No, that is not it. People have been boycotting Chik-fil-A, because they donate to anti-LGBTQ organizations. So Dan Cathy tried to change the subject, and say the mean boycotters were persecuting him for simply having "traditional beliefs" about marriage. No one gives a **** what Dan Cathy personally believes, and never have. It has always been, and continues to be, about LGBTQ and allied people not handing over money to a company that will then give it to organizations whose aim is to harm those same people.
When im talking about cancel culture im not talking about freedom of association or exclusion.
Im talking about the asymmetrical power of platforms like fb, twitter, yt, and how they fail to just abide by american law even tho they take government loans.
It's like the big kid version of dont boo for the other team, cheer for your own team louder.
You should be more honest: a Christian charity is almost always going to be pro-Traditional family which the Auth-Left in the US likes to call "anti-LGBT."
Such as the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes.
And to your larger point: you're wrong. The backlash that made headlines for months was Dan Cathy's statements, NOT the donations because almost no one gave a shit. No one cares about mentally ill people (very near 100% of these people who rage about things like this have severe mental illnesses) raging against a privately owned Christian company holding Christian beliefs and their donations to Christian organizations.
A championing of a legal framework that is based on "traditional marriages", only between a man and a woman, is pretty accurately called anti-LGBT in a world where gay people have the civil and legal right to marriage, though. So I don't see that framing as too inaccurate, a lot of the time. And often it goes beyond marriage, and there is a desire to "cure" or "change" gay people, often with deeply harmful results, that too I would say is accurately described as anti-LGBT.
In terms of the chic-fil-a boycott, I don't really care about it much either way, these kinds of individualist consumer boycott seem pretty meaningless to me.
What American laws are these companies breaking, within the context of cancel culture?
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
Why are you so fixated on the legal aspect?
You do know there are other aspects of human life, yes?
You also asked about the legal definition of hate sperch, which doesnt exist.
Tho tbf, i didnt know the full extent of the civil rights laws when i was chatting with ddm.
This is why I think the government should be kicked out of "marriages" and leave that purely as a private matter.
Instead, the legal label should be "civil unions." This would allow guardians to have civil unions with the people they take care of and get the same protections and benefits under the law. Expands "marriage" to a bunch of different kinds of relationships. What if my BFF (this is just an example), who is my roommate, needs my insurance and we share our household costs? That's a Civil Union. We are not married. But we could benefit form a Civil Union.
That's usually true. However, in the case of cancel culture over stupid shit, like a very small group of people losing their shit because Dan Cathy said that shit about 'traditional families', there was a counter-protest and Chic-Fil-A got a ton of business. They were packed.
Same thing with Goya foods.
So the boycotts backfired and the counter-protests increased revenues.
I love it when counter-cancel-culture protests do this.
Oh, I'm mostly a utilitarian when it comes to consumer products. As long as the product didn't cause serious harm, I usually buy. I don't buy Nike's or Tyson foods, anymore. I still buy Apple products: some of the poor Chinese who work these jobs would lose their only source of good income if we forced Apple to pull out of China (NPR did a story over this and the Chinese workers are super upset about the woke westerners trying to take away a good wage job from them).
But where this sits is in case law, currently. The inevitable outcome is the modification of Section 230 protections. Multiple lawsuits at play and the march towards a re-writing or even stricter regulation will happen as soon as the first case is settled at the Supreme Court level. Companies know this and have already spun up internal task forces so they can quickly adjust when they inevitably have to stop censoring.
But don't pay attention to anything I said: you'll gain no wisdom, here.
That's a given. And while I appreciate the write-up, my question is in the context of cancel culture and lawsuits/charges from the government.
We know for a fact that in *general* almost all of these companies have had run ins with the law- it wasn't too long ago that Zuck was testifying before congress, afterall.
However, comics concern seems to be that companies like YT/Twitter banning people they don't like from their services is illegal.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
It is currently "gray." But the inevitable result will be a ruling against them and then a subsequent lobbying to get a new law or a law change because they have hundreds of billions of dollars.
Ohhh, yeah. I mean it in the way that america already has free speech laws, thus creating their own is unnecessary and where all thr outcry over bias is coming from.
You should be more honest, you disingenous Mormon ****wit. Chik-fil-A donates money to organizations that will help Christian parents traffic their children out of the United States, and intern them in labor camps in foreign countries, where they are subjected to psychological and physical abuse in attempt to cure them of homosexuality.
Moreover, I already noted that Cathy made his comments, so the headlines would be about his pretend victimhood, instead of Chik-fil-A's anti-LGBTQ donations.
__________________
Last edited by Adam_PoE on Nov 21st, 2020 at 01:47 AM
why would anyone eat there or at kfc when there's popeyes
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
I used to love Popeyes, but since Burger King bought them they've gone down hill. Still better than Chik fil a or KFC but not as good as they were like 5 years ago.
I didn't know about that. I guess that means popeyes will continue to fall into decline until eventually their food is inedible...just like burger king
__________________
Your Lord knows very well what is in your heart. Your soul suffices this day as a reckoner against you. I need no witnesses. You do not listen to your soul, but listen instead to your anger and your rage.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 20th, 2020 06:20 AM
