Blood Money
 

Chic Fil A's profits are going to support Uganda's "Kill The Gays" bill. Each one of those "ignorant" Christians/Zealots provided more income for that cause and a few other anti gay groups.

Murder, the legalization of allowing the hunting down of a human being. It's not just a civil right we are fighting for it's human rights.

I'm pretty convinced that if "some" people could have it their way, we'd be hunted down with party music playing in the background.

I hope every queer wakes the fuck up and votes, as a woman I feel I have double the target on my back since these people think they own my rights to my vagina as well.


Not one queer dollar should be spent at this particular business.

I largely agree until your last paragraph. I guess I don't see the issue about sex. Society really needs to stop being so alarmist about it and sex needs to stop being seen as this thing to be kept out of the public eye.

But I certainly do think there are bigger fish to fry. Corporate scandals = least of lgbt/queer community's worries, imo. Edit: Do I think it sucks that these buffoons are funding the murder of the lgbt community in Uganda...yes. But I don't think that boycotting a restaurant is going to help the lgbt community Uganda, either. There are better ways, and the international community has managed to put pressure on the Ugandan government. Like its been mentioned earlier in the thread, movements take time and change takes time.

Ender I don't understand why you say "Corporate scandals = least of lgbt/queer community's worries." Big corporations make lots of money and that money can be used to fund lots of hateful things. It can do a lot of damage.

They do lots of damage every day by merely existing. These sorts of scandals detract from real social issues and basically allow people who don't care to be politically active an avenue to think they're doing some kind of good without actually doing any good. What this restaurant does with its money changes nothing for someone who doesn't have anything to eat to begin with. Whether this restaurant funds anti-lgbt orgs or not, they already promote the continued maltreatment of homeless/low income and other disadvantaged people (including queers) by their very existence. The damage exists with or without their money. Its the entire damned system that is the problem and continues to allow these organisations to exist. Its not going to change anything for the plight of Ugandan lgbt folks or of disadvantaged queer folks in the US.

Well Ender I think capitalism as an economic system sucks but it's what we have. There's lots and lots of problems in this world.

the issue that i see is that capitalism, at least in the u.s., is built on exploitation and inequality. the capitalist system that we have cannot exist without exploitation and inequality. so personally i have a hard time separating the two. i mean - in an immediate sense - don't spend money at chik-fil-a, spend your queer dollars elsewhere. in a long-term sense - if one is serious about ending poverty, which disproportionately affects women and queer people, and upending the systems of oppression that exist, we are going to have to dismantle the corporate system.

Being an informed citizen and consumer is something I can control and do something about. It may not change the world but it is something tangible. And I do think that less money going to hate groups is a very good thing. Anti equality causes and hate groups do cause lots and lots of damage. If I can play a small part in slowing that machine down and not supporting it with my dollars I will.

I will keep an eye on corporations and other entities that help to fund anti equality and hate groups and I will not spend my money with them. That is something tangible that I can do.

By a quick calculation, I've spent almost 2 years of my adult life in the United States and, until this controversy, I'd never heard of Chick-fil-a. Not sure why that is but a quick scan at their website indicates that their food is absolute rubbish. Therefore, I don't need to boycott Chick-fil-a as, whether homophobic or not, I wouldn't have been a patron. Similarly, I won't be kissing on Chick-fil-a premises as I'm not really one for public displays of affection, especially in cheap plastic booths (last time I did that, I was 15 or so).



However, just a few observations. The issue of religious views and the purposefulness of engaging with those who have dogmatic "old light" Christian faith. It's already been pointed out by some on this thread that there's little point in trying to use reason to convince someone who believes the bible's Old Testament (or, rather, selected extracts from it) in a literal sense.


That's undoubtedly the case but, furthermore, it's not the religious fanatics that need to be convinced as regards LGBT rights. Rather, it's the middle ground, some of whom hold less repressive religious views and some who are atheist. It's the battle to win the hearts and minds of the middle ground that's key - that's an evolutionary process that is happening through positive representation of LGBT peoples in mainstream society.


