The fact that this is even a thread and why some of you a struggling to understand the fate of this spokesperson is mind boggling

Revelation wrote:

Chic-Fil-A goes down next.

For what, exactly? And good luck with that; they're not a publicly-held company.

Max Q wrote:

And sanders wasn’t a colonel

Actually, he was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_Colonel

Maybe Elon Musk should be next...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... do-twitter

He may be a brilliant engineer, but he too seems to have a fragile ego, and a hot temper.

VTKillarney wrote:

The owner’s have always kept their business separate from their political activities.

VTKillarney wrote:

They ceased those donations many years ago.

So "always" is a shorter period of time than "many years ago"?

Kno wrote:

spokesperson

I think you mean "chairman" (aka chairman of the company) and recent/former CEO (before ill informed statements damaged the company) of the company.

Tugg

Well now there's this here development:


Like far too much of today's broadcast news, it's only just sound bites stitched together, so I don't know if the interviewer on WHAS pressed him with, "What do you mean 'the agency was promoting this kind of talk?'" That assertion needs elaborating and substantiating; by the same token I have to wonder why the agency did not respond to ABC's request for comment.

Kno wrote:

The fact that this is even a thread and why some of you a struggling to understand the fate of this spokesperson is mind boggling

Please, enlighten us.

blueflyer wrote:

Maybe Elon Musk should be next...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... do-twitter

He may be a brilliant engineer, but he too seems to have a fragile ego, and a hot temper.

Elon knows he made a mistake. He said as much. He said he will work to tone his tweets down. Does not sound like a fragile ego to me. He made a mistake and owned up to it.

seb146 wrote:

Elon knows he made a mistake... He made a mistake and owned up to it.

Not defending John Schnatter, but can you tell me why the double standard? Both men owned up to what they did, yet one is out and the other isn't.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Elon knows he made a mistake... He made a mistake and owned up to it.

Not defending John Schnatter, but can you tell me why the double standard? Both men owned up to what they did, yet one is out and the other isn't.

Colonel Sanders used that word so I can too

vs.

You, sir, are a...

Tell me you can not see the difference and I will direct you to the nearest ophthalmologist. Also:

I am apologizing because I am losing money and trying to get that revenue back by showing I am a caring person

vs.

I am apologizing because I said something stupid

Musk’s is definitely worse.

Musk seems like a huge douchebag to me, and while being of course more intelligent and more useful, has a personality and attitude thats downright Trumpian.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Musk seems like a huge douchebag to me, and while being of course more intelligent and more useful, has a personality and attitude thats downright Trumpian.

He funds things that help millions. He makes a boat load of money while helping others. What is wrong with that?

Oh the irony is about to get mighty rich here, seb. Seems like you have very selective vision.

If you've got a problem with Trumps antics/ego- which you absolutely should - don't let Musk off the hook for pulling the same shit time and time again.

Elon Musk isn't an elected official. And Trump made thousands of insulting tweets and adds to it everyday, on top of saying insulting things on video, being rude to everyone all the time, there is no comparison possible.

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Elon knows he made a mistake... He made a mistake and owned up to it.

Not defending John Schnatter, but can you tell me why the double standard? Both men owned up to what they did, yet one is out and the other isn't.

Colonel Sanders used that word so I can too

vs.

You, sir, are a...

Tell me you can not see the difference and I will direct you to the nearest ophthalmologist. Also:

I am apologizing because I am losing money and trying to get that revenue back by showing I am a caring person

vs.

I am apologizing because I said something stupid

It wasn't a matter of "Colonel-Sanders-used-it-so-I-can-too." He was in fact alluding to Colonel Sanders' impropriety in using it.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Maybe someone on the board finally wanted him out? Maybe this is part of a larger power struggle? The guy is a jerk. We already knew that. I just wonder if there is more to this story.

Papa Johns did seem to be going south before this happened. We can argue did he deserve this? The N word has been made to be the end of any career whether that is fair or not it's the norm now. Fair or not you use it you are going to lose it all. I hope the company survives because their pizza is better than that crap at dominoes.

He will land on his feet.

And, if we are going to debate pizza, I hate national chains and will always go for local, such as Pagliacci's or Pegasus in Seattle or Schmizza in Portland.

Oh sure but once in a while you can't beat it.

Revelation wrote:

Chic-Fil-A goes down next.

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

Enjoy eating KFC where the founder is still in the name/logo yet casually threw around the "N" word.

