Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Chik-fil-A
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.
You sound more and more conservative all the time.
Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

First I will disagree with you (both) on the use of 'everything' and 'never'.

The advantage of the non-interventionist commercial stance is that messaging and moral virtue determination are minimized.

Think about it --- in the liberal stance that 'it needs guidance', by definition there has to be a virtue determination of 'good' or 'bad'. That is the crux of the problem with the liberal philosophy relating to commercial matters.

Examples: guns are 'bad'. So lets force banks to cutoff arms and ammo dealers from credit.

In fact, the liberal philosophy really tends to reverse the issue -- the 'invisible hand' is a means by which to project moralistic determinations on the the rest of society. So the characterization that you afford the viewpoints is a tad out of kilter.

Rightists and libertarians tend to view the invisible hand as just that --- an existential item in its own right.

Liberals and progressives will view the invisible hand as a means to thrust their own views of 'right', 'wrong', and 'correct' through governmental intervention of the invisible hand.

Again, case in point -- Masterpiece Bakery. Leftists want to ensure that the 'correct' message of 'being not okay with gay weddings is BAD', and *use* governmental power to alter the invisible hand as a means to enforce that *correct* point of view. I dont think you can say otherwise in that respect.

Change the polarity to Hoots -- hey invisible hand is *perfectly* copacetic.

And, to be blunt, no one with anything near a libertarian point of view would view that with the same positiveness that comes from the left.
04-26-2019 10:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,138
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1766
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #42
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.
You sound more and more conservative all the time.
Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.
The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.
Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

I really don't know anybody on the right who believes that time is truly "never." Maybe there are some out on the fringe. But the mainstream right does not embrace that point of view, not nearly to the extent that "always" is embraced on the left.

Look at the GND. That's pretty much a statement of "always," and it is gaining significant traction among the democrat presidential field.
04-26-2019 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #43
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market.

Usually, it does. I have always said that you are transitioning.
04-26-2019 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,772
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #44
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

One correction.

EAT Chic-Fil-A. I understand that profits from their sales 'support' the business, but lots of people (most?) choose where to eat based on what they are hungry for and not the political beliefs of the owners of those entities, especially in that CFA doesn't stop gays or whomever else from buying their products nor are there any homophobic symbols or attitudes in the centers (that I've ever seen or heard of).

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

Forcing?

First, this isn't really a business. It's a sanctioned monopoly as I understand it because there are no competitors. Grub-Hub et al can't 'connect' with the students as they can. I could be wrong about this and if so, would appreciate being educated, but that distinction really makes no difference to my point...

They are a student service and the students clearly want it otherwise they wouldn't have bought it and the reason to replace them would be 'slow sales' rather than 'student values'. Instead they seem to be forcing THEIR values on the students they serve without seeking their input. They could solve this by a simple poll... CFA is a large corporation and their ownership has some troubling personal beliefs. We are therefore considering replacing them with 'local chicken company'. What do you, our captive customers think?

This isn't an airport where millions of people MIGHT stop by... it's a mostly known and captive audience. Responding to the desires of your captive base isn't 'forcing' anyone to do anything. Arguably IGNORING the majority here to deny them access to CFA in favor of something they won't enjoy as much for reasons not related to the services provided is 'forcing' students to accept their vendor

Here is my question... Are the values of 'local chicken company' being vetted? I mean, they may support gay marriage but what if the owners are Holocaust deniers or attend 2nd baptist (or whomever the local religious 'bad actors' are now)?

The reason I say the distinction makes no difference is that GrubHub and everyone else faces the possibility of offering food from restaurants with issues that some people may find objectionable.

The best example might be that GrubHub offers hamburgers as well as Vegan options where I am. Sure, a Vegan could boycott GrubHub because they also offer hamburgers, but GrubHub is not making the conscious decision FOR me to deny me either burgers OR Vegan options
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2019 02:11 PM by Hambone10.)
04-27-2019 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #45
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-27-2019 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

One correction.

EAT Chic-Fil-A. I understand that profits from their sales 'support' the business, but lots of people (most?) choose where to eat based on what they are hungry for and not the political beliefs of the owners of those entities, especially in that CFA doesn't stop gays or whomever else from buying their products nor are there any homophobic symbols or attitudes in the centers (that I've ever seen or heard of).

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

Forcing?

First, this isn't really a business. It's a sanctioned monopoly as I understand it because there are no competitors. Grub-Hub et al can't 'connect' with the students as they can. I could be wrong about this and if so, would appreciate being educated, but that distinction really makes no difference to my point...

They are a student service and the students clearly want it otherwise they wouldn't have bought it and the reason to replace them would be 'slow sales' rather than 'student values'. Instead they seem to be forcing THEIR values on the students they serve without seeking their input. They could solve this by a simple poll... CFA is a large corporation and their ownership has some troubling personal beliefs. We are therefore considering replacing them with 'local chicken company'. What do you, our captive customers think?

This isn't an airport where millions of people MIGHT stop by... it's a mostly known and captive audience. Responding to the desires of your captive base isn't 'forcing' anyone to do anything. Arguably IGNORING the majority here to deny them access to CFA in favor of something they won't enjoy as much for reasons not related to the services provided is 'forcing' students to accept their vendor

Here is my question... Are the values of 'local chicken company' being vetted? I mean, they may support gay marriage but what if the owners are Holocaust deniers or attend 2nd baptist (or whomever the local religious 'bad actors' are now)?

