|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anybody remember the time people found out that Chik-Fil-A donated money to groups that advocated for the execution of homosexuals and then social media caused a huge boycott that drove them out of business?A true story that I would appreciate further investigation on.
Not long past, near where my father had worked, a Chik-fil-A was being built. Curious, he walked over there one evening to say hello to the workers and ask how things were going.
To make a long story short and abbreviate some steps inbetween, he ended up introduced to a number of the workers. Most of them did not speak English. One out of ten did, because that is what you needed to coordinate efforts--someone to translate the orders for everyone else, per group.
They told him this was the usual arrangement, and showed him the trailer where they were kept. Inside the trailer was a cage wall.
The idea was this: they were forced to live/work around the clock on the job site, then were packed away and shuttled to the next job site to work the same hours, under the same conditions. This is how Chic-fil-A (and perhaps other companies) build so fast.
The men couldn't speak English, were watched constantly, and were continually moved around, so they had no protections against the treatment and long hours.
He told me the men were desperate to share their story, in hopes someone would listen.
This wasn't some random person. This was my father, and it is a tale told within the last two years. I'd appreciate anyone else who has spoken with these workers, and invite y'all to share the tale.
Sometimes they who yell the loudest about values...
Have skeletons of their own.
While this is monstrous, it probably had nothing to do with Chic-fil-A itself. Most likely, they simply hired out to a local crew, and it was that company/crew that was pocketing all that extra money. A lot of times l, especially if this was the first one of that chain in the area, there where no corporate level oversight in the area, as often what happens is an individual (or group) will buy the rights to use a chains name and to get access to their inventory/ordering, but they have to petition the chain, pay a great deal of money, and abide by both local laws as well as that chains specific rules.
I had worked for a few chains like that as a kid, when I ran into an issue with transferring to another location. Turns out all Burger Kings are not the same company, and when one private owner wanted to sell his store, not only did every single employee need to reapply and start over from day 1, but the new owners had to foot the bill for all the new constructed needed to update the store.
They sent a rep twice to look at things, but didn't really have anything to do with any of the outsourcing.
More likely than not, same thing in this case, and a lot of construction crews do this sort of thing, (not that I condone it), as an only option to exist and stay competitive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As to the Hobby Lobby case, I think the Feds had already dropped the ball there before case came up. The Feds already been handing out waivers to the birth control requirement and say they or insurance companies would take care of it. So when the case had to face the Sherbert Test, it had already weakened its position. The Sherbert test says that a government can't burdened a person's free exercise unless (a) it is for a compelling state interest AND (b) it is the least burdensome, on the person, method of doing it.
The government had no problem proving (a), the problem was (b). Why? Because the government had already proved that there were less burdensome ways for them to handle it. That is why the choice went Hobby Lobby's way. In a sense this can be viewed a punishment for trying to make reasonable accommodations. It might have been better if the Feds had just told religious groups, "Let's let the courts decide if this meets the Sherbert Test or not."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, but it's gay marriage that's brought this to a head. Abortion and contraception has had a slow but steady movement in favor of the right wingers. Gay marriage has had the opposite, especially in the last few years.The recent push of the last few years has been because of a few corner cases that were well-publicized as the government being willing to destroy one's livelihood for unpopular opinion. One would think that twenty years of RFRA laws being enacted with minimal issues would have provided guidance for how to write and pass such a law, and how to respond to it.Are you actually suggesting there is no wide scale opposition to same-sex marriage (or in fact civil unions or pretty much any gay rights in general)? Or that such movements aren't supporting these new laws?
That this entire thing is about worries over a few cases of government overreach?
I think these specific laws (Indiana, Mississippi, the other current proposals) were largely in response to that particular situation. I'm not sure you understand the level of anxiety the thought police induce. The absurd degree of disproportionate response to someone not wanting to bake a cake or photograph a wedding - an attempt at destroying their lives - is the particular impetus for this particular set of laws.
I think these specific laws (Indiana, Mississippi, the other current proposals) were largely in response to that particular situation. I'm not sure you understand the level of anxiety the thought police induce. The absurd degree of disproportionate response to someone not wanting to bake a cake or photograph a wedding - an attempt at destroying their lives - is the particular impetus for this particular set of laws.True, but it's gay marriage that's brought this to a head. Abortion and contraception has had a slow but steady movement in favor of the right wingers. Gay marriage has had the opposite, especially in the last few years.The recent push of the last few years has been because of a few corner cases that were well-publicized as the government being willing to destroy one's livelihood for unpopular opinion. One would think that twenty years of RFRA laws being enacted with minimal issues would have provided guidance for how to write and pass such a law, and how to respond to it.Are you actually suggesting there is no wide scale opposition to same-sex marriage (or in fact civil unions or pretty much any gay rights in general)? Or that such movements aren't supporting these new laws?
That this entire thing is about worries over a few cases of government overreach?
I don't see how this law would protect them. What wrecked them was the massive public backlash against them, not the lgovernment stepping and telling them to provide the services. This law isn't going to do anything about public outrage. Whether the outrage was disproportionate or not, the consequences aren't being addressed.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