Hypocrite.

The irony here is that Seb admitted in this thread that he has and still does use the word while Papa John was referring to Sanders' use of the word in a historical context. He wasn't using it to refer to any person. Seb does, by his own admission. Yet somehow Seb's use is ok but John's not.

Super80Fan wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Chic-Fil-A goes down next.

Keep dreaming. Not going to happen.

Enjoy eating KFC where the founder is still in the name/logo yet casually threw around the "N" word.

I don't eat at either place, that shit is bad for you.

Super80Fan wrote:

Hypocrite.

Name caller.

trpmb6 wrote:

The irony here is that Seb admitted in this thread that he has and still does use the word while Papa John was referring to Sanders' use of the word in a historical context. He wasn't using it to refer to any person. Seb does, by his own admission. Yet somehow Seb's use is ok but John's not.

Ah, but I never said it was okay for me to use that word. Either of them. I said I COULD around ONE GUY. I refuse to use either of those words anywhere in any context. See the difference?

seb146 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

The irony here is that Seb admitted in this thread that he has and still does use the word while Papa John was referring to Sanders' use of the word in a historical context. He wasn't using it to refer to any person. Seb does, by his own admission. Yet somehow Seb's use is ok but John's not.

Ah, but I never said it was okay for me to use that word. Either of them. I said I COULD around ONE GUY. I refuse to use either of those words anywhere in any context. See the difference?

Actually you said:

seb146 wrote:

I have a Black friend I know I can use the second word with. Only him. I don't use it often with him because that is not me. It sounds strange coming from a middle aged white guy, anyway. I don't have any use for either word, so I don't use them.

"I don't use it often"

That implies that it is used on some occasion.

Those are your own words. So either you really do use the word. Or you don't and you fabricated your original statement for some unknown reason.

trpmb6 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

trpmb6 wrote:

The irony here is that Seb admitted in this thread that he has and still does use the word while Papa John was referring to Sanders' use of the word in a historical context. He wasn't using it to refer to any person. Seb does, by his own admission. Yet somehow Seb's use is ok but John's not.

Ah, but I never said it was okay for me to use that word. Either of them. I said I COULD around ONE GUY. I refuse to use either of those words anywhere in any context. See the difference?

Actually you said:

seb146 wrote:

I have a Black friend I know I can use the second word with. Only him. I don't use it often with him because that is not me. It sounds strange coming from a middle aged white guy, anyway. I don't have any use for either word, so I don't use them.

"I don't use it often"

That implies that it is used on some occasion.

Those are your own words. So either you really do use the word. Or you don't and you fabricated your original statement for some unknown reason.

There is a world of difference between me using it like twice a year with someone who trusts me and just using it on the regular just because. Why am I suddenly a pariah because I use one word like twice and a CEO needs to be given his job back and given free reign over that word? I don't get it. How am I worse than a racist?

Besides, this thread is not about me. This is about a racist who refuses to pay his employees a living wage so he can buy more cars and add onto his already ginormous house.

Lol. If you don't see it then I can't help you.

Edit: i'm tired of this thread. Papa John's pizza isn't even good. Never understood why my wife liked it. Maybe I can use this as a way to get out of having to keep it in our rotation of pizza's for "fairness"

Is there any evidence Schnatter has used the n-word more than on that one occasion? Because right now seb146 appears to be in the lead for using that word.

Slightly relevant: https://www.tvweek.com/tvbizwire/2018/0 ... s-forward/

I think a lot of this was really taken out of context but in this day and age you need to be more prescient about this sort of thing.

capncbot wrote:

I think a lot of this was really taken out of context but in this day and age you need to be more prescient about this sort of thing.

Exactly. It's been taken completely out of context and people are embracing, as truth, utter falsehoods.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/18/news/c ... index.html

Airstud wrote:

capncbot wrote:

I think a lot of this was really taken out of context but in this day and age you need to be more prescient about this sort of thing.

Exactly. It's been taken completely out of context and people are embracing, as truth, utter falsehoods.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/18/news/c ... index.html

Just remember this the next time comments are taken out of context and there is outrage.....

NoTime wrote:

Does he "deserve" the fallout? No, of course not. Should he have expected it? Absolutely.

Considering today's culture of recreational outrage, he should've known better... and that's why it's probably best for him to step down. Any CEO of such a large company should know better.

