(05-01-2019 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

Reread the posts referenced.

I've read them. I'm trying to figure out what in them gives rise to such a big fuss. On their face, they do not strike me as justifying such.

If you read them, then I think you'll find that we're all in agreement that there shouldn't be a big fuss. So I'm not sure why you're asking us what the fuss is about, when we don't think there should be one.