick-Fil-A how we feel about their company.

most powerful weapon. The slightly irritating question. How does anybody stand against us?

Bryant

except nobody is biting.

trump political concerns.

How many employers are there that the employees can agree with politically 100%?

so, no, of course not. the employees aren't the problem.

Don't ever blame workers.

People will take just about any job these days to just have a salary. Making political statements will be for the customers, like us. Leave the poor employees alone. They are lucky just to be working.

I've actually done something like that before - actually, almost exactly like that:

During college I worked part-time. One summer, I intended to spend it working part-time and enjoying the town, which was half-empty, as it was mostly a college town. One day, I applied at a Chinese hash house, and got the job.

On my first day during my first two hours, the manager on shift went on about faggot this and faggot that (just speaking generally, I hadn't had time to give them any personal info, let alone talking about begin gay, it was just how he talked). I was deeply offended, and asked to take my lunch early - took my fried rice, finished it off, removed my uniform and snuck out the back door, never to return. Felt so good.

On edit, I realize many of them need to feed kids and such.

Now, I am not a lawyer, but I would suggest that if banter on the floor turns political, there is a possibility of harassment lawsuits, particularly if - at the first encounter with same - the employee has voiced objection to political talk, or speech they find offensive, such as "faggot".

They're probably lazy, too, right? They should go get better jobs!

You can only mistreat people for so long before somebody decides to fight back, right?