But, does it not strike anyone else as odd that we have a word in our world that is forbidden to certain groups, but perfectly fine for others? I mean, in this case, it's a word that is used in some of today's most popular songs, it's used as a term of endearment in certain segments of society, but only people of a certain race are allowed to use it without fallout... so, we're saying some people can't do something because of their race... gee, what does that sound like?

No, I'm not advocating for everyone to start using it, I'm advocating for attaching the same stigma on it no matter who uses it.

I agree. I hate the word...and I am infuriated every time I hear another black person saying it. Its stupid, ignorant, hypocritical and there is no logic to its use whatsoever. I don't understand how it ever became acceptable for black people to say that, especially to each other. I can imagine how pissed a lot of whites feel when they hear black people say the word without a moment of hesitation to each other. Its like we're throwing the fact that they "can't" say it in their face. Its awful. I also don't get it that some feel the word is a term of endearment. WTF??? I am sorry, this issue is horrific and despicable and I have no idea what to do about it. I don't see there being a widespread cessation of the use of the word by blacks which just pisses me off even more. Oh and I am black in case you can't tell. I found it necessary to speak up for those of us (which are a lot!!) who detest the use of the word by anyone, including and especially black people.

jdstJD wrote:

I agree. I hate the word...and I am infuriated every time I hear another black person saying it. Its stupid, ignorant, hypocritical and there is no logic to its use whatsoever. I don't understand how it ever became acceptable for black people to say that, especially to each other. I can imagine how pissed a lot of whites feel when they hear black people say the word without a moment of hesitation to each other. Its like we're throwing the fact that they "can't" say it in their face. Its awful. I also don't get it that some feel the word is a term of endearment. WTF??? I am sorry, this issue is horrific and despicable and I have no idea what to do about it. I don't see there being a widespread cessation of the use of the word by blacks which just pisses me off even more. Oh and I am black in case you can't tell. I found it necessary to speak up for those of us (which are a lot!!) who detest the use of the word by anyone, including and especially black people.

To me the use of the word almost seems to be a version of self loathing. Hating yourself for what you have become or some such. Of course each person is different, from those who would use it to those who would and then to the circumstances at the time behind its use.

Just my quick opinion. My general rule is to always "speak respectfully" to others. Doesn't always happen but it does the vast majority of the time.

Tugg

Revelation wrote:

Chic-Fil-A goes down next.

Not a chance.

People love to bitch about Christian companies and their values. However the same people would defend a Muslim business with the same values until they're blue in the face. If you're going to get et outraged then be consistent.

It's funny how the white hating, Christian hating liberals will always find a Christian bakery who would rather not bake a gay wedding cake but funnily enough never ask a Muslim bakery the same quiestion! In fact when presented with hidden camera footage of multiple Muslim bakeries all refusing a gay wedding cake - *crickets* or cries of it being a 'far right conspiracy'.

As for Papa - I don't think the use of the N word is appropriate by anyone. The use of the word is endemic and normalised by BAME entertainers and our exposure to the word is more common than ever. Perhaps he was a little misguided to the use the word but when it's used as a lyric so many times then perhaps we become numb to it?

jdstJD wrote:

Its like we're throwing the fact that they "can't" say it in their face.

I remember I asked a Black person about why was it acceptable for them to say it to each other but not anyone else. Their answer was along the lines of "this is our word so only we can use it". Reminds me of a time I asked a Jewish guy why he was OK with making fun of the Holocaust ("my grandpa died in it so I get to make fun of the event").

sevenair wrote:

It's funny how the white hating, Christian hating liberals will always find a Christian bakery who would rather not bake a gay wedding cake but funnily enough never ask a Muslim bakery the same quiestion! In fact when presented with hidden camera footage of multiple Muslim bakeries all refusing a gay wedding cake - *crickets* or cries of it being a 'far right conspiracy'.

Actually, no. Christian liberals are not out trying to find such bakeries. They pop up all by themselves. The bigger irony is how conservatives who advocate for a free market and freedom of speech suddenly cry foul when boycotts are organized or they find themselves on the other side of the argument (being denied service for X reason).

You wanna know why it's likely that a Muslim bakery won't put up a fight for a gay wedding cake? Because the bakery will already point to it being religious in nature. A religious bakery is not the same as a bakery whose owner is religious. The former explicitly states what they cater to; the latter does not. Besides, if Muslims can sell you alcohol (which is not halal in the Quran), don't see how a Christian can't at least bake a cake and have someone else decorate it, or at the very least have an alternate bakery they can recommend to.

