Why did the remove Chik-Fil-A?

noggin said:

Actually, radical Christian terrorists account for the majority of mass killings in America. Remember Timothy McVeigh, perpetrator of the second largest terrorist attack on American soil? Remember Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of the Emanuel EMA massacre?

These people were committed their acts of terrorism in the name of Christianity? Where did you get that info?

I'm not sure what terrorism has to do with homophobic chicken (though people seem to get on rants about all of the people they hate), but people in the US have lost their f'ing minds over threats that are statistically irrelevant. 9/11 could happen every month, and you're still thousands of times more likely to die the next time you get in a car. If you really want to get into an exercise of flag waving and advocacy for safety, invest in companies building autonomous transportation. The sooner we get there, the better.

I see everyone gets their "facts" from Buzzfeed...

By the way, thinking homosexuality is a sin is not homophobia. Buzz words are destroying any intellectual conversation.

Find me something in the Constitution that prevents everyone from having equal rights. If you can't, maybe we need to look at equal privileges. Everyone is born with equal rights, the government is granting privileges to people.

Racism, sexism, etc is not systematic, its personal. That's not a rights issue.

All this because the founder of a company has religious beliefs? Seriously? His personal decisions don't change the way they're selling chicken sandwiches.

Wow, you live in an alternate reality. The Constitution quite literally called "other people," referring to slaves, as two-thirds people. Even after the abolition of slavery, Jim Crow laws made discrimination legal for more than a century. Institutional racism is still a problem in many parts of the country. Misogyny is everywhere, in public and private (just ask the CEO of Uber).

If you want to have an "intellectual" conversation, start by basing it in reality. It's personal and it's a rights issue. It always has been. Even if it wasn't, what are you arguing? That it's OK?

By institutional, I'm referring to legally. Are you saying that the bill of rights or federal law is written to discriminate against different races or sexes?

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that because the law doesn't condone it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. It happens every day a kid in the suburbs gets a better education than one in the inner city. It happens every day when a black man gets jail time for a minor drug offense and a white man gets a stern talking to. It happens every day when women are paid less than men for the same jobs. Until fairly recently, it happened every day when a same-sex partner had no legal standing in probate court because they couldn't be married.

The suggestion that because there is no law making discrimination OK means that government and society are forgiven any responsibility to prevent it is wholly stupid.

Who is saying discrimination is okay? Where do you draw that connection to anything that was said here?

Discrimination is illegal. Unequal pay is illegal.

Disagreements over worldview are protected by the first amendment.

CP Maverick said:
All this because the founder of a company has religious beliefs? Seriously? His personal decisions don't change the way they're selling chicken sandwiches.

Not the problem at all. It's when the founder of a company decides to use the revenue from his company to fund groups that actively protest homosexuality and believe in conversion therapy. And while he is free to do that with his money, he isn't protected from other parties or entities deciding to distance themselves from his views. Now, there's no evidence suggesting this is what made Cedar Point decide to replace their CFA. But considering that there is a large presence of the LGBTQ in the amusement park industry (regarding people who visit and people who work in the industry), it's not surprising the decision to take CFA out of Cedar Point was met with praise.

And considering that Chick-Fil-A have managed to stay out of the limelight with regards to their founder as well as their continued presence in other Cedar Fair parks, I'd say the issue was in some way resolved. Even if Cedar Point had kept CFA in the park, the most you would get from those against the business would be a refusal to eat there.

But in all honesty, it's just one less fast food franchise in a park with better food options than fried chicken on a bun. Lets just forget it and move on with our lives.

XS NightClub said:
You ate at a KFC by choice?

In Tokyo...

Well, not by my choice. I was visiting my ex (he worked at DisneySea) and he wanted fried chicken.

Turns out KFC is yoooge in Tokyo. They were everywhere. I could have spent the entire trip eating at American fast food chains.

While not disclosing just now where I fall in the political divide, I will say that both sides have a lot to learn. Everyone in this thread and in most places who thinks they have it all figured out is incorrect.

The way to learn is to study original sources from the opposite side. Listen to lectures. Read essays, blogs, and books. Realize that these issues are complicated and more than likely you and others have packaged together truth and error in combined concepts. This is why the brightest minds struggle with these issues.

