5 ms·

After getting kicked out of their first store in England the owners announced they were ending ties with anti-gay groups.

forrestthewoods 7y ago
> ending ties with anti-gay groups. Salvation Army. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Calling those groups "anti-gay" and protesting a fast food restaurant for donating to them is absurd.
- adaisadais 7y ago
  Couldn’t be more true. What a world we live in :)
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    The snark seems un-called for.
- markovbot 7y ago
  Could you please elaborate on why those groups aren't "anti-gay"? I've never heard of "Fellowship of Christian Athletes", but the Salvation Army is absolute anti-gay.
  - _jasper 7y ago
    For me personally, the phrase "anti-gay group" muddies the waters because although Salvation Army (1) does (or did) have some anti-gay policies, and (2) is a "group", its main purpose is to be a food or shelter charity; not to pursue the disenfranchisement of gays through say, political compaigning. To illustrate, I might refer to an organization under religion X as an "anti-women religious group" because perhaps religion X had some policy on women's activites that I believed were sexist; then for me "anti-women religious group" would be a technically correct phrase in that X is "anti-women" and "a religious group", but the phrasing would probably be objectionable to practitioners of the religion who don't see those particular policies as fundamental to their religion, and perhaps didn't even consider the policies sexist in the first place. In general, I don't think I often see this loose use of terminology applied to other cases; like I don't think people call Nike a pro-child-labor company, although if that were the topic of discussion I might say Nike uses child labor. To me it's about avoiding ambiguity.
    - all_blue_chucks 7y ago
      There's no reason to try to make this complicated. You either treat gay people with equality or you don't. If you don't treat them as equals you are anti-gay. If your primary goal is to harm gays you are a hate group. There is no ambiguity here.
      - _jasper 7y ago
        I think there’s plenty of nuance here. Taking your position consistently, would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” or any muslim Y as “anti-women Y”? I think the label would be out of place in most cases, and needlessly divisive.
        all_blue_chucks 7y ago
        > would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” Of course not! There are many Christian groups that treat women and gays with equality. The Christian groups that treat gays as lesser people are absolutely anti-gay, though. They may not be hate grouped but they are absolutely anti-gay.
- cryptoz 7y ago
  Salvation Army is extremely anti-gay. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/16/21003560/salvation-army-anti-lgbtq-controversies-donations https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/16/21003560/salvation-... Please do not spread such dangerous falsehoods like stating that they have not been anti-gay. These false ideas can get people hurt. Salvation Army has a very long, very intense history of going out of its way to harm LGBT people.
  - forrestthewoods 7y ago
    > extremely, violently anti-gay Nice edit. They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you.
    - cryptoz 7y ago
      Editing to remove accurate but aggressive words is a common piece of advice you hear on HN. I stand by original comment and my edit. > They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. This is false. > They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. Good acts do not undo bad acts. > But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you. Of course! I am right about this regardless. Salvation Army's discrimination and intentional pain caused to LGBT is real, even if you've never felt it yourself or wish to pretend it doesn't happen. The fact that this is even a conversation at all should be sufficient evidence that their discrimination has in fact hurt LGBT people in particular.
      - rukittenme 7y ago
        You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day. That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community. That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc. Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.
cryptoz 7y ago
I don't think that's true? Or if it is, they renounced that idea too and are continuing to donate money to anti-LGBTQ groups. https://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/chick-fil-a-backpedals-on-anti-lgbtq-donations/ https://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/chick-fil-a-backpedals-o... Chick-fil-a did not stop its anti-LGBTQ policies, they only pretended to do so for a few weeks last year.
- aarongolliver 7y ago
  I haven't seen any evidence that they've _continued_ to donate money, just that they said "OK, we might keep donating" as a way to calm down people who were angry by the announcement. This article (and all the others I've read) only talks about donations that happened 2 and 3 years ago.

forrestthewoods 7y ago

> ending ties with anti-gay groups. Salvation Army. The Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Calling those groups "anti-gay" and protesting a fast food restaurant for donating to them is absurd.