I have no problem with a business being able to select their clientele, but if that's the case, own it. Put up a sign on your door, on your website, and on your ads about whom you cater to. Otherwise, you're just looking for an excuse to feel superior while hiding behind "religious freedom".

So it's a Muslim bakery for Muslim only and therefore it can discrimination against non muslims? Okay! You know I didn't think I'd have to wait long before I found a liberal defending muslims discriminating against gays. After all we gays are way down in the liberal pecking order!

I don't remember the bakeries being 'Muslim only' bakeries and in the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune. They certainly look to be staffed by muslims but it's not a Muslim only bakery.

I'm not on the other side of the arguement. I haven't found an organised boycott against me. I see double standards and I'm calling them out. We all know though that muslims reign surpreme when it comes to liberals and muslims are way more important than us gays when it comes to such issues.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white Christian bakery who had 'Christian's only' signs or if they dared refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? And if it's ok for a Muslim owners of a bakery to have a view that doesn't necessary reflect that of the business, how come liberals want Chick fil-a closed down?

Either you're for equality and diversity or you're not.

sevenair wrote:

So it's a Muslim bakery for Muslim only and therefore it can discrimination against non muslims? Okay! You know I didn't think I'd have to wait long before I found a liberal defending muslims discriminating against gays. After all we gays are way down in the liberal pecking order!

I don't remember the bakeries being 'Muslim only' bakeries and in the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune. They certainly look to be staffed by muslims but it's not a Muslim only bakery.

I'm not on the other side of the arguement. I haven't found an organised boycott against me. I see double standards and I'm calling them out. We all know though that muslims reign surpreme when it comes to liberals and muslims are way more important than us gays when it comes to such issues.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white Christian bakery who had 'Christian's only' signs or if they dared refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? And if it's ok for a Muslim owners of a bakery to have a view that doesn't necessary reflect that of the business, how come liberals want Chick fil-a closed down?

Either you're for equality and diversity or you're not.

It is two different things.

Bakers who are Christian or Muslim

vs.

Christian or Muslim based bakeries.

The first one is people who practice a specific religion who just happen to own a business

vs.

The second one is religious based for the purpose of specific religious followers.

seb146 wrote:

sevenair wrote:

So it's a Muslim bakery for Muslim only and therefore it can discrimination against non muslims? Okay! You know I didn't think I'd have to wait long before I found a liberal defending muslims discriminating against gays. After all we gays are way down in the liberal pecking order!

I don't remember the bakeries being 'Muslim only' bakeries and in the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune. They certainly look to be staffed by muslims but it's not a Muslim only bakery.

I'm not on the other side of the arguement. I haven't found an organised boycott against me. I see double standards and I'm calling them out. We all know though that muslims reign surpreme when it comes to liberals and muslims are way more important than us gays when it comes to such issues.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white Christian bakery who had 'Christian's only' signs or if they dared refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? And if it's ok for a Muslim owners of a bakery to have a view that doesn't necessary reflect that of the business, how come liberals want Chick fil-a closed down?

Either you're for equality and diversity or you're not.

It is two different things.

Bakers who are Christian or Muslim

vs.

Christian or Muslim based bakeries.

The first one is people who practice a specific religion who just happen to own a business

vs.

The second one is religious based for the purpose of specific religious followers.

No, it's not at all two different things. Go back and look (above) at what I highlighted in Sevenair's post.

sevenair wrote:

the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune.

Well why the heck isn't the guy who encountered this suing the baker? He should.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

sevenair wrote:

the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune.

Well why the heck isn't the guy who encountered this suing the baker? He should.

Tugg

A) Not everyone wants to sue, especially those who prefer to maintain their privacy.
B) If it's the video that I saw, it happened in Michigan where discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal until May, 2018.

seb146 wrote:

sevenair wrote:

So it's a Muslim bakery for Muslim only and therefore it can discrimination against non muslims? Okay! You know I didn't think I'd have to wait long before I found a liberal defending muslims discriminating against gays. After all we gays are way down in the liberal pecking order!

I don't remember the bakeries being 'Muslim only' bakeries and in the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune. They certainly look to be staffed by muslims but it's not a Muslim only bakery.