The reason I say the distinction makes no difference is that GrubHub and everyone else faces the possibility of offering food from restaurants with issues that some people may find objectionable.

The best example might be that GrubHub offers hamburgers as well as Vegan options where I am. Sure, a Vegan could boycott GrubHub because they also offer hamburgers, but GrubHub is not making the conscious decision FOR me to deny me either burgers OR Vegan options

The Hoot is a SRB started in 2010 by my friend who saw a market at Rice for providing late night food. He went through the proper channels within Rice to get space and secure support from Rice. It is not a student service and would go poof if their sales catered and they did not have the revenue to pay their staff.
04-27-2019 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #46
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-27-2019 02:09 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-24-2019 05:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the students are old enough to vote in national elections, they are old enough to decide if they want to support Chick-Fil-A.

One correction.

EAT Chic-Fil-A. I understand that profits from their sales 'support' the business, but lots of people (most?) choose where to eat based on what they are hungry for and not the political beliefs of the owners of those entities, especially in that CFA doesn't stop gays or whomever else from buying their products nor are there any homophobic symbols or attitudes in the centers (that I've ever seen or heard of).

(04-24-2019 05:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

Forcing?

First, this isn't really a business. It's a sanctioned monopoly as I understand it because there are no competitors. Grub-Hub et al can't 'connect' with the students as they can. I could be wrong about this and if so, would appreciate being educated, but that distinction really makes no difference to my point...

They are a student service and the students clearly want it otherwise they wouldn't have bought it and the reason to replace them would be 'slow sales' rather than 'student values'. Instead they seem to be forcing THEIR values on the students they serve without seeking their input. They could solve this by a simple poll... CFA is a large corporation and their ownership has some troubling personal beliefs. We are therefore considering replacing them with 'local chicken company'. What do you, our captive customers think?

This isn't an airport where millions of people MIGHT stop by... it's a mostly known and captive audience. Responding to the desires of your captive base isn't 'forcing' anyone to do anything. Arguably IGNORING the majority here to deny them access to CFA in favor of something they won't enjoy as much for reasons not related to the services provided is 'forcing' students to accept their vendor

Here is my question... Are the values of 'local chicken company' being vetted? I mean, they may support gay marriage but what if the owners are Holocaust deniers or attend 2nd baptist (or whomever the local religious 'bad actors' are now)?

The reason I say the distinction makes no difference is that GrubHub and everyone else faces the possibility of offering food from restaurants with issues that some people may find objectionable.

The best example might be that GrubHub offers hamburgers as well as Vegan options where I am. Sure, a Vegan could boycott GrubHub because they also offer hamburgers, but GrubHub is not making the conscious decision FOR me to deny me either burgers OR Vegan options

Ham - I can’t tell where you stand, are you saying The Hoot should be unable to change their supplier?

Getting to your other comments, Grub hub can reach students in the same way the Hoot does, because GrubHub can deliver food directly to campus. The difference between them and the Hoot is that the Hoot has physical locations on campus - but students are still able to use competitive services for food drivers. So The Hoot is never forcing students to do anything. And remember, we’re talking about late night food options - how is anyone being forced to eat anything after 9 PM?

My whole point is that The Hoot can select whatever vendors they want - I disagree with their decision to drop Chick-Fil-A because I think the current rehash is stupid. One of the troublesome charities is the Salvation Army... But arguing that The Hoot shouldn’t be able to drop Chick-Fil-A or suggesting that they can’t or shouldn’t make procurement decisions based on the supplier’s background is incorrect.

And the issue with Chick-Fil-A has always been the company’s values and who the company donates to, not just the founder or owner.

And speaking of vegan - WeWork made a policy that it would no longer allow employees to expense meat-based meals. Employees can still bring meat into work and what not, but the company won’t let them expense the food. This is another example of how it is not unheard of for corporations to make decisions that reflect the value’s of the company.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90202356/wew...tarian-now
04-27-2019 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #47
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-27-2019 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is another example of how it is not unheard of for corporations to make decisions that reflect the value’s of the company's managers

FIFY

BTW, is there there any difference between the Hoot making decisions that reflect their management's beliefs and CFA making decisions that reflect their management's beliefs?
(This post was last modified: 04-27-2019 06:09 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
04-27-2019 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #48
RE: Chik-fil-A
Had CFA for dinner. Kid working the drive thru could have been a double for Tyrion Lannister.

Good thing we got their bad values off our campus.
04-27-2019 08:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Chik-fil-A
I have noticed a sense of urgency in lad asking a particular question:

Quote:So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

It has been in the context of 'Should government force Hoots to do business with Chik-Fil-A since Hoots has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions of CFA'.

(I'll not bother with the two or three other times he has asked...)

The answer is no. Not at all. Agree with you on Hoots 100 per cent.

Here is a return question (one that he has seemingly avoided):

'Should government force Masterpiece Bakery to do business with gay people who want to be married since Masterpiece Bakery has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions with them regarding gay marriage'? If the answer is different that your answer re: Hoots, what is the pressing difference that makes one absolutely proper and the other not a valid stance?

