Henson issues statement about Chick-Fila-A

[jvcarroll]

Oh brother...

Wow, well I won't dive into that can of worms!

I'll just say that the Jim Henson Company issued one statement and one statement only on the issue. It spoke directly to the heart of the controversy. They were all-inclusive. They showed complete transparency. They've stood by it and didn't create much fanfare around it.

The Chick-Fil-A folk have been spinning in circles and continue to do so. They've been saying one thing while concealing their funding for others under a different policy. This is not a new development for them. It's an ongoing controversy that just made a pit stop at JHC along the way. Chick-Fill-Hate, ahem, Chick-Fil-A has shown just about as much integrity as Doc Hopper. /soapbox

 

[Drtooth]

I still don't understand the statement that somehow both sides are guilty of wrongdoing. The Jim Henson Company has embraced an "all swim" sentiment instead of an exclusive one. On the other hand, Chick-Fil-A has a long and murky history when it comes to equal rights. Their claim of respect to those who believe differently are not supported by their behavior. I understand why the Mayor of Boston wouldn't want their restaurant making money to spend on social politics intended to limit the civil rights of its citizens by overturning their right to gay marriage.

I don't see why Henson comes off bad at all. There's no reason for them to. It's a corporate move, plain and simple and they don't want to be associated with someone who they disagree with. That happens ALL the time in business partnerships, I don't see anything that should make them look bad at all. It is within their rights to say "Thanks, but no thanks." Politically, religiously... heck with that. Henson could have bit their lips and said "sure, fine... whatever," and it probably wouldn't have looked good on them.

I'm reiterating this... my beef is not so much Chick's attitudes or views. It's the fact that they use their money, power, and influence to buy their way into political movements. BOTH sides politically can agree that's what's ruining our country. That's the reason the banks got bailed out AND the reason why there's still no regulation to prevent it happening again. And I say it again... if I use whatever money I have to influence government, that's an illegal bribe and I can get arrested for it. Why the heck is this still legal? Oh yeah... they BUY anyone who tries to challenge it. Duh.

As for the mayor of Boston... sigh... I'd LOVE to respect his wishes for this, but I'm still quite annoyed at how he handled Cartoon Network after that stupid Mooninite scandal. Poor form. He wanted people fired and shook them down for more money than they willingly wanted to pay. I guess you could say it was Menino's fault we got CN Real.

Besides, I'd rather have a hundred far far right fast food joints in Boston than that *&&^% Szkieletor half building half hole that destroyed Downtown. Why isn't he trying to Shake down Macy's for that? *&^% Macy's!

 

[Slackbot]

Welcome, seismicmike. I'm surprised to see you here, but not unpleasantly. Although I disagree with some of your views, I agree with others, and it's very important to get a reasonable dialogue going. All too often issues like religion and sexual orientation only polarize people. I hope that we can learn from each other.

It was never my intent to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. I apologize if the way I articulated my position implied this meaning.

We can hate pedophiles. We can hate mass murderers. But we can’t hate homosexuals. In this, secular morality is more bigoted than Christian morality. Christian morality never grants license to hate anyone. Christians are called to love pedophiles, mass murderers and homosexuals.

I believe that you didn't mean to equate homosexuals with pedophiles and mass murderers, but think about it. How would you feel if I wrote an article stating that organized religion was mere wishful thinking, and lumped Scientologists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Christians all together as examples? You'd object to that, I'm sure, and with good reason. And there's a long and sad history of people believing that gay people are perverts, pedophiles, and so on, rather than people who are simply attracted to people of their own gender. How could the excerpt quoted above fail to infuriate anyone sympathetic to LGBT issues?

I took another look at my site and the text/background colors look the same for the post text and for jvcarroll's text. I'm using Chrome and Win7. Are you using something different?

I was on Win7 and MSIE. Now I'm at home, On Windows XP and Firefox, and it looks fine.

 

[jvcarroll]

I don't see why Henson comes off bad at all. There's no reason for them to. It's a corporate move, plain and simple and they don't want to be associated with someone who they disagree with. That happens ALL the time in business partnerships, I don't see anything that should make them look bad at all. It is within their rights to say "Thanks, but no thanks." Politically, religiously... heck with that. Henson could have bit their lips and said "sure, fine... whatever," and it probably wouldn't have looked good on them.

I'm reiterating this... my beef is not so much Chick's attitudes or views. It's the fact that they use their money, power, and influence to buy their way into political movements. BOTH sides politically can agree that's what's ruining our country. That's the reason the banks got bailed out AND the reason why there's still no regulation to prevent it happening again. And I say it again... if I use whatever money I have to influence government, that's an illegal bribe and I can get arrested for it. Why the heck is this still legal? Oh yeah... they BUY anyone who tries to challenge it. Duh.

As for the mayor of Boston... sigh... I'd LOVE to respect his wishes for this, but I'm still quite annoyed at how he handled Cartoon Network after that stupid Mooninite scandal. Poor form. He wanted people fired and shook them down for more money than they willingly wanted to pay. I guess you could say it was Menino's fault we got CN Real.

Besides, I'd rather have a hundred far far right fast food joints in Boston than that *&&^% Szkieletor half building half hole that destroyed Downtown. Why isn't he trying to Shake down Macy's for that? *&^% Macy's!

Ha!

