Nothing highlights
privilege and apathy more then (sic) hearing people complain about being
overwhelmed by the
coverage of the Chick-Fil-A situation and
suggesting that people simply not eat there if they don't care for Dan Cathy's
views.
Really? You can’t think of any analogy that better
embodies privilege (which I’m not sure has anything to do with this topic at
all) and apathy than this issue? Me
thinks you’re not really trying too hard to come up with examples.
In 29 states you can be fired for being gay.
In 75 countries it is illegal to be gay. In 9 of those countries, being gay is
punishable by death.
Other than the states
issue, which you can be fired for any reason at all in Illinois and many
states, it’s not the US. Not that we shouldn’t care, but we can’t solve the
world’s problems. Women don’t have rights everywhere either.
Dan Cathy from
Chick-Fil-A has donated $5M to two organizations in the US who have been
seeking to criminalize same-sex relations.
Sorry, but there are
tons of problematic organizations out there who get money from all sorts of
people. It’s a free country. You can't legislate crazy.
This is money that
he has received because of consumers purchasing food from Chick-Fil-A.
Consumers expressing
their RIGHT to buy food where they want. And boy are those sandwiches good.
This is more than a
first amendment issue or a same-sex marriage issue, this is about taking a
stand for human rights. Dan Cathy is spending millions of dollars specifically
to deny certain humans of their rights, not the other way around. I have yet to
hear of any same sex couples donating millions to deny rights to heterosexual
couples.
Are there any
anti-heterosexual couple organizations?
Seems like a ridiculous comment.
To suggest that
both sides are at fault is like saying that a bully and their victim are both
to blame.
Who is saying both
sides are at fault? I think the argument is that Dan Cathy has a right to do
what he wants with his money, as long as it’s legal. And what a horrible
analogy. It gets worse though.
It's a form of
tacit approval for systematic oppression. We didn't tell the Jews to leave
Germany or complain that they were "whining" when they were forced
into concentration camps and we didn't suggest that African Americans move from
the South when they were denied the right to vote, we supported them.
Umm, what? Did you really just try to equate the
oppression of homosexuals to the oppression of Jews in WWII or slavery?? Yeah, you might want to rethink that
discussion just a bit. Homosexuals aren’t being bused to extermination camps or
routinely killed in the street.
So in conclusion,
this is personal, because personally, I'd stand up for you if your human rights
were being denied. If you don't like hearing about this, then step outside of
your privilege and try to understand how it feels to have your human rights
questioned.
Aww, how nice of you to
try to make it personal! I doubt that you really would stand up for me
personally if my rights were being denied (my gun rights in Chicago are
currently being violated by the way, but that’s a separate issue).
1 comment:
I wish there was this much attention and dialogue in general given to big money donations trying to sway political causes. I fully endorse the idea - if people want to "vote with their feet" by not patronizing businesses who give money to causes they don't agree with, let's get the the information out there to make that possible.
AS you say, it's a free country, people can do what they want with their money!
Post a Comment