I think with how much lad has pressed on his question with relation to Hoots and *their* stances on the viewpoints and actions of CFA, that he really should address the flip side of that coin.
04-27-2019 09:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,772
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #50
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-27-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Hoot is a SRB started in 2010 by my friend who saw a market at Rice for providing late night food. He went through the proper channels within Rice to get space and secure support from Rice. It is not a student service and would go poof if their sales catered and they did not have the revenue to pay their staff.

So I'm close. They have a 'special' accommodation in terms of space and support.... and because they aren't a student service, they should consider the desires of their consumers

(04-27-2019 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham - I can’t tell where you stand, are you saying The Hoot should be unable to change their supplier?

Maybe that's because you seem to see the issue as being 'all in' or 'all out'? I've never said anything remotely like that.
Quote:Getting to your other comments, Grub hub can reach students in the same way the Hoot does, because GrubHub can deliver food directly to campus. The difference between them and the Hoot is that the Hoot has physical locations on campus - but students are still able to use competitive services for food drivers. So The Hoot is never forcing students to do anything. And remember, we’re talking about late night food options - how is anyone being forced to eat anything after 9 PM?

YOU used the term forcing... again, being all in or all out... and now you're acting as if I said it. I took issue with your choice of the word, and now you agree.

Having a space on campus is an advantage that grubhub doesn't have. We can debate the value of that, but clearly your friend thought it made a difference, otherwise (s)he would have just offered a local version of grubhub

Quote:My whole point is that The Hoot can select whatever vendors they want - I disagree with their decision to drop Chick-Fil-A because I think the current rehash is stupid. One of the troublesome charities is the Salvation Army... But arguing that The Hoot shouldn’t be able to drop Chick-Fil-A or suggesting that they can’t or shouldn’t make procurement decisions based on the supplier’s background is incorrect.

Did I say that? No. I said that they're making a decision apparently based on the motivations of the owners/company values, claiming that they are the University's values apparently without having consulted the University. NOT the idea that the University supports diversity etc etc etc, but the idea that by offering CFA, they are not being true to their values. That's an opinion, not a fact.

Quote:And the issue with Chick-Fil-A has always been the company’s values and who the company donates to, not just the founder or owner.

Semantics. The founder/owner/company... they're all functionally the same thing. Other than being closed on Sundays, i don't believe there is anything that a gay person can point to in their stores that remotely represents a lack of inclusion.

Can we/Should we look into the background of your friend and the suppliers (s)he has chosen to make sure that they reflect 'my' interpretation of Rice's values? How/why would that be any different? Can we see all charitable donations made by your friend and their vendors, plus the candidates they supported?

My issue is not that they don't have the right. They can do whatever they want. My issue is someone believing that they can claim to represent a community's values apparently without having consulted the community. Again, if the sales were low because students were turning away from them either because they didn't like the product or they didn't like the company, that would be fine. What's been said is that they were a very popular choice. CAN they do it, sure... but they're exporting their own opinions/values... and NOT those of the University or the students (unless they go to the trouble of asking them)

I mean, if we're making decisions based on 'company values', then let's vet everyone. Maybe some employers exploit/underpay their staff/don't offer a living wage... etc etc etc.

Their decision to 'buy local' wouldn't be controversial to me... neither would a decision based on popularity or diversity of options... Drop CFA because they're not popular or not local or because you've decided to offer BW3 because they have more variety... and not because despite the relative popularity of their product (which implies that the students don't share your opinion) you just don't like their values.... unless you're willing to have a value debate on EVERY vendor (including yourself). I think your friend is opening themselves up to scrutiny themselves... and I'm betting the University would rather just shut it down than debate it.

Quote:And speaking of vegan - WeWork made a policy that it would no longer allow employees to expense meat-based meals. Employees can still bring meat into work and what not, but the company won’t let them expense the food. This is another example of how it is not unheard of for corporations to make decisions that reflect the value’s of the company.
Clearly they're talking about employees and not customers... but I've never remotely said what you suggest.

Given how it's presented, I'm wondering how/why this isn't discrimination. How is this different from CFA deciding to not offer gays subsidized/pre tax healthcare or commuter benefits? If what they're really saying is that they expect their executives buying business lunches to be vegan as part of their image... that's fine. That's their image. In healthcare, we don't stock 'junk food' in the break rooms and the Adventist hospital doesn't serve pork products.

That's not how it's presented. It's being presented as being similar to deciding to stop using straws. Not remotely the same
04-28-2019 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #51
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-28-2019 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 04:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The Hoot is a SRB started in 2010 by my friend who saw a market at Rice for providing late night food. He went through the proper channels within Rice to get space and secure support from Rice. It is not a student service and would go poof if their sales catered and they did not have the revenue to pay their staff.

So I'm close. They have a 'special' accommodation in terms of space and support.... and because they aren't a student service, they should consider the desires of their consumers

(04-27-2019 05:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ham - I can’t tell where you stand, are you saying The Hoot should be unable to change their supplier?

Maybe that's because you seem to see the issue as being 'all in' or 'all out'? I've never said anything remotely like that.
Quote:Getting to your other comments, Grub hub can reach students in the same way the Hoot does, because GrubHub can deliver food directly to campus. The difference between them and the Hoot is that the Hoot has physical locations on campus - but students are still able to use competitive services for food drivers. So The Hoot is never forcing students to do anything. And remember, we’re talking about late night food options - how is anyone being forced to eat anything after 9 PM?

