Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups, but the anti-gay donations are being used to villainize Chick-fil-A while the pro-gay donations are ignored. (This is pure speculation on my part, and I am in no way presenting this as an argument)
The reason the bolded part is true is because the owner of Chick-Fil-A has come out and made some very slanderous comments about homosexuals insofar as coming very close to Westboro rhetoric. "they're ruining our country" etc.
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
The reason the bolded part is true is because the owner of Chick-Fil-A has come out and made some very slanderous comments about homosexuals insofar as coming very close to Westboro rhetoric. "they're ruining our country" etc.
That is the personal opinion of a single person in the organization. Saying that because he said one thing, and thus the entire organization says the same thing is akin to saying that the words of the President are the words of our entire nation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
That is the personal opinion of a single person in the organization. Saying that because he said one thing, and thus the entire organization says the same thing is akin to saying that the words of the President are the words of our entire nation.
It's the combination of funding for and open statements.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
If people disagree with what the Mayor of Boston did, they will vote him out. If the folks who make relevant decisions disagree, then they would veto the ban.
I'm sure astute political opponents will be able to twist the thing into what people are worrying about and more.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mumbles is a ******, just like the rest of Boston. He's said so much stupid crap during his tenure as mayor that I am left wondering how he manages to survive sometimes. Howie Carr does a "game segment" about him. He's not being voted out any time soon, because he's too busy giving far too many handouts to people who don't deserve it. The asshat has been mayor since I can remember.
On-topic: I don't think government should be able to prevent a business from flourishing if it's not violating the law. Personal beliefs are just that, and the government has no right to regulate our thoughts.
Quote from Tiax »
The FRC is identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Generally, I take anything the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say with less than a grain of salt. People like me, military veterans, were claimed by the federal government to be ripe for "right-wing extremism" not two years ago. Mark Potok and the SPLC jumped on that bandwagon almost immediately, and in many instances continue to defend that position, despite Obama and Napolitano being forced to retract it.
SPLC may have been a noble organization, but when they labeled me a possible terrorist, I just laughed and threw them into the gutter, along with the KKK, NBPP, and NOI.
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
It's the combination of funding for and open statements.
It's a small amount of their annual charitable donations (with significantly less than 1% going to a single "hate group" as classified by the SPLC, which [based on it's website now] seems to be very politicized these days), combined with the open statements of it's owner.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups, but the anti-gay donations are being used to villainize Chick-fil-A while the pro-gay donations are ignored. (This is pure speculation on my part, and I am in no way presenting this as an argument)
That contains links to their tax documents, which show the other donations. It's a bunch of other right-leaning and evangelical groups. I don't see anything that would be remotely pro-gay.
It's a small amount of their annual charitable donations (with significantly less than 1% going to a single "hate group" as classified by the SPLC, which [based on it's website now] seems to be very politicized these days), combined with the open statements of it's owner.
That contains links to their tax documents, which show the other donations. It's a bunch of other right-leaning and evangelical groups. I don't see anything that would be remotely pro-gay.
Honestly...the more I read this, the more I feel that people are taking this and blowing it entirely out of proportion.
And I've already found at least two groups this blog claims are hate groups per the SPLC that are not classified as such by the SPLC.
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Why not? If the KKK wants to buy government property to open a KKK clubhouse in my neighborhood, I hope my elected representative causes that to not happen. Or it an oil company wants to start fracking in my town, I hope my representative looks out for my interests and puts a stop to it.
Government contracts should absolutely include looking out for the values of local constituents.
Why not? If the KKK wants to buy government property to open a KKK clubhouse in my neighborhood, I hope my elected representative causes that to not happen. Or it an oil company wants to start fracking in my town, I hope my representative looks out for my interests and puts a stop to it.
Chick-fil-A wasn't trying to buy government property.
Government contracts should absolutely include looking out for the values of local constituents.
And refusing a permit to a company that would create jobs in a ****ty economy is looking out for the local constituents? Just because the owner of the company used his First Amendment rights to vocalize an opinion you do not agree with?
"Sorry random Chicago and Boston areas. There would have been a restaurant opening in your area, meaning jobs for you. But we don't like the opinion of their owner, and told them no. Continue collecting unemployment, or not if you've been unemployed too long."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
Thing people forget is we see this ALL the time in government, not necessarily for the reasons this particular case has. I will give an example of another town in MA.
East Longmeadow, a higher end town here in MA, has no fast food chains in town due to them not fitting into the setting the town wants. Not only that the only gas station in town is on the very outskirts of the town, again for city image.