Secondly, as much as I admire the attachment that many Americans have to the US Constitution, don't forget that irrespective of whatever freedoms it offers and protection from Government interference, LGBT rights for US citizens are less than those in most other western countries.


Added to that, the US Constitution effectively provides considerable power to the judiciary and, as most of us know, the judiciary can be as personally and politically motivated as any legislature or, for that matter, any human body.


The US Constitution was framed at a time when protection from Government was important. Today, however, it is generally recognised (outside the US) that one of Government's roles is to protect its people (for example, from discriminatory labour practices) i.e. that the framework for a successful society is the Government to protect its people, not for people to need to be protected from Government.


This continued US rhetoric about personal freedoms, in my view, hinders the progression of a society that offers basic protective rights - I was amazed at the chart, assuming it is accurate, that was posted in this thread showing the US states in which it is legal to dismiss employees for being LGBT. Great that the US has a constitution but, me, I prefer substantive rights.

I think we should go have sex in front of every one of their businesses. Dirty kinky scary sex. Let's show up in drag. Let's show up naked. Let's show up mad as hell. Let's practice martial arts moves. Let's sing and dance and be our most outrageous selves. And look them in the eye and let them know that nothing they can ever do will make us change or go away.

life can be very poignant at times.....
 

Some very good points for me in your post, well said.
Their children are the same ones who statistically will become homosexuals one day. Then what? the damage will have started at such a young age complicating matters beyond what already exists.

Me too, i don't want to hear about franchises because the franchise lines the pockets of the hate groups.

So? As you said, that is true of any institution. The judiciary in the U.S. has a history of protecting minority rights.


Excellent point, but, as you say, not recognized or accepted in the U.S. We sadly have an exaggerated fear of government. You can't get even a liberal to praise government in the U.S. There has been no vision of government as a force for good since Reagan. I watch old episodes of West Wing and pretend they really happened and cry. (just kidding) Anyway, that's lost for now.

Very true. But we are also LOSING these personal freedoms. It would seem like at least a few people care. I am thinking of Ron Paul's youthful followers. (not a supporter of Paul, but there are some hopeful elements in his popularity.) Anyway, during the Bush era, I wondered if anyone did care. And talking about personal freedoms is one way to reach out to people. My students sure care about whether they can be arrested and held without cause. Most people care about how their personal information is used.

And there is no "either or" between the US constitution and substantive rights. In fact, that constitution has helped us guarantee substantive rights, any number of times. VOTING rights, for example. Freedom of the press. You can argue that the market means that we do not get much of a choice when we vote or that the Press has been reduced to cheap entertainment. How little coverage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gotten is a national shame.

But these freedoms still mean something. Republicans as we speak are working hard to restrict the franchise (requiring voters to show ID). They have a healthy fear of voters, especially minority voters. That is an encouraging sign.

My feelings in a nutshell.....

To each their own on their personal beliefs but we do need to respect one another. Yes Dan Kathy has a right to free speech but what he does not have a right to do is use money to breed hate.

Great article with some great eye opening facts on just where your money is going when you choose to support Chik Fil A....Is this really something we as a society should be agreeing with. These are the organizations Dan Kathy is choosing to support with the public dollar. I wonder if Dan Kathy was donating to organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan would folks still feel Dan Kathy has a right to do so...not likely!

Excerpt

"In 2010 The Family Research Center spent $25,000 lobbying congress to NOT condemn Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill. They compare homosexuals to pedophiles and the mentally ill, and claim that they abuse drugs and that they are not discriminated against."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ve-Free-or-Die

Now what really ticks me off is what is now happening to add insult to injury. If the 2 million wasn't enough to anti gay groups now it is being announced that profits from the "appreciation day" up to 30 million are going to be donated to these groups...smh good job at supporting his so called free speech. This is beyond free speech if it was then why does society not feel it is appropriate to support anti black businesses...same concept in my opinion.