I think some people choose to misunderstand the differences between the inclusiveness of Henson Company and the exclusiveness of the Chick-Fil-A president. Also, I support most of GLAAD and the fact that JHC's CFA profits are going there, but they can often be a little too militant and humorless for my taste. Just sayin' the truth. I wonder why that hasn't yet been a target of the conversation. I'm not trying to make them one, but it just breaks my heart to see the Henson Company get pummeled by this issue and by a segment of the Christian community.

Welcome, seismicmike. I'm surprised to see you here, but not unpleasantly. Although I disagree with some of your views, I agree with others, and it's very important to get a reasonable dialogue going. All too often issues like religion and sexual orientation only polarize people. I hope that we can learn from each other.


I believe that you didn't mean to equate homosexuals with pedophiles and mass murderers, but think about it. How would you feel if I wrote an article stating that organized religion was mere wishful thinking, and lumped Scientologists, the Westboro Baptist Church, and Christians all together as examples? You'd object to that, I'm sure, and with good reason. And there's a long and sad history of people believing that gay people are perverts, pedophiles, and so on, rather than people who are simply attracted to people of their own gender. How could the excerpt quoted above fail to infuriate anyone sympathetic to LGBT issues?

I was on Win7 and MSIE. Now I'm at home, On Windows XP and Firefox, and it looks fine.

Thanks for highlighting that again. It was such a poorly constructed illustration especially considering that most of the groups CFA and WinShape funds (the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Marriage & Family Foundation, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council) will often equate gays to pedophiles and other such insidious criminals. I'm glad he addressed that and withdrew it.

CFA keeps spinning this double-speak in an attempt to hide the truth that their bigotry has some real, hidden roots that directly hurt people. I'll shine the light on that every time someone tries to spray it with perfume and sneak it by. Lots of metaphors today. Ha!

 

[Drtooth]

Thanks for highlighting that again. It was such a poorly constructed illustration especially considering that most of the groups CFA and WinShape funds (the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Marriage & Family Foundation, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council) will often equate gays to pedophiles and other such insidious criminals. I'm glad he addressed that and withdrew it.

To me, the word "Family" in any organization's name is code for "freeze the world's progressive agenda and bring us back to a Stepfordized time that didn't really exist." At best. At worst it means " we put a manipulative name in there so we can do terrible things without anyone getting wise to it."

Now, I hate EVERY advocate group, left and right, meaningful or menacing. Keep your blankity blank agenda OUT of my cartoons and junk food. I'm EXTREMELY libertarian when it comes to those things. I hate the Family Foundations just as much I do Commercial Free Childhood and Action for Children's Television, even though those two are well meaning... but stupid.

But my point is, corporations LOVE to give money to pet projects and politicians. Remember the huge PR fiasco Target had when they gave a fortune to a Pro-Business candidate that was also militantly anti-Gay. Target wanted so much of those government goodies (deregulation, staving off minimum wage increases), they didn't care to think about his other agendas, and it got them in a CRAP load of PR problems and Boycotts.

So I'm basically saying corporations will blow more money on lobbyists to deregulate, cut their taxes and all that other stuff than they would complying. So Chick's no different than the others in that aspect.

YET... Chick made the mistake of basically shouting that from the rooftops. You do NOT vilify a group of people because you're bound to lose customers. If this was a movie/TV/cartoon cliche, Chick would have been the only company to have someone turn on the microphone and broadcast their hatefulness across the airwaves.

So, it pays to be a kind corporate entity on the surface. You do better business that way.

 

[CensoredAlso]

YET... Chick made the mistake of basically shouting that from the rooftops. You do NOT vilify a group of people because you're bound to lose customers.

Bottom line I think the tide in society is shifting towards more sympathy to the gay marriage issue and anyone who does otherwise is going to catch flack for it at this point. Not saying Chick-Fil-Whatever (never heard of it until the other day) should just go along with the crowd then; you should never do something for that reason. If they can't bring themselves to support the issue, they should be honest. They may not win, but that's the way it goes.

 

[D'Snowth]

Chick-Fil-Whatever (never heard of it until the other day)

I think they're only a southern chain.

 

[CensoredAlso]

I think they're only a southern chain.

Oh actually I was just told that there is one a few towns away. But yeah not really a strong presence.

 

[Drtooth]

Bottom line I think the tide in society is shifting towards more sympathy to the gay marriage issue and anyone who does otherwise is going to catch flack for it at this point. Not saying Chick-Fil-Whatever (never heard of it until the other day) should just go along with the crowd then; you should never do something for that reason. If they can't bring themselves to support the issue, they should be honest. They may not win, but that's the way it goes.

When it comes to Chick, someone SHOULD have said "Hey, Chick Fil A! If we want your opinion, we'll ASK for it." Kirk Cameron said what he said, because they made the mistake of asking his opinion.

But the main point isn't so much Chick Fil A said something, they spend their profits influencing government and funding anti-gay groups.

They're entitled to their opinion, they're NOT entitled to use their money and influence to force their opinions into law.

Think of it this way. Let's say it came out that, instead of an anti-gay agenda, Chick Fil A was giving their profits to (hypothetically) a terrorist organization that kidnaps children and eats them. Or lets say Soylent Chicken is PEOPLE. Would you stand by Henson if they didn't politely end their partnership?

 

[CensoredAlso]

When it comes to Chick, someone SHOULD have said "Hey, Chick Fil A! If we want your opinion, we'll ASK for it."

But would you say that if you agreed with their stance?