Another example is big box stores in Vermont. The local governments routinely find ways to block them from entering the state, mostly using the disguise of Act 250.
Heck, I am sure if you research it enough, you can find plenty of examples where governments have blocked stores in the US for weak premises at best.
Edit: Well doing a bit of research on the East Longmeadow thing, seems they finally let in more gas stations. Go figure since I usually never visit there anyway.
Thing people forget is we see this ALL the time in government, not necessarily for the reasons this particular case has. I will give an example of another town in MA.
East Longmeadow, a higher end town here in MA, has no fast food chains in town due to them not fitting into the setting the town wants. Not only that the only gas station in town is on the very outskirts of the town, again for city image.
Another example is big box stores in Vermont. The local governments routinely find ways to block them from entering the state, mostly using the disguise of Act 250.
Heck, I am sure if you research it enough, you can find plenty of examples where governments have blocked stores in the US for weak premises at best.
Right, and I think I heard that NYC will not allow Walmart in or something.
But don't tell that to the HERP DERP I MISUNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT crowd.
Which two? I only see two such claims on the blog post, and one is the FRC which we've already discussed.
The Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group, and has received a total of $1,000 from WinShape from 2003 to 2008.
Focus on the Family is claimed to be a hate group by the Equity Matters webpage originally furnished to me by Teia, but examination of the anti-gay section of the SPLC webpage does not list them.
Then they make some long trail to link Chick-fil-A to another "hate group" that is listed in the SPLC webpage. It seems circumstantial at best, like a six degrees association. That is in the link you furnished me.
Honestly...I'm not buying into this. Sure, there is one questionable donation to a SPLC-listed "hate group" totaling $1,000 over five years - but that is it. The rest of the donations are to groups this page, clearly biased in favor of LGBT, are to groups not listed on SPLC. It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.
I am grateful for this thread for one reason - it made me look at the Southern Poverty Law Center again, and their webpage certainly seems more politically charged and anti-right wing overall than it was a few years ago.
Yep. They can say what they want, and we can all boycott them and refuse them permits for being intolerant pigs.
For someone on the left wing, you sure are very intolerant of people who disagree with you. In fact...that is exactly what you and others are accusing Dan Cathy of.
By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was driven from this once-great site by abusive mods and admins, who create rules out of thin air to punish people for breaking them (meaning the rule does not exist under forum rules) and selectively enforce the rules that are written on the forum rules. I am currently lurking while deleting 6 years and 2 months of posting history. I will return when ExpiredRascals, Teia Rabishu and Blinking Spirit are no longer in power.
It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.
What is with you people and bringing up the first amendment all the time in this topic? This has nothing to do with whether the first amendment allows someone to be a bigoted pig.
For someone on the left wing, you sure are very intolerant of people who disagree with you. In fact...that is exactly what you and others are accusing Dan Cathy of.
By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him.
I am also intolerant of the KKK and al-Qaeda. I guess I'm no better than them guys!
Focus on the Family is claimed to be a hate group by the Equity Matters webpage originally furnished to me by Teia, but examination of the anti-gay section of the SPLC webpage does not list them.
Can you quote for me where it says that?
Then they make some long trail to link Chick-fil-A to another "hate group" that is listed in the SPLC webpage. It seems circumstantial at best, like a six degrees association. That is in the link you furnished me.
I don't see how it's a long trail. Chick-fil-A sponsors All Pro Dad, which a program run by a hate group. That's all there is to it. That's as direct as you can get.
Honestly...I'm not buying into this. Sure, there is one questionable donation to a SPLC-listed "hate group" totaling $1,000 over five years - but that is it. The rest of the donations are to groups this page, clearly biased in favor of LGBT, are to groups not listed on SPLC. It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.
Well, the other donations are also "bad", because they are to groups which are vehemently anti-gay, whether SPLC labels them explicitly as a hate group or not.
The simple fact is, there are two small city governments trying to punish a business (and their own constituents who would have been hired to work for that company) simply because the owner of that business was exercising his First Amendment rights to protected speech. This has everything to do with the First Amendment and retaliatory tactics.
What two? Boston isn't trying to stop anything, and Chicago is just asking for an anti-discrimination policy.
2) Of the seven anti-gay groups, only two are one is classified as a "hate groups" by the Southern Poverty Law Center - and they received a total contribution of $13,500 $1,000 ($12,500 to Focus on the Family and $1,000 to Family Research Center). That $13,500 $1,000 turns out to be either 0.77% 0.000576% of the total contributed amount going to the anti-gay groups was going to hate groups, or 0.17% 0.000127% of the total 2009 contributions to everything going to hate groups.