YOU used the term forcing... again, being all in or all out... and now you're acting as if I said it. I took issue with your choice of the word, and now you agree.

Having a space on campus is an advantage that grubhub doesn't have. We can debate the value of that, but clearly your friend thought it made a difference, otherwise (s)he would have just offered a local version of grubhub

Quote:My whole point is that The Hoot can select whatever vendors they want - I disagree with their decision to drop Chick-Fil-A because I think the current rehash is stupid. One of the troublesome charities is the Salvation Army... But arguing that The Hoot shouldn’t be able to drop Chick-Fil-A or suggesting that they can’t or shouldn’t make procurement decisions based on the supplier’s background is incorrect.

Did I say that? No. I said that they're making a decision apparently based on the motivations of the owners/company values, claiming that they are the University's values apparently without having consulted the University. NOT the idea that the University supports diversity etc etc etc, but the idea that by offering CFA, they are not being true to their values. That's an opinion, not a fact.

Quote:And the issue with Chick-Fil-A has always been the company’s values and who the company donates to, not just the founder or owner.

Semantics. The founder/owner/company... they're all functionally the same thing. Other than being closed on Sundays, i don't believe there is anything that a gay person can point to in their stores that remotely represents a lack of inclusion.

Can we/Should we look into the background of your friend and the suppliers (s)he has chosen to make sure that they reflect 'my' interpretation of Rice's values? How/why would that be any different? Can we see all charitable donations made by your friend and their vendors, plus the candidates they supported?

My issue is not that they don't have the right. They can do whatever they want. My issue is someone believing that they can claim to represent a community's values apparently without having consulted the community. Again, if the sales were low because students were turning away from them either because they didn't like the product or they didn't like the company, that would be fine. What's been said is that they were a very popular choice. CAN they do it, sure... but they're exporting their own opinions/values... and NOT those of the University or the students (unless they go to the trouble of asking them)

I mean, if we're making decisions based on 'company values', then let's vet everyone. Maybe some employers exploit/underpay their staff/don't offer a living wage... etc etc etc.

Their decision to 'buy local' wouldn't be controversial to me... neither would a decision based on popularity or diversity of options... Drop CFA because they're not popular or not local or because you've decided to offer BW3 because they have more variety... and not because despite the relative popularity of their product (which implies that the students don't share your opinion) you just don't like their values.... unless you're willing to have a value debate on EVERY vendor (including yourself). I think your friend is opening themselves up to scrutiny themselves... and I'm betting the University would rather just shut it down than debate it.

Quote:And speaking of vegan - WeWork made a policy that it would no longer allow employees to expense meat-based meals. Employees can still bring meat into work and what not, but the company won’t let them expense the food. This is another example of how it is not unheard of for corporations to make decisions that reflect the value’s of the company.
Clearly they're talking about employees and not customers... but I've never remotely said what you suggest.

Given how it's presented, I'm wondering how/why this isn't discrimination. How is this different from CFA deciding to not offer gays subsidized/pre tax healthcare or commuter benefits? If what they're really saying is that they expect their executives buying business lunches to be vegan as part of their image... that's fine. That's their image. In healthcare, we don't stock 'junk food' in the break rooms and the Adventist hospital doesn't serve pork products.

That's not how it's presented. It's being presented as being similar to deciding to stop using straws. Not remotely the same

Hm, never seen someone compare eating meat to being gay. I'll let you work out why one would be discrimination and the other wouldn't be. Would you say the same thing if you swapped an ethnic group for gays in that comparison? But this gets at the heart of the issue of LGBTQ discrimination and whether or not they are a protected class.

Btw, the Hoot never said anything about the greater Rice community's values. They said that corporate Chick-fil-a's values did not align with The Hoot's values.

Quote:Hey Hoot Customers,

As of the Fall Semester of 2019, the Hoot will no longer be serving Chik-fil-A. This decision, made by a unanimous manager vote, has been well thought through and discussed with our employees as well. After taking comments from customers, peers, and employees, we stand very firm in our decision. We believe that our values, as a student run business, do not align with those of corporate Chik-fil-A.

We hope you will support our team in this decision, and we will work to have many replacements to ensure that the Hoot still has a variety of options. We value all of the opinions and thoughts of our valued customers, and hope that you will continue to come to the Hoot as we continue to grow.

Have a great summer and see you all next Fall!

I still don't understand your point Ham - what's your over-arching position on what The Hoot did with regard to Chick-fil-a?

Mine is clear - they made a poor decision to drop Chick-fil-a given that Chick-fil-a has changed who they donate to (I see no issue with FCA and Salvation Army) and they are just potentially alienating their customers. But I see no reason to have any issue with them deciding to drop a vendor because of the values of the vendor and what stances/politics the vendor supports. I would have an issue if they chose to drop a vendor because they were owner by a person of color, a Muslim, someone in the LGBTQ community, etc.

But stopping The Hoot from deciding that a vendor, which uses its revenues to support other organizations or political causes, no longer fits within their corporate values, is not something that Rice should be meddling in.

And btw, I believe the Hoot is treated like the other vendors that are on campus, but that are not SRBs. They likely pay rent on the space that they use. That's how Pub, Valhalla, and CoffeeHouse operated through at least 2011. Oh, and back in 2010, GrubHub wasn't really a thing, so when my friend started The Hoot, the only late-night delivery option most students used or knew of, was pizza delivery.
04-28-2019 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #52
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-27-2019 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have noticed a sense of urgency in lad asking a particular question:

Quote:So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

It has been in the context of 'Should government force Hoots to do business with Chik-Fil-A since Hoots has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions of CFA'.