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...12/08/03/45543

Let me add also I do not feel this is a "Christian" issue but an issue of religion and religious zealots. The two are entirely different in my eyes. By definition Christianity is to emulate the thoughts,ideas,and actions of Jesus which if you read the bible Jesus chose to associate and befriend those who others consider lower than others such as the thieves and prostitutes. His actions were those of love,compassion and acceptance unconditionally. Here is the part I do not get with these religious folk...they claim Jesus died on the cross for our sins and that he knew our sins before we ever committed them since he knows the end from the begining. Funny part is about this whole religion thing is that even in the bible it warns about religion and according to the bible the ones who persecuted Jesus were the religious folks. Christian=Christ like...not seeing much of that in all this.

one of the messiest of those messy lines is the one written on government issue paper money - "in G*d we trust". cant separate a state from its supposed church when the money that state uses references said church, yanno?

Article - US Treasury Archive

Canada also has references to God on their money and national anthem, and we seem to have a very clear separation b/w religion and politics as opposed to the USA. Politicians here do not need to profess a certain religious affiliation or belief in god in order to make office; in fact, we get a bit squeamish if one is too public with their faith.

OutQ on SirusXM was talking about the Kiss in and Chick-Fil-A, so I called, and got on the radio. I talked about the community service and KFC ideas and stuff and they were *not* very receptive... lol. I think they even cut me off. As is! :-(

Soldiering on....

Jane Lynch Says ‘Fuck Chick-Fil-A'



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...r=Gay%20Voices

Seriously! Right:|....they might just stop and stare way too much and then film cause they would enjoy it and learn something too...gross. Not on my watch. Gross. Not gonna see me or my girl doin the hippiddy dippitty...

Now this kiss in front of Chick-fil-a I think is cool. :)

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...21393551_n.jpg

I had a very similar thought when I first heard about the kiss-in. One of my axioms for activism is that if possible, never hand the other side the weapon they'll bludgeon you with. It might be a genuinely better world if we *weren't* up against an opposition that was so hung up about sex but since we *are* up against one, we should take that into account when determining what tactics we plan on using. Since we *know* that not just the 'loyal opposition' but many ignorant but otherwise neutral people say things like "what two people do in bed is no concern of mine" what we probably shouldn't do is hand them more ammunition by having a kiss-in which can then be filmed and used in a video against us.

Since we are, rightly in my opinion, claiming the moral mantle of the civil rights movement and since we like to wrap ourselves up in the noble words of Martin Luther King, Jr., we should take lessons from them. One of the most powerful images from that era is a picture of a march where there are a number of marchers carrying a sign that simply reads, "I AM a Man". Simple. Dignified. What could the other side say about it? "No, negro, you aren't a man?" Certainly that was what the segregationists thought but saying that in front of Walter Cronkite, God and Everybody would only make them look worse than they already did. One of the brilliant tactics that my parent's generation adopted was to *not* hand the other side the rhetorical weapon with which to be beaten up with. The counter sit-in protestors didn't have kiss ins, they went to Woolworth's, they sat with dignity and let themselves be dragged away from the counter when their only offense was wanting a sandwich and a Coke which they were willing to pay for if they could get service.

I understand that this statement isn't going to be popular because it appears to concede to much to the other side but I don't think that it does concede that much. I'm not even going so far as to suggest we shouldn't be as queer-as-we-wanna-be as a matter of going about our daily lives. I am saying that since we *know* the other side wants to paint us as sex obsessed and out of control, what we shouldn't do is hand them the opportunity to say "see! Look what the queer people did, they came into the lobby of this company that *clearly* doesn't want their business and started making out in the lobby!" We would do much better boycotting Chik-fil-a than trying to go for shock value which the kiss-in is designed to do; frighten the horses and shock the mundanes.

Cheers
Aj

Change of <3
 

Chick-Fil-A vows to stop donating to groups that oppose gay marriage including Focus on the Family and National Organization for Marriage. They said of their employees, "Discrimination will not be tolerated."


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4334485.story

That whole apology thing...wrong!

http://www.advocate.com/business/201...equality-group