The amount and its ostensible lack of materiality are irrelevant. The fact is that they contributed to one out-and-out hate group, another group that promotes the torture known as "ex-gay" therapy, and to any number of groups who oppose equality and by extension support legal oppression.
Mostly, I want to know where the other $6M in donations went. For all we know, Chick-fil-A donated more to pro-gay groups than they donated to anti-gay groups
If you believe this to be probable, then by all means, locate documentation to support it. Although it would strike me as more than a little odd for a company to donate money to two opposing sides of an issue. Otherwise, your presentation of such a possibility is downright pointless.
It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.
This is where the issue of corporate personhood gets muddy. If the owner donated his own money, then that's one thing. But the money came from the company's profits as per this return (ctrl-f "grant" and go through the various hits if you want to follow the numbers around). It's totally fair to drag the company through the mud if its profits are going to support blatant hatred and oppression.
Judging by what the mayor said, if he could ban Chick-fil-A from opening in Boston...he would. He did say that Chick-fil-A could not open a restaurant there, but later retracted it (apparently, someone reminded him that he doesn't have that much power). So apparently, if he could prevent it...he would. Because of the protected views of the owner of the company.
So what? He doesn't have the power, and he does have the right to want to ban them if he could. I'd ban them if I could.
[/I]
Dan Cathy was exercising his First Amendment guaranteed Freedom of Speech when he made his comments, no different from what you or I are doing right now. Bigoted speech or not, his speech is just as protected under the Constitution as the racist speech of the Ku Klux Klan or the Nation of Islam.
And no one is debating whether or not he is allowed to say such things.
(and their own constituents who would have been hired to work for that company)
If the constituents are unhappy with their elected official they can vote to replace them. I for one hope that my representatives would fight to have McDonalds create a few more jobs here rather than Chick-Fil-A.
Intolerance is intolerance. Everyone is intolerant of something, just accept it.
Woah buddy, lets not lose sight of the context in your attempt to save face. You said in the quote I was responding to that I "By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him." This is false, as my intolerance of al-Qaeda does not make me as bad as them. Just like my intolerance of Christian bigots does not make me as bad as them.
Christians are so whiny in this country. Like Tanarin pointed out, this kind of stuff goes on every day across the country. Just because it happened to happened to your favorite brand of bigotry doesn't mean you should get special treatment.
...They don't say it's a hate group in the quote you provide. I don't understand your complaint.
It's more than that. Chick-fil-A sponsors All Pro Dad (not listed on SPLC), true. It was created by Family First (also not listed on SPLC), which this webpage claims is part of The Florida Family Council (also not listed on SPLC). This webpage then claims that The Florida Family Council is an affiliate of the American Family Association (which is listed as a hate group on the SPLC).
All Pro Dad => Family First => Florida Family Council => American Family Association
That is not a very direct link. All Pro Dad is separated from the American Family Association by two organizations.
Family First IS Florida family Council. They're the same thing. That's not a step. It's literally just two names for the same organization.
Do you have first hand knowledge that these other groups are vehemently anti-gay, or are you passing your opinion off of a website run by a group that is biased on it's own?
Yes, I'm familiar with several of them, most specifically the ADF and CCC.
Honestly...I could pick any company or organization at random and claim they are anything I want based on some quote from some member of the company or organization. A company or organization should not be punished for the views of some of it's members, for those views may not be the views of the company or organization.
In this case, though, it really is the view of the company.
Judging by what the mayor said, if he could ban Chick-fil-A from opening in Boston...he would. He did say that Chick-fil-A could not open a restaurant there, but later retracted it (apparently, someone reminded him that he doesn't have that much power). So apparently, if he could prevent it...he would. Because of the protected views of the owner of the company.
And yet he can't, so he isn't. Therefore, claiming that he is preventing it is completely incorrect.
As someone who eats at Chick-fil-A at least once a week, I can honestly tell you that that company has never struck me as even the least bit discriminatory in any of my transactions or in the composition of the workers (unless you consider the higher concentration of hot women working there in comparison to other fast food places discrimination!). And the views of the owner of the company may not reflect the views of the company as a whole. And the views of Dan Cathy are certainly better than the views of Louis Farrakhan, with whom Rahm Emanuel has no problems having dealings with despite his proclamation that all homosexuals should be put to death.
That's an insane reading of Emanuel's comment, but that's a topic for another thread.
Would you feel the same way if Chick-fil-A had been donating to anti-straight or anti-white groups?
Yes.
In order to maintain relevancy for your position, it should be on you to prove that the missing $6M didn't go to any pro-gay sources.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would, in light of company policy, company history, and where existing funds have gone to.