adaisadais 7y ago
Couldn’t be more true. What a world we live in :)
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  The snark seems un-called for.
markovbot 7y ago
Could you please elaborate on why those groups aren't "anti-gay"? I've never heard of "Fellowship of Christian Athletes", but the Salvation Army is absolute anti-gay.
- _jasper 7y ago
  For me personally, the phrase "anti-gay group" muddies the waters because although Salvation Army (1) does (or did) have some anti-gay policies, and (2) is a "group", its main purpose is to be a food or shelter charity; not to pursue the disenfranchisement of gays through say, political compaigning. To illustrate, I might refer to an organization under religion X as an "anti-women religious group" because perhaps religion X had some policy on women's activites that I believed were sexist; then for me "anti-women religious group" would be a technically correct phrase in that X is "anti-women" and "a religious group", but the phrasing would probably be objectionable to practitioners of the religion who don't see those particular policies as fundamental to their religion, and perhaps didn't even consider the policies sexist in the first place. In general, I don't think I often see this loose use of terminology applied to other cases; like I don't think people call Nike a pro-child-labor company, although if that were the topic of discussion I might say Nike uses child labor. To me it's about avoiding ambiguity.
  - all_blue_chucks 7y ago
    There's no reason to try to make this complicated. You either treat gay people with equality or you don't. If you don't treat them as equals you are anti-gay. If your primary goal is to harm gays you are a hate group. There is no ambiguity here.
    - _jasper 7y ago
      I think there’s plenty of nuance here. Taking your position consistently, would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” or any muslim Y as “anti-women Y”? I think the label would be out of place in most cases, and needlessly divisive.
      - all_blue_chucks 7y ago
        > would you be comfortable referring to any christian X as “anti-gay X” Of course not! There are many Christian groups that treat women and gays with equality. The Christian groups that treat gays as lesser people are absolutely anti-gay, though. They may not be hate grouped but they are absolutely anti-gay.
cryptoz 7y ago
Salvation Army is extremely anti-gay. https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/16/21003560/salvation-army-anti-lgbtq-controversies-donations https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/12/16/21003560/salvation-... Please do not spread such dangerous falsehoods like stating that they have not been anti-gay. These false ideas can get people hurt. Salvation Army has a very long, very intense history of going out of its way to harm LGBT people.
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  > extremely, violently anti-gay Nice edit. They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you.
  - cryptoz 7y ago
    Editing to remove accurate but aggressive words is a common piece of advice you hear on HN. I stand by original comment and my edit. > They help 23 million people a year, without any type of discrimination. This is false. > They have at least one dorm exclusively for transgender individuals. Their charity services literally benefit millions of LGBTQ individuals every year. Good acts do not undo bad acts. > But if you want to call that "extremely", "violently", or "intensely" anti-gay then I certainly can't stop you. Of course! I am right about this regardless. Salvation Army's discrimination and intentional pain caused to LGBT is real, even if you've never felt it yourself or wish to pretend it doesn't happen. The fact that this is even a conversation at all should be sufficient evidence that their discrimination has in fact hurt LGBT people in particular.
    - rukittenme 7y ago
      You gave yourself three chances to defend your position and each time you failed to attempt it. I understand two things about the Salvation Army. They serve the most vulnerable in their community(-ies) and they hold religious beliefs which run against the politics of the day. That second point may give you some sense of justification. But consider this, on the Salvation Army's website, one of their top line issues is serving LGBTQ community. That strikes me as odd for an organization described by you as "extremely, violently anti-gay". It seems to me that the Salvation Army is not against an LGBTQ person. They may disagree with their choices but are perfectly happy to alleviate their homelessness, addiction, hunger, poverty, etc. Are you not able to discern the difference between political disagreement and violence? Are the Salvation Army not the pinnacle of what it means to be tolerant? They're willing to serve those whom they disagree with. In my mind, they're exactly what is required to have a pluralistic society.

cryptoz 7y ago

I don't think that's true? Or if it is, they renounced that idea too and are continuing to donate money to anti-LGBTQ groups. https://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/chick-fil-a-backpedals-on-anti-lgbtq-donations/ https://www.therainbowtimesmass.com/chick-fil-a-backpedals-o... Chick-fil-a did not stop its anti-LGBTQ policies, they only pretended to do so for a few weeks last year.

aarongolliver 7y ago
I haven't seen any evidence that they've _continued_ to donate money, just that they said "OK, we might keep donating" as a way to calm down people who were angry by the announcement. This article (and all the others I've read) only talks about donations that happened 2 and 3 years ago.