Thank you.
This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.
That was stupid, this isn't reddit.
libertarians do believe that market pressure should be used instead of government coercion. You'll definitely find plenty of them who do support a boycott of chick-fil-a.
At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation.
The CEO of Chick-fil-A is like 90. If he was just homophobic, sexist, etc, in private, it wouldn't make news anywhere.
I respect anyone's choice to do so.
However, for me personally I see trying to convince other people to share your opinion as just an extension of having an opinion in the first place.
I wouldn't vote for a law to ban gay marriage, but I'd still patronize a business who's owner did.
Unless that owner was doing something more than peacefully trying to coerce people to vote for said law.
Nobody is mad at Chick-fil-A for being bigoted in the privacy of their own home. They're mad at Chick-fil-A for their actions and for how they spend their money on bigoted campaigns.
The big deal is that someone that is "famous" said publicly that he doesn't support gay marriage. The LGBT movement, "tolerant" as they are, just can't have that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._virginia
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... "
There is also a significant difference between "not supporting" something and campaigning to prevent anyone from doing it. I "don't support" tax-exempt religion, but I'm not giving money to a lobbying group to try to end it.
Obviously being a massive funder of a campaign against equal rights for the gay community is totally a neutral position which in no way harms gay people, but pointing out the fact that they've been doing it? Why, that makes gay people big meanies who are attacking this nice family for no reason.
As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome? They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance. Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea.
Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
When you bring your views into the public square by funding public campaigns to espouse those views, you can't complain when people react to those views.
Chick-fil-A did something far stronger than simply get on a microphone in the public media and argue a particular viewpoint. It spent millions of dollars trying to affect legislation.
What is Focus on the Family? Or the Family Research Council? Eagle Forum?
>>> And many people might agree with you they are "big meanies" looking for a fight.
They are "looking for a fight" to be fought in the public square, in legislatures and courts, over what many of them consider to be a legal injustice. Is this not the intended form of democracy?
>>> As far as funding campaigns that support their moral views as a "private" company, why is that so bothersome?
Why is it so bothersome to point this fact out? If they do not wish to be injured by the information, then they have the power to make it false.
>>> They don't get out in front of a microphone in the public media and state this fact every time they get the chance.
The fact they were (previously) not very vocal about their views negates them how?
>>> Although Bezos seems to think this is a good idea.
As is his right? Just like the Cathy family has the same right?
>>> Gay right=Civil right=Yeah right
Disagreement does not require a dismissive attitude. I could just as easily denigrate your opinions and your position, but that benefits no one.
"good people" is not among them.
> Chick-fil-A will never agree with their moral stance
There's the problem. Morals are neither here nor there. You can believe that homosexuality is wrong and still recognize that allowing homosexuals to enter into a civil marriage contract is just and right. I think lying is wrong, but I wouldn't try to advance legislation that prevents liars from getting married.
Whereas I, a progressive libertarian (free-market progressive?) believe that worldview to be inconsistent with libertarianism, hence lolbertarian.
Companies, governments, organizations, institutions at large all exert and respond to their own social pressures and cannot be considered in isolation thereof.