Let's say you donated money to a candidate in Canada, whose views and goals largely aligned with your own. It later comes out that this candidate hates black people. Does that mean you hate black people as well because you donated to them?
Hardly comparable, considering that homophobia is a central tenant of the kind of "religious morality" CFA subscribes to. CFA itself is homophobic, or at least its owner and presumably the rest of its upper management are. Even the groups that it donates to that aren't officially listed as hate groups are downright reprehensible, such as the one that promotes "ex-gay" torture. Those groups' bigoted ideologies and actions were not secret before CFA's donations were made. Ignorance is not a defense for CFA.
A tangent on this: I am part of my campus GSA and we are considering trying to remove the Chick-fil-a off of our campus.
Do you see this as the same situation or different since the campus is a private entity and what is on campus is a reflection of the university's values?
I think that's completely different and well within the school's rights. I'm interested to know what school would consider this proposal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The reason the bolded part is true is because the owner of Chick-Fil-A has come out and made some very slanderous comments about homosexuals insofar as coming very close to Westboro rhetoric. "they're ruining our country" etc.
Edited in a link for quotation, ignore bias of blog poster, quote is posted as relevant: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/07/chick-fil-ceo-god-is-punishing-america.html
That is the personal opinion of a single person in the organization. Saying that because he said one thing, and thus the entire organization says the same thing is akin to saying that the words of the President are the words of our entire nation.
It's the combination of funding for and open statements.
AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Mumbles is a ******, just like the rest of Boston. He's said so much stupid crap during his tenure as mayor that I am left wondering how he manages to survive sometimes. Howie Carr does a "game segment" about him. He's not being voted out any time soon, because he's too busy giving far too many handouts to people who don't deserve it. The asshat has been mayor since I can remember.
On-topic: I don't think government should be able to prevent a business from flourishing if it's not violating the law. Personal beliefs are just that, and the government has no right to regulate our thoughts.
Generally, I take anything the Southern Poverty Law Center has to say with less than a grain of salt. People like me, military veterans, were claimed by the federal government to be ripe for "right-wing extremism" not two years ago. Mark Potok and the SPLC jumped on that bandwagon almost immediately, and in many instances continue to defend that position, despite Obama and Napolitano being forced to retract it.
SPLC may have been a noble organization, but when they labeled me a possible terrorist, I just laughed and threw them into the gutter, along with the KKK, NBPP, and NOI.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
It's a small amount of their annual charitable donations (with significantly less than 1% going to a single "hate group" as classified by the SPLC, which [based on it's website now] seems to be very politicized these days), combined with the open statements of it's owner.
http://equalitymatters.org/blog/201103220005
That contains links to their tax documents, which show the other donations. It's a bunch of other right-leaning and evangelical groups. I don't see anything that would be remotely pro-gay.
It's enough.
So if Wizards, somehow, donated $1,000 to the Nation of Islam, a recognized black supremacist group by the SPLC, you'd stop buying cards in protest?
Honestly...the more I read this, the more I feel that people are taking this and blowing it entirely out of proportion.
And I've already found at least two groups this blog claims are hate groups per the SPLC that are not classified as such by the SPLC.
Government contracts should absolutely include looking out for the values of local constituents.
Yeah, I would.
Which two? I only see two such claims on the blog post, and one is the FRC which we've already discussed.
Chick-fil-A wasn't trying to buy government property.
And refusing a permit to a company that would create jobs in a ****ty economy is looking out for the local constituents? Just because the owner of the company used his First Amendment rights to vocalize an opinion you do not agree with?
"Sorry random Chicago and Boston areas. There would have been a restaurant opening in your area, meaning jobs for you. But we don't like the opinion of their owner, and told them no. Continue collecting unemployment, or not if you've been unemployed too long."
I would rather a different business go there that does not support bigotry yes, and I am constituent.
Yep. They can say what they want, and we can all boycott them and refuse them permits for being intolerant pigs.
East Longmeadow, a higher end town here in MA, has no fast food chains in town due to them not fitting into the setting the town wants. Not only that the only gas station in town is on the very outskirts of the town, again for city image.
Another example is big box stores in Vermont. The local governments routinely find ways to block them from entering the state, mostly using the disguise of Act 250.
Heck, I am sure if you research it enough, you can find plenty of examples where governments have blocked stores in the US for weak premises at best.
Edit: Well doing a bit of research on the East Longmeadow thing, seems they finally let in more gas stations. Go figure since I usually never visit there anyway.
Come join us in the MTGSalvation chat ||| My trade thread. ||| My Personal Modern Blog: The Fetchlands
Right, and I think I heard that NYC will not allow Walmart in or something.