(I'll not bother with the two or three other times he has asked...)

The answer is no. Not at all. Agree with you on Hoots 100 per cent.

Here is a return question (one that he has seemingly avoided):

'Should government force Masterpiece Bakery to do business with gay people who want to be married since Masterpiece Bakery has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions with them regarding gay marriage'? If the answer is different that your answer re: Hoots, what is the pressing difference that makes one absolutely proper and the other not a valid stance?

I think with how much lad has pressed on his question with relation to Hoots and *their* stances on the viewpoints and actions of CFA, that he really should address the flip side of that coin.

Tanq - I've not been avoiding that question, I just felt it was just a lot less interested in going down that rabbit hole. I've thought quite a bit about that issue, and the idea of forcing a company to provide a specific service/combating discrimination.

I mean, staying in that area, should a cake company be forced to bake a cake for a theoretical Nazi rally? This is where I can see the slippery slope argument come into play, where does the forced service end? And I think there is no good answer.

I keep coming back to the idea about whether a company should be able to treat customers differently based on their race, sex, gender, etc. And I would lean towards no. So if a bakery will bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple, they should not be allowed to turn down a gay couple just because they're gay. Which is how I would feel if a bakery turned down, say a black couple who wanted an anniversary cake, but were turned down because they were black.

But then what does that mean for the Nazis who just want a cake for their Nazi rally? I'm sure the bakery has made cakes for :insert happy go-lucky group here: meetings before.

So, while not the best answer, maybe it's a bit like porn? You know it when you see it?

But I start to lean towards not allowing companies to make choices on who they serve, or do business with, based solely upon their race, religion, sex, gender, etc., but allowing businesses to use their customers'/supplies' positions on social issues, politics, etc. as a determination of who to do business with. And that speaks to the idea of protected classes, and that we, as a society, have said you should not be discriminated against or denied service because you're :insert protected class here:.

Anyways, just some musings on this topic, that I really wasn't trying to avoid.
04-28-2019 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,248
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-28-2019 10:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(04-27-2019 09:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have noticed a sense of urgency in lad asking a particular question:

Quote:So you support forcing a business to purchase supplies from a specific vendor?

It has been in the context of 'Should government force Hoots to do business with Chik-Fil-A since Hoots has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions of CFA'.

(I'll not bother with the two or three other times he has asked...)

The answer is no. Not at all. Agree with you on Hoots 100 per cent.

Here is a return question (one that he has seemingly avoided):

'Should government force Masterpiece Bakery to do business with gay people who want to be married since Masterpiece Bakery has a philosophical difference with the stance and/or actions with them regarding gay marriage'? If the answer is different that your answer re: Hoots, what is the pressing difference that makes one absolutely proper and the other not a valid stance?

I think with how much lad has pressed on his question with relation to Hoots and *their* stances on the viewpoints and actions of CFA, that he really should address the flip side of that coin.

Tanq - I've not been avoiding that question, I just felt it was just a lot less interested in going down that rabbit hole. I've thought quite a bit about that issue, and the idea of forcing a company to provide a specific service/combating discrimination.

I mean, staying in that area, should a cake company be forced to bake a cake for a theoretical Nazi rally? This is where I can see the slippery slope argument come into play, where does the forced service end? And I think there is no good answer.

I keep coming back to the idea about whether a company should be able to treat customers differently based on their race, sex, gender, etc. And I would lean towards no. So if a bakery will bake a wedding cake for a heterosexual couple, they should not be allowed to turn down a gay couple just because they're gay. Which is how I would feel if a bakery turned down, say a black couple who wanted an anniversary cake, but were turned down because they were black.

But then what does that mean for the Nazis who just want a cake for their Nazi rally? I'm sure the bakery has made cakes for :insert happy go-lucky group here: meetings before.

So, while not the best answer, maybe it's a bit like porn? You know it when you see it?

But I start to lean towards not allowing companies to make choices on who they serve, or do business with, based solely upon their race, religion, sex, gender, etc., but allowing businesses to use their customers'/supplies' positions on social issues, politics, etc. as a determination of who to do business with. And that speaks to the idea of protected classes, and that we, as a society, have said you should not be discriminated against or denied service because you're :insert protected class here:.

Anyways, just some musings on this topic, that I really wasn't trying to avoid.

Appreciate the answer.

Quote:But I start to lean towards not allowing companies to make choices on who they serve, or do business with, based solely upon their race, religion,

I will spot you that those two are actually addressed, explicitly or implicitly, in the Constitution. And accordingly, I cannot see where governmental restrictions based on discrimination on those two criteria are not just laudable, but fully legal. So I think we can dispose of those instances pretty much as a simple exercise.

Quote:sex

This is probably further attenuated legally -- there is no 1st Amendment-type protection for 'sex' as there is religion (i.e. the implied basis for religious discrimination). There is the 17th Amendment that gives the right to vote to women, which is a further stretch than that afforded for religion.

But, I will even spot you on this.

And I will even spot you that it is laudable and a good goal not to discriminate based even on the 'non-explicit' categories, and even on the non-listed categories of 'gender', and the assortment of categories that are not sex or gender based (i.e. who or what one likes to fornicate with).

