CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:31
Arguments:25
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Are Chick-Fil-A Protests About Free Speech Or Unequal Treatment Under The Law? (24)

Debate Creator

youngidealis(50) pic



Are Chick-Fil-A Protests About Free Speech Or Unequal Treatment Under The Law?

It seems that when the issue of Gay Marriage becomes an a topic for discussion the loudest voices yell about free speech while the other side points out inequality towards homosexuals under the law. Which is it? What are we really in disagreement over? What happened that started this mess and what happened that perpetuated it? Let's get some facts in chronological order if possible and move forward from there.

Add New Argument
2 points

Why does it have to be one or the other? I'm protesting Chick-fil-A because they stopped selling spicy nuggets! Damn! Those were delicious.

As much as I disagree with you, your apathy makes me laugh at times.

2 points

LMAO! Theres a "Do you support Chick-fil-a's right to free speech" ad right there-------------------------------->

youngidealis(50) Clarified
1 point

You are deserving of a point for proper trash talk sir. But I'm not in the mood now. Maybe later.

1 point

A lot of people make the mistake that buying Chick-fil-a is a sign of supporting Dan Cathy's freedom of speech. They understand that he said some hateful things and since then has had a backlash from many citizens and companies (like the Muppets). Every time someone mentions his freedom of speech, I remind them two things:

1. His freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution. Buying his chicken isn't helping to protect that and boycotting his company isn't, in any way, undermining his freedom of speech.

2. The crux of the matter is that he has donated about $5 million to anti-gay groups that fight against equality for LGBT members as well as propagate about gays being such ludicrous things as pedophiles and satanists. These donations should be where the true debate exists. Unfortunately, too many people don't see it that clearly.

Troy8(2431) Disputed
1 point

Well there are two degrees of separation to these donations. Cathy donates to the Winshape Foundation, which in turn donates to the Family Research Council, which spends money on anti-gay legislation. This isn't as direct as people think. Sometimes when you donate money to a movement, they spend money on a couple things that you might now personally agree with. I'm sure if you asked Dan Cathy if he wanted to kill homosexuals, he would say no. However, he decided to donate money to a group which donates to a group that spent money to support this.

This is true, which is why it took the comments to confirm to most pro-equal rights people that they should boycott. As a response Fox News, Huckabee, and every homophobic pastor collaborated to make Aug 1st happen and pretended it was because of free speech. People in favor of free speech would just as soon support a groups right to boycott.

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

1. His freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution. Buying his chicken isn't helping to protect that and boycotting his company isn't, in any way, undermining his freedom of speech.

His freedom of speech & liberty to donate his money is protected by the constitution. But the power of his speech & the power of his liberty is largely determined by his company. Do you really think that people like Bill Gates are just as influential as someone else?

Secondly, when you buy a product, you are saying that you want the company to continue doing what they're doing. By continuing to buy his chicken, you are encouraging the acts of him, as a representative of the business. So no, I do not think that buying his chicken has no effect on the gay rights movement.

2. The crux of the matter is that he has donated about $5 million to anti-gay groups that fight against equality for LGBT members as well as propagate about gays being such ludicrous things as pedophiles and satanists. These donations should be where the true debate exists. Unfortunately, too many people don't see it that clearly.

Agreed. But, people are not logical, they will fight for blatantly obvious injustices, even if less severe than a hidden injustice. So while I would agree, I hardly find that surprising. Remember that the anger against him is just that, anger. It is an emotion, not a logical response to try and change an evil that people perceive in the world.

1 point

To those of you in the other debate I didn't know that CFA was funding certain "anti gay marriage" groups but it still doesn't matter. This is about freedom. A private company has the absolute freedom to do so. Weather you agree or not is your problem. People need to quit calling names(hate mongers etc.) at those who disagree.

Being anti gay marriage does not in any way mean that people have hatred.

youngidealis(50) Disputed
1 point

Wrong. Once your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong enters into law it becomes bigotry. Don't wanna be called a hate monger, then keep it out of the law and live and let live.

JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

"Once your personal belief that homosexuality is wrong enters into law it becomes bigotry."

Says who? What source are you basing that from? The bigotry law? One could say that about any law one dislikes..

"Don't wanna be called a hate monger"

Where are you getting that? I don't care what you call me or anybody els. It just makes you look dumb.

BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

This is about freedom.

Please list how boycotting, or complaining about someone, is infringing on their freedom, or anything else you feel is improper.

Weather you agree or not is your problem.

Actually it isn't. But it is most definitely the people they're choosing to discriminate against by actively trying to prevent them from getting married. So I would hardly say that this is an example of personal liberty, therefore it is not purely about freedom. It's much more than that.

People need to quit calling names(hate mongers etc.) at those who disagree.

People need to quit denying gays equal rights. Simple as that, really.

And I find it massively biased how you will defend the right of people to discriminate, but not the right of people to insult those who discriminate against others. Do you not see how your criticism could be less one sided?

Being anti gay marriage does not in any way mean that people have hatred.

Considering all of the money Chick-fil-a has donated into lobbying against gay marriage, I can think of no other explanation. Why would someone spend so much trying to deny rights to someone that they love?

JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

"Please list how boycotting, or complaining about someone, is infringing on their freedom"

Did I ever say it was? I don't believe I did. Please list why there is need to boycott something completely legal.. Other than the fact that it just rubs you the wrong way.

"it is most definitely the people they're choosing to discriminate against by actively trying to prevent them from getting married."

See here's the problem, you think it's discrimination. So who's right you or me? Who is to say? It's not so much about preventing gay people from getting married as it is protecting the definition of marriage.

"People need to quit denying gays equal rights. Simple as that, really."

They have equal rights. Don't make it sound like something it is not. Why don't we just enact another type of union for gay people that way we don't have to change the definition of marriage. To put it frankly marriage is ours we had it first. So they should make their own civil union.

"And I find it massively biased how you will defend the right of people to discriminate, but not the right of people to insult those who discriminate against others."

Hey! of course they have the right to discriminate I never said they couldn't. I just don't agree with what they're saying. And I don't enjoy name calling or people saying that any opinion other than their own is hateful. It's just so..cheap and annoying. But no they totally have the right.

"I can think of no other explanation."

That holds no weight.

I could say that I find no other explanation as to why you can't see my point therefore you're stupid. Same thing, you know it is. But you see that would be assumption and name calling. Do you see what I'm getting at?

"Why would someone spend so much trying to deny rights to someone that they love?"

You sound like a teenager complaining to their parents. ..Are you a teenager..? (;

1 point

Dan Cathy has his right to express his views.

Dan Cathy has his right to speak for his company.

Chick-fil-A has it's right to jump into political debates and donations.

Supporters of Chick-fil-A have their right to express their views.

Boycotters of Chick-fil-A have their right to express their views.

Those indifferent have their right to express their views.

Influential people have their right to express their personal views.

No ones freedom of speech here should be taken away. Name calling included.

No legal action should be taken against Dan Cathy or Chick-fil-A for Dan's statement, donations or opposition to them for expressing their views.

youngidealis(50) Disputed
1 point

I disagree with one point here. Dan Cathy and the organizations that he donated to are terrorizing the homosexual community. They along with Fox News should be in prison for the outright physical harm that their actions cause.

-2 points
2 points

Therefore, people who in any honest went to CFA to support free speech and nothing else were duped by media, plain and simple.

Ah yes, because being out raged over what MSNBC and The Young Turks say isn't being duped, but researching what actually happened and supporting a food store is.

0 points

Wow, there's some sad cowards here who like to take away points but give no argument as to why. Would I even get to know if they chose me to be their enemy on this site?