But don't tell that to the HERP DERP I MISUNDERSTAND THE FIRST AMENDMENT crowd.
The Family Research Center is still classified as a hate group, and has received a total of $1,000 from WinShape from 2003 to 2008.
Focus on the Family is claimed to be a hate group by the Equity Matters webpage originally furnished to me by Teia, but examination of the anti-gay section of the SPLC webpage does not list them.
Then they make some long trail to link Chick-fil-A to another "hate group" that is listed in the SPLC webpage. It seems circumstantial at best, like a six degrees association. That is in the link you furnished me.
Honestly...I'm not buying into this. Sure, there is one questionable donation to a SPLC-listed "hate group" totaling $1,000 over five years - but that is it. The rest of the donations are to groups this page, clearly biased in favor of LGBT, are to groups not listed on SPLC. It seems to me that Chick-fil-A is being dragged through the mud for one bad donation and for the owner having the audacity to exercise his First Amendment rights.
I am grateful for this thread for one reason - it made me look at the Southern Poverty Law Center again, and their webpage certainly seems more politically charged and anti-right wing overall than it was a few years ago.
For someone on the left wing, you sure are very intolerant of people who disagree with you. In fact...that is exactly what you and others are accusing Dan Cathy of.
By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him.
What is with you people and bringing up the first amendment all the time in this topic? This has nothing to do with whether the first amendment allows someone to be a bigoted pig.
I am also intolerant of the KKK and al-Qaeda. I guess I'm no better than them guys!
Can you quote for me where it says that?
I don't see how it's a long trail. Chick-fil-A sponsors All Pro Dad, which a program run by a hate group. That's all there is to it. That's as direct as you can get.
Well, the other donations are also "bad", because they are to groups which are vehemently anti-gay, whether SPLC labels them explicitly as a hate group or not.
What two? Boston isn't trying to stop anything, and Chicago is just asking for an anti-discrimination policy.
The amount and its ostensible lack of materiality are irrelevant. The fact is that they contributed to one out-and-out hate group, another group that promotes the torture known as "ex-gay" therapy, and to any number of groups who oppose equality and by extension support legal oppression.
If you believe this to be probable, then by all means, locate documentation to support it. Although it would strike me as more than a little odd for a company to donate money to two opposing sides of an issue. Otherwise, your presentation of such a possibility is downright pointless.
This is where the issue of corporate personhood gets muddy. If the owner donated his own money, then that's one thing. But the money came from the company's profits as per this return (ctrl-f "grant" and go through the various hits if you want to follow the numbers around). It's totally fair to drag the company through the mud if its profits are going to support blatant hatred and oppression.
So what? He doesn't have the power, and he does have the right to want to ban them if he could. I'd ban them if I could.
Yep.
And no one is debating whether or not he is allowed to say such things.
If the constituents are unhappy with their elected official they can vote to replace them. I for one hope that my representatives would fight to have McDonalds create a few more jobs here rather than Chick-Fil-A.
Woah buddy, lets not lose sight of the context in your attempt to save face. You said in the quote I was responding to that I "By your own admission of intolerance, you are no better than him." This is false, as my intolerance of al-Qaeda does not make me as bad as them. Just like my intolerance of Christian bigots does not make me as bad as them.
Christians are so whiny in this country. Like Tanarin pointed out, this kind of stuff goes on every day across the country. Just because it happened to happened to your favorite brand of bigotry doesn't mean you should get special treatment.
...They don't say it's a hate group in the quote you provide. I don't understand your complaint.
Family First IS Florida family Council. They're the same thing. That's not a step. It's literally just two names for the same organization.
Yes, I'm familiar with several of them, most specifically the ADF and CCC.
In this case, though, it really is the view of the company.
And yet he can't, so he isn't. Therefore, claiming that he is preventing it is completely incorrect.
That's an insane reading of Emanuel's comment, but that's a topic for another thread.
Yes.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that it would, in light of company policy, company history, and where existing funds have gone to.
Hardly comparable, considering that homophobia is a central tenant of the kind of "religious morality" CFA subscribes to. CFA itself is homophobic, or at least its owner and presumably the rest of its upper management are. Even the groups that it donates to that aren't officially listed as hate groups are downright reprehensible, such as the one that promotes "ex-gay" torture. Those groups' bigoted ideologies and actions were not secret before CFA's donations were made. Ignorance is not a defense for CFA.
You know, it doesn't matter how many times you say they won't let them open, it doesn't make it true.
I think that's completely different and well within the school's rights. I'm interested to know what school would consider this proposal.