But, I will heartily castigate both Hoots for their 'quasi religious'-based discrimination (and it is just that, no matter how you cast it in terms of 'social policies') *and* Masterpiece for their religious-based discrimination.

But, when one tries to draw a legal line between the two (as both many conservatives and progressives do, albeit in different polarities), all it really comes down to is a construct based on the 'how good is the cause' or 'how bad is the cause' that is absolutely subjective. You even touched on the fringe of it by labeling that action akin the crap test for porn --- you know it when you see it.

So, if that is the best test for determining whether there should be governmental sanctions for the act of 'not serving', doesnt that strike you as an inherently unstable system by which to determine the exercise of governmental power?

Further note that there is an inherent difference between the exercise of private preference and governmental intrusion into the that exercise. In that distinction, I am all on board with both Hoots *and* Masterpiece exercising preferences to deal based on *any* number of distinctions -- that is their inherent right to exercise, whether it be 'good' or 'bad' discrimination.

You are absolutely within your right to support (or condone) either or both of Hoots and Masterpiece based on *their* actions and/or beliefs. And, with very few limits, Hoots and Masterpiece each should be free and able to choose to deal or not deal with commercially anyone *they* choose to do -- whether that distinction is based on commercial practices, social practices, ideological stances, or whether one wishes simply to be a butthead in order to be a butthead. (many say I fall firmly into the latter camp, mind you...)

But when it gets to governmental enforcement of 'discriminatory' practices, one should be very judicious and selective of whom that enforcement is taking place for. For every Lambda Legal member that clamors for the 'right' not to be discriminated against, there is an equal and corresponding member of the Knights of the Klu Klux clan that will be able to claim the absolute equivalent 'right.'

And, each time that any of those 'inalienable rights' to buy a cake are granted, there are other inalienable rights for freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of association that are equivalently curtailed.

Thanks for the answer again.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2019 01:00 PM by tanqtonic.)
04-28-2019 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,772
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #54
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-28-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hm, never seen someone compare eating meat to being gay. I'll let you work out why one would be discrimination and the other wouldn't be. Would you say the same thing if you swapped an ethnic group for gays in that comparison? But this gets at the heart of the issue of LGBTQ discrimination and whether or not they are a protected class.
I'm really getting tired of your habit of taking what I say and then arguing in the absurd. It's disingenuous at best and not likely to lead to a constructive conversation.

I didn't remotely equate eating meat to being gay.... and unless you're not nearly as intelligent as I have assumed you are by your credentials of being a Rice student, you know this.

What I equated was a company deciding rules for the spending of corporate monies (corporate functions/appropriate business entertainment/charities) vs deciding how its employees should spend theirs (lunches/whom to love). I chose being gay because that is the issue with CFA. You can insert whatever individual liberty you want and the opinion stands. I chose the one associated with CFA and the subject of the decision. .
Trying to say it plainly... workers generally don't get reimbursed for their lunches. The article implied that people who ate vegan WOULD. That's discrimination. If the company instead wanted to host a 'free' vegan cafeteria or insist that corporate business lunches to be vegan, no problem. Those aren't the same things. You have to choose lunch as opposed to say a company match for certain charities because it's not really optional. People have to eat.


Quote:Btw, the Hoot never said anything about the greater Rice community's values. They said that corporate Chick-fil-a's values did not align with The Hoot's values.I still don't understand your point Ham - what's your over-arching position on what The Hoot did with regard to Chick-fil-a?

Mine is clear - they made a poor decision to drop Chick-fil-a given that Chick-fil-a has changed who they donate to (I see no issue with FCA and Salvation Army) and they are just potentially alienating their customers. But I see no reason to have any issue with them deciding to drop a vendor because of the values of the vendor and what stances/politics the vendor supports. I would have an issue if they chose to drop a vendor because they were owner by a person of color, a Muslim, someone in the LGBTQ community, etc.

But stopping The Hoot from deciding that a vendor, which uses its revenues to support other organizations or political causes, no longer fits within their corporate values, is not something that Rice should be meddling in.

Let me make this as simple as I can... and I will use your last statement.

Your last statement implies that you believe that the Hoot can decide that CFA doesn't fit with their corporate values... but that Rice would be 'meddling' if they decide that The Hoot doesn't fit with the University's values and remove them from campus. They can still operate like GrubHub or Domino's does

I never suggested that the University SHOULD do something... merely that by holding a special place on campus and making such a value judgement, they open themselves up to the same scrutiny. Had their decision been based on student complaints or a poll or low volumes or some other such reason, this wouldn't be the case. Given the popularity of the product (generally), I think this is a far greater than zero risk.

You seem to be making a distinction based on protected classes... but that's interesting in that Christianity is just as protected as Islam... and Islam is just as 'unfriendly' towards same-sex marriage as Christianity (at least). Your ambivalence towards this decision is based on the fact that they have changed whom they donate to... but no such guilt by association/investigation is required of someone who is Muslim for protections. What if the mosque they attend and donate to supports the same charities/principles as CFA?

My over-arching point is that COMPANIES engaging in 'social activism' (I don't mean that to be offensive in the least... I'm trying to describe the act of 'shared values' as a vendor goal) are opening a massive can of worms for themselves. At the very least, this group is opening themselves up to the same scrutiny by their single? customer.... Rice University. Certainly their largest by far.