I'm not on the other side of the arguement. I haven't found an organised boycott against me. I see double standards and I'm calling them out. We all know though that muslims reign surpreme when it comes to liberals and muslims are way more important than us gays when it comes to such issues.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white Christian bakery who had 'Christian's only' signs or if they dared refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? And if it's ok for a Muslim owners of a bakery to have a view that doesn't necessary reflect that of the business, how come liberals want Chick fil-a closed down?

Either you're for equality and diversity or you're not.

It is two different things.

Bakers who are Christian or Muslim

vs.

Christian or Muslim based bakeries.

The first one is people who practice a specific religion who just happen to own a business

vs.

The second one is religious based for the purpose of specific religious followers.

How is "for the purpose of specific religious followers" not discrimination?

Airstud wrote:

seb146 wrote:

sevenair wrote:

So it's a Muslim bakery for Muslim only and therefore it can discrimination against non muslims? Okay! You know I didn't think I'd have to wait long before I found a liberal defending muslims discriminating against gays. After all we gays are way down in the liberal pecking order!

I don't remember the bakeries being 'Muslim only' bakeries and in the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune. They certainly look to be staffed by muslims but it's not a Muslim only bakery.

I'm not on the other side of the arguement. I haven't found an organised boycott against me. I see double standards and I'm calling them out. We all know though that muslims reign surpreme when it comes to liberals and muslims are way more important than us gays when it comes to such issues.

Could you imagine the outrage if a white Christian bakery who had 'Christian's only' signs or if they dared refuse to make a cake for a Muslim wedding? And if it's ok for a Muslim owners of a bakery to have a view that doesn't necessary reflect that of the business, how come liberals want Chick fil-a closed down?

Either you're for equality and diversity or you're not.

It is two different things.

Bakers who are Christian or Muslim

vs.

Christian or Muslim based bakeries.

The first one is people who practice a specific religion who just happen to own a business

vs.

The second one is religious based for the purpose of specific religious followers.

How is "for the purpose of specific religious followers" not discrimination?

Excellent point.

VTKillarney wrote:

Tugger wrote:

sevenair wrote:

the video I saw were ok baking a cake for a wedding but then when they find out it's a gay wedding they suddenly change their tune.

Well why the heck isn't the guy who encountered this suing the baker? He should.

Tugg

A) Not everyone wants to sue, especially those who prefer to maintain their privacy.
B) If it's the video that I saw, it happened in Michigan where discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal until May, 2018.

Then there's no point in it raising it as an example. Aggrieved parties/persons need to actually take action if they want something resolved or addressed.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Well why the heck isn't the guy who encountered this suing the baker? He should.

Tugg

A) Not everyone wants to sue, especially those who prefer to maintain their privacy.
B) If it's the video that I saw, it happened in Michigan where discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal until May, 2018.

Then there's no point in it raising it as an example. Aggrieved parties/persons need to actually take action if they want something resolved or addressed.

Tugg

They couldn’t. It was legal at the time.

VTKillarney wrote:

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

A) Not everyone wants to sue, especially those who prefer to maintain their privacy.
B) If it's the video that I saw, it happened in Michigan where discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal until May, 2018.

Then there's no point in it raising it as an example. Aggrieved parties/persons need to actually take action if they want something resolved or addressed.

Tugg

They couldn’t. It was legal at the time.

well maybe Tugg meant make waves with the Michigan legislature

VTKillarney wrote:

Tugger wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

A) Not everyone wants to sue, especially those who prefer to maintain their privacy.
B) If it's the video that I saw, it happened in Michigan where discrimination based on sexual orientation was perfectly legal until May, 2018.

Then there's no point in it raising it as an example. Aggrieved parties/persons need to actually take action if they want something resolved or addressed.

Tugg

They couldn’t. It was legal at the time.

Discrimination based on religion? That is: someone could say "because of my religion, I can discriminate against you"?

We LGBTQ+ should become a religious group. That way, when Jeff Session's "religious liberty" crap kicks in, we can be covered.

NoTime wrote:

But, does it not strike anyone else as odd that we have a word in our world that is forbidden to certain groups, but perfectly fine for others? I mean, in this case, it's a word that is used in some of today's most popular songs, it's used as a term of endearment in certain segments of society, but only people of a certain race are allowed to use it without fallout... so, we're saying some people can't do something because of their race... gee, what does that sound like?

No, I'm not advocating for everyone to start using it, I'm advocating for attaching the same stigma on it no matter who uses it.

Why do some white people always say this crap like they actually want to say the word? Why do the same people, quite obviously, lump black people together as a monolithic group...as if they all say the word?