Look for points you have in common with the other side and points you can improve on in your own thinking. Pointing out the other side’s errors is not the next step of progress. Celebrate incremental victories instead of being a Debbie downer. You can continue to be a positive (not negative) influence for change. Rome was not built in a day.

TerraCoaster said:

These people were committed their acts of terrorism in the name of Christianity? Where did you get that info?

Frankly? By applying the same standard applied to Muslims. It's curious that, when a Muslim commits an act of terror, their religion is used as a way to define them; but when a Christian commits an act of terror, their religion is not.

noggin said:

TerraCoaster said:

These people were committed their acts of terrorism in the name of Christianity? Where did you get that info?

Frankly? By applying the same standard applied to Muslims. It's curious that, when a Muslim commits an act of terror, their religion is used as a way to define them; but when a Christian commits an act of terror, their religion is not.

Because their holy book is full of clear instructions on how to terrorize or conquer non-believers. The New Testament (Christian) part of the Bible is full of instructions for how to love non-believers.

The differences between the prophets are pretty clear, too.

Islam needs the sociopolitical pressure to adapt, or these atrocities are going to continue.

Pretty sure the Christian Bible has plenty of instructions on killing non-believers. Stoning people to death, for example.

And my point, if poorly worded, had really nothing to do with what either text says and more to do with "Muslim" being used as shorthand to refer to people of that faith as, by default, terrorists, while Christians are often excused from their religion being used for being used as a reason for their crimes.

Because they don't scream "Praise God" before killing people, probably. When the act of terror is done in the name of your beliefs, it's time to reevaluate those beliefs.

And please, show me anywhere in the New Testament that instructs followers to kill, rape, enslave, or conquer non-believers. There is a huge difference between the teachings of "love your neighbor" and "kill non-believers" as indoctrination techniques.

So there you have it, To answer the op question, cedar point removed chick fil-a because...well we answered that 3.75 pages ago.

Jeff said:

If you really want to get into an exercise of flag waving and advocacy for safety, invest in companies building autonomous transportation. The sooner we get there, the better.

I really would not like to see autonomous cars take over the roads. In many ways the technology dumbs down personal transportation because it is so poor at handling exceptions. Can autonomous vehicles travel safely in a heavy snow storm? How about just icy or snowy roads, do autonomous cars make the many steering corrections a skilled snow driver does to keep the car on the road? Do autonomous cars avoid huge potholes that can damage tires or suspensions? What if a traffic signal goes out, do autonomous vehicles follow directions of a traffic cop? What if the automation technology develops a fault, will we just have vehicles performing Estops everywhere because of a technical issue or some data it can't interpret? Will riders in these cars be stranded much more often than now, where a human can reason through many issues?

Even if all these problems (and more) are solved, which is just a pipe dream at the moment, what happens to insurance rates if you want to drive your own car? Will the cost of insuring drivers go through the roof because computers typically would have fewer crashes? Insurance rates for drivers will probably go up to a point where buying insurance to drive your car would be unaffordable to many people.

Also (conspiracy theory here) with so many cameras out on the road (every car has one), could cars be potentially used by the government as surveillance tools? Will there be future laws where the video from these cars will be streamed to government controlled surveillance servers, possibly with advanced facial recognition software? Will the movement of cars and pedestrians be under constant scrutiny?

If autonomous transportation does become common place, driving a car and just cruising will be another freedom lost.

Great way to hijack the OP's thread there, Pete! LOL!

Agreed Pete, but unfortunately many on this thread think that, like autonomous cars, the government should drive every aspect of our lives. Autonomous driving cars, like government intervention, is a worse solution looking for a problem. (and Google maps is just plain wrong too often for me to let them even drive me to the closest 7-11)

I'm not letting anyone else drive my car anymore. Dealing with insurance companies for a total loss is a huge pain.

noggin said:

Frankly? By applying the same standard applied to Muslims. It's curious that, when a Muslim commits an act of terror, their religion is used as a way to define them; but when a Christian commits an act of terror, their religion is not.

I'm just trying to understand what evidence you had that McVeigh in particular was a Christian. Roof apparently was raised in a Lutheran church. But I don't believe either crime was motivated by religion (prove me wrong), whereas there are countless recent acts of terror linked to and apparently motivated by Islam.

And why are you so eager to defend Muslims? Do the oppressive, violent tendencies of followers of Islam line up with your values?