I think you want to turn this into a 'they aren't allowed to' or 'they're wrong' debate.... because that's what you keep 'hearing'.

They're allowed to do whatever they want. The problem for them is that they don't have 3600 customers... They really have one. One that has a long history of quickly distancing itself from unnecessary controversy. I just don't think that the University would think that this service was so necessary that they would bother to get involved in the CFA debate. If enough students were upset either way, they'd just shut it down... which is why I suggested they find some other way/reason/excuse to do what they wanted.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2019 12:05 PM by Hambone10.)
04-28-2019 12:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,771
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #55
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-28-2019 12:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(04-28-2019 10:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Hm, never seen someone compare eating meat to being gay. I'll let you work out why one would be discrimination and the other wouldn't be. Would you say the same thing if you swapped an ethnic group for gays in that comparison? But this gets at the heart of the issue of LGBTQ discrimination and whether or not they are a protected class.
I'm really getting tired of your habit of taking what I say and then arguing in the absurd. It's disingenuous at best and not likely to lead to a constructive conversation.

I didn't remotely equate eating meat to being gay.... and unless you're not nearly as intelligent as I have assumed you are by your credentials of being a Rice student, you know this.

What I equated was a company deciding rules for the spending of corporate monies (corporate functions/appropriate business entertainment/charities) vs deciding how its employees should spend theirs (lunches/whom to love). I chose being gay because that is the issue with CFA. You can insert whatever individual liberty you want and the opinion stands. I chose the one associated with CFA and the subject of the decision. .
Trying to say it plainly... workers generally don't get reimbursed for their lunches. The article implied that people who ate vegan WOULD. That's discrimination. If the company instead wanted to host a 'free' vegan cafeteria or insist that corporate business lunches to be vegan, no problem. Those aren't the same things. You have to choose lunch as opposed to say a company match for certain charities because it's not really optional. People have to eat.


Quote:Btw, the Hoot never said anything about the greater Rice community's values. They said that corporate Chick-fil-a's values did not align with The Hoot's values.I still don't understand your point Ham - what's your over-arching position on what The Hoot did with regard to Chick-fil-a?

Mine is clear - they made a poor decision to drop Chick-fil-a given that Chick-fil-a has changed who they donate to (I see no issue with FCA and Salvation Army) and they are just potentially alienating their customers. But I see no reason to have any issue with them deciding to drop a vendor because of the values of the vendor and what stances/politics the vendor supports. I would have an issue if they chose to drop a vendor because they were owner by a person of color, a Muslim, someone in the LGBTQ community, etc.

But stopping The Hoot from deciding that a vendor, which uses its revenues to support other organizations or political causes, no longer fits within their corporate values, is not something that Rice should be meddling in.

Let me make this as simple as I can... and I will use your last statement.

Your last statement implies that you believe that the Hoot can decide that CFA doesn't fit with their corporate values... but that Rice would be 'meddling' if they decide that The Hoot doesn't fit with the University's values and remove them from campus. They can still operate like GrubHub or Domino's does

I never suggested that the University SHOULD do something... merely that by holding a special place on campus and making such a value judgement, they open themselves up to the same scrutiny. Had their decision been based on student complaints or a poll or low volumes or some other such reason, this wouldn't be the case. Given the popularity of the product (generally), I think this is a far greater than zero risk.

You seem to be making a distinction based on protected classes... but that's interesting in that Christianity is just as protected as Islam... and Islam is just as 'unfriendly' towards same-sex marriage as Christianity (at least). Your ambivalence towards this decision is based on the fact that they have changed whom they donate to... but no such guilt by association/investigation is required of someone who is Muslim for protections. What if the mosque they attend and donate to supports the same charities/principles as CFA?

My over-arching point is that COMPANIES engaging in 'social activism' (I don't mean that to be offensive in the least... I'm trying to describe the act of 'shared values' as a vendor goal) are opening a massive can of worms for themselves. At the very least, this group is opening themselves up to the same scrutiny by their single? customer.... Rice University. Certainly their largest by far.

I think you want to turn this into a 'they aren't allowed to' or 'they're wrong' debate.... because that's what you keep 'hearing'.

They're allowed to do whatever they want. The problem for them is that they don't have 3600 customers... They really have one. One that has a long history of quickly distancing itself from unnecessary controversy. I just don't think that the University would think that this service was so necessary that they would bother to get involved in the CFA debate. If enough students were upset either way, they'd just shut it down... which is why I suggested they find some other way/reason/excuse to do what they wanted.

Rice would be meddling if they told The Hoot who to use. If they wanted to remove The Hoot, I would actually be fine with that, for the same reason The Hoot should be allowed to use social policy support to decide who they select as a vendor.

And you’re right that companies engaging in social activism open up a can of worms - which is what hot Chick-Fil-A so much attention back in 2012. The groups they support now, as a company, are much more mundane and not controversial, which is why I find The Hoot’s decision so stupid and short-sighted. But because they are not making their decision to exclude Chick-Fil-A because they’re Christian, but rather because their corporate leadership financially supports specific charities, they aren’t discriminating due to a protected class. However, it does open them up to criticism and backlash if they do not also look at the corporate governance of other suppliers they use - but that is a PR and not a legal issue.

