McDonald's attacks Christians
We read:
"Those who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons are participating in "hate," according to an official for McDonald's, the worldwide purveyor of Big Macs and Happy Meals. "Hatred has no place in our culture," corporate spokesman Bill Whitman told the Washington Post in response to a campaign by the American Family Association for a boycott of the burger-and-fries outlets because of the corporation's advocacy for the homosexual lifestyle. "That includes McDonald's, and we stand by and support our people to live and work in a society free of discrimination and harassment," Whitman said.
"Throwing out any pretense of being neutral in the culture war, McDonald's has taken up the rhetoric of gay activists, suggesting those who oppose same-sex marriage (SSM) are motivated by hate," the AFA said in a new alert about its campaign today. "AFA has asked for a boycott of McDonald's restaurants because of the company's promotion of the gay agenda. AFA asked McDonald's to remain neutral in the culture war. McDonald's refused," the group said.
Source
Why can't McDonald's stick to selling hamburgers?
11 comments:
1st: McDonald's hamburgers suck, their breakfast McMuffins are the only redeeming quality, but I am not saying those are good.
2nd: businesses reach out to all communities to increase profit while stabilizing the needs of their own employees (ideally). To ignore a segment of the market is to turn down profit, which is un-American.
3rd: I never heard of anyone walking into a McDonald's and being lectured by employees about special interests. They're too busy grabbing a burger that has been sitting under a heat lamp for the last four hours with a serving of frys made the day earlier.
The source doesn't say anything about McDonalds attacking Christians, just that McDonalds is promoting an agenda counter to what some Christian group believes is moral.
Further more, the source states it is the Christian group that is attacking McDonalds with a boycott, trying to force McDonalds to change views.
Is the Christian group related to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition?
anon 2,
Did you even read the article? Especially this direct quote from McDonalds:
"Hatred has no place in our culture," corporate spokesman Bill Whitman told the Washington Post
That's not a reasoned, logical defense of their position. That's imputing motives, otherwise known as an ad hominem attack*.
* Quoting from the wikipedia article:
"It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument."
Having an opposing view is hatred? So people who prefer Burger King are displaying hatred of McDonalds? Apparently, Mc D's believes we must all embrace the gay lifestyle. Their odd (and anti-free speech) stance makes me wonder how many of their top execs are gay.
ewtheckman,
Did you read the article, because that is a general quote which can be directed at any form of hate in a general policy setting.
Oh good job quoting wiki too. A website notorious for false information and bogus sources with extreme left leaning slants
Take off the rose colored glasses people and read who is citing who on these source pages. McDonalds is trying to make a profit, apparently homosexuals are too busy eating burgers than to go to a church that says only one lifestyle should be supported.
"Did you read the article, because that is a general quote which can be directed at any form of hate in a general policy setting."
Yes, removed from its context, it's a "general quote." However, it was not made without context, it was made specifically in response to Christians' opposition to homosexuality, especially the Christians running AFA.
"Oh good job quoting wiki too. A website notorious for false information and bogus sources with extreme left leaning slants"
That's the genetic fallacy. Just because it is on Wikipedia does not automatically mean it's untrue. I point people to Wikipedia for the definitions of logical fallacies because their descriptions are A) Accurate, i.e., the descriptions are consistent with every other respectable source which describes logical fallacies which have been known for centuries, B) Well Written (as in easy to understand) and C) Thorough, covering all the various permutations of the fallacies.
Most of the time, I do not trust Wikipedia, especially not as a single source. However, in this instance, I'm very familiar with logical fallacies from sources other than Wikipedia and I know that the descriptions are accurate.
If you think their description of an ad hominem attack is inaccurate, you need to prove it by citing a contradictory definition from a reliable source. (Yes, Wikipeia's definition of a genetic fallacy is also accurate, if a bit thin.)
Oh, and hiding behind "anonymous" certainly doesn't add any credibility to your assertions.
ewtheckman,
Learn to read. Your spin doesn't make the grade.
Logic is not "spin".
Here is the link to the original Washington Post article:
Gay-Marriage Opponents To Boycott McDonald's
When I first read about this, I had no strong reaction. Now that a corporate spokesman has chosen to smear people who disagree, for any of a number of possible reasons, for their presumed "hate," I've decided to join the boycot.
If this is really about business and not politics, McDonalds should be catering to Christians since there are more of them and most people agree with their view.
Post a Comment