Chick-fil-a

[sgluckadoo]

Oh, I believe discrimination happens pretty much everywhere, and for any reason, it is just a matter of companies getting caught and whether or not people are informed and care or not. Hardees has had suits brought for gender discrimination and for discriminating against the disabled (I think I am recalling this accurately).If the media showed every instance of this, people would probably be shocked and have nowhere to eat or shop!

I agree that publicity can lead to more awareness of any given situation.  Most people are not generally inclined to search for instances of wrong-doing on a nominally random basis, (look at every company currently operating - worldwide?).  The emphasis of publicity normally occurs when some event engenders it, (such as in chick-fil-a's case{s}).

In the case of chick fil a, I have to say, the media has not emphasized discrimination law suits, so most non gay consumers see it as an issue of freedom of speech, while gay consumers see it as offensive/ intolerant, etc.  It makes you wonder what would have happened if the gay community had known discrimation suits existed before the head of Chick fil a publically announced his beliefs. It is getting all this attention now, but what about before the owner spoke about his beliefs? and what about other companies that get no media attention because they settle quietly, etc.  I think the lesson is, if discrimination of any sort matters to you then you shouldnt wait for the media to sensationalize it, rather you should research on your own and decide if you want to be a shopper at a given establishment, chances are most places would have a disappointing track record.

Given sufficient 'digging' into nearly any company, something is likely to turn up.  Whether or not news outlets find such results newsworthy is largely a subjective assessment which rests at least equally upon journalism and readership appeal/sales potential for advertisers.

"Whether or not news outlets find such results newsworthy is largely a subjective assessment which rests at least equally upon journalism and readership appeal/sales potential for advertisers."

This is exactly true. The media is not objective. So people dont get the whole story, etc. (Dont trust the media folks! Do your own fact finding!)

Chick fil a, in my opinion, is being hammered for something that most businesses also do = discrimination. The issue is much larger than chick fil a. All the fast food places, and places like Target and Walmart have all had suits against them. But people arent proactive in their search for information about businesses bc they think there are laws in place that take care of these things for them.
How many people are honestly going to stop going somewhere if they like going there, regardless of lawsuits, unless it is affects them personally? If you dont care about the gay discrimination lawsuits then you wont care about the chick fil a stuff, if you dont care about racial discrimination then you wont stop shopping at target for example, if you dont care about gender discrimination then you wont stop shopping most everywhere, if you dont care about the disabled and ADA violations, then you wont stop going to target, hardees, for example. 

[ptfunds]

The issue is that Chick-fil-a donated over $2 Million dollars to groups supporting anti-gay legislation in 2009.  The crux  is that these groups are funding anti-gay initiatives and spending their charitable dollars attacking legislation that seeks to provide equal rights to gay and lesbian couples. It's fine to hold a particular belief and it's something else entirely different to actively work toward maintaining discriminatory laws under the guise of charity. 

[Abrupt]

The issue is that Chick-fil-a donated over $2 Million dollars to groups supporting anti-gay legislation in 2009.  The crux  is that these groups are funding anti-gay initiatives and spending their charitable dollars attacking legislation that seeks to provide equal rights to gay and lesbian couples. It's fine to hold a particular belief and it's something else entirely different to actively work toward maintaining discriminatory laws under the guise of charity. 

Are these "anti-gay" or "pro-traditional marriage"?  Be aware that it is not equal rights being sought after, it is special privileges as gays and lesbians can become married now, according to the definition of marriage and thus they are not being discriminated against.  This distinction is of particular significance as it quickly exposes the claims of discrimination to be completely false.  In some places where they sought from the voting population these special privileges they were given them by the voters, and in others they were denied.