And regarding your comment about the protected class - I am making a distinction, because that is how the law handles these issues. And that is why I said you were equating veganism to being gay, since you had said WeWorks policy could be taken as being discriminatory. It would only be discriminatory if we felt that omnivores were a protected class. Omnivores can still have their meal be reimbursed if the meal doesn’t feature meat.
04-28-2019 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 33,772
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 875
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #56
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-28-2019 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Rice would be meddling if they told The Hoot who to use.

I disagree. Rice is the 'customer'. If The Hoot can decide that CFA doesn't fit their culture, why can't Rice tell the Hoot to stop using CFA because it doesn't fit our culture? Or RICE could say, shop local. I'm not saying they would or should, but certainly they could. Customers do this every day.
You're implying that once Rice allows a vendor on campus, they can do whatever they want and Rice has no input.

Quote:And you’re right that companies engaging in social activism open up a can of worms - which is what hot Chick-Fil-A so much attention back in 2012. The groups they support now, as a company, are much more mundane and not controversial, which is why I find The Hoot’s decision so stupid and short-sighted. But because they are not making their decision to exclude Chick-Fil-A because they’re Christian, but rather because their corporate leadership financially supports specific charities, they aren’t discriminating due to a protected class. However, it does open them up to criticism and backlash if they do not also look at the corporate governance of other suppliers they use - but that is a PR and not a legal issue.

Never said it WAS a legal issue

I would note that your discernment is pretty nuanced.

Quote:And regarding your comment about the protected class - I am making a distinction, because that is how the law handles these issues. And that is why I said you were equating veganism to being gay, since you had said WeWorks policy could be taken as being discriminatory. It would only be discriminatory if we felt that omnivores were a protected class. Omnivores can still have their meal be reimbursed if the meal doesn’t feature meat.

1) This is an opinion. I don't claim that 'the current law' supports me. I'm talking about right and wrong, which sometimes conflicts with the law. That's how/why laws change. Since the conversation is about promoting good things, I didn't know we needed to stick to current law. It's not against the law for CFA to donate to whomever they want, nor is it against the law for The Hoot to decline to use them.

2) The article implied that people bringing a vegan meal to work would get reimbursed for the meal when it said that non-vegans could still bring their meal in, but wouldn't be reimbursed for it. My issue was with the article, not the company. The company (I feel certain) is talking about 'business expenses' and not the general lunch as the article alluded to. If the company is trying to use people's jobs and their income as a means to promote their values, I think we can all agree that is problematic on the basis of fairness - right/wrong. That's like Hooters saying you don't have to get breast implants, but if you do, we will reimburse you for them. I think they'd get in trouble for that socially, even though I suspect there are ways to legally do just that. Not all discrimination is illegal... so just because I said it was discrimination doesn't mean I said it's illegal.

3) Perhaps most important, I don't believe in these 'lists'. You shouldn't have to fight to be on some list in order to be treated fairly under the law... and of course, just because you aren't on the list today doesn't mean you won't be tomorrow. The issues we're talking about weren't on those lists fairly recently.... and they GOT on those lists by people making such statements 'without the support of the law' The very idea that someone/a company making a statement about social justice would institutionalize discrimination... even if it is legal... is a HUGE red flag to me.

Since you brought up this line, I'll amend my earlier statement... I don't think Rice would want to be involved in such a social debate, EVEN IF the law were ultimately on their side. It's just not worth it to them when GrubHub and other vendors exist and such a service 'on campus' isn't really necessary.
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2019 03:01 PM by Hambone10.)
04-28-2019 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
uconnbaseball Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,443
Joined: Aug 2005
Reputation: 81
I Root For: Divorce, Rivals
Location:

The Parliament Awards
Post: #57
RE: Chik-fil-A
Chic-Fil-A mentions how they happily serve anyone "regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation." Of the three groups the company donated to, only one can be considered homophobic (the house), and Chic-Fil-A stopped donating to them and apologized for it.

I am pro-LGBT and take actual hatred and discrimination deathly seriously. Chic-Fil-A is fine and I will continue to wolf down their waffle fries, regardless if liberals want to consider the Salvation Army anti-gay.
04-28-2019 08:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ExcitedOwl18 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,904
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Rice
Location: New York
Post: #58
RE: Chik-fil-A
My opinion: *Many* Rice students these days are total ******* and wouldn’t know actual adversity/discrimination if it hit them in the face.

That said, I’ll continue to eat at Zaxby’s instead of CFA as I think CFA is one of the most overrated fast-food joints in the United States.
04-28-2019 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,205
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #59
RE: Chik-fil-A
I wonder if there would be any debate if the bakery had been owned by Muslims instead ofChristians,

It seems the left has an antiChristian bent, not an anti religious one. The fact that The Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts have become the bad people does not seem right to me. Add in that the flag has become the symbol of an “oppressive” country (Kaepernick) and the Norman Rockwell America I grew up in is disappearing.

So lefties, at.Christmas when you see the SA bell ringers, what is your reaction to their evilness? Spit in the bucket?
04-29-2019 08:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,611
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 21
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #60
RE: Chik-fil-A
(04-28-2019 09:45 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  My opinion: *Many* Rice students these days are total ******* and wouldn’t know actual adversity/discrimination if it hit them in the face.

Many 18-21 y/o's since the onset of mankind are total *******. I know I was.
04-29-2019 10:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.