Sounds like something you could go find out. But lets put it into perspective. There are over 1600 Chic-Fil-a locations all across the USA, and probably somewhere in the neighborhood of at least 15,000 employees.
Given that, if Formaldehyde is correct in his allegations of this corporation being as bigoted, hateful, etc. etc. etc. dont you really, and I mean REALLY, think there would be more than a single discrimination lawsuit every two years on average?
I mean come on.
Just on a whim I tried a quick google, and here is one I found.
http://retailindustry.about.com/b/2...awsuits-increase-rapidly-dis-smt-bkw-dltr.htm
You can find plenty of lawsuits examples for Walmart, Burger King, and various other employers. But you dont find much by googling the same for Chic-Fil-A.
Its simply not quite as evil as Form alleges. In fact, its not even remotely close. This place simply isnt the bogeyman that many are trying to make it out to be.
Bah, I didn't care, but you've made me curious.
I checked out your links, from both your earlier post and your last post.
In the about.com article, like you said, Walmart and Burger King have faced some specific discrimination suits.. They also listed Chrysler, Disney, Dollar Tree, and Hallmark.
Chrysler's cited lawsuit was about racial discrimination. I'm pretty sure that's illegal in every state.
Walmart's and Hallmark's cited lawsuits were related to the ADA, the claimants were disabled.
Dollar Tree's cited lawsuit was not related to discrimination, it was about fair labor practices.
Disney's and Burger King's cited lawsuits were about religious discrimination, filed by women that claimed that their religious freedoms were violated when they were not allowed to wear a hijab, or a skirt instead of pants, respectively.
Is the topic discrimination in general, or descrimination based on sexual orientation? We're not going to learn anything about the latter by comparing it to other types of discrimination.
Here are a few interesting snippets from the Forbes
article.
Loyalty to the company isn't the only thing that matters to Cathy, who wants married workers, believing they are more industrious and productive.
Family members of prospective operators--children, even--are frequently interviewed so Cathy and his family can learn more about job candidates and their relationships at home. "If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members."
The company might face more suits if it didn't screen potential hires and operators so carefully. Many Chick-fil-A job candidates must endure a yearlong vetting process that includes dozens of interviews.
The extensive vetting makes it relatively unlikely for an employee to be fired because of his sexual orientation simply because he's less likely to be hired in the first place. If he somehow gets through that vetting, (almost certainly because he was closeted) that Cathy guy explicitly says that he'd fire someone for sinful behavior. I'll bet you two bottles of whiskey that being gay is on that sin list.
Also on a whim I made a map using the one I posted on the first page and
another from the Chick-fil-A website. Excuse the ugliness, it's not worth making it pretty.
The red states have laws against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. In the green states it's perfectly legal to fire or not hire someone based solely on their sexual orientation. There are 184 stores in states where Chick-fil-A could be taken to court for such discrimination. There are 1379 stores in states where victims of discrimination have no legal recourse. If we're very generous and assume that all of the new stores opened since then were in the red states, the percentage of red state stores goes from 11% to 25%.
So what we're looking at here is a company that strongly suggests that they wouldn't hire someone they found to be gay and then says straight-up that they'd fire an employee found to be gay. And in at least 75% of their stores, that is perfectly legal.
Now, I'm not asserting that Chick-fil-A illegally discriminates against gay employees. I am only asserting that Chick-fil-A said it discriminates against gay employees, and that they can't be sued for doing that in at least 75% of their stores.
What's that thing about evidence and absence?
(I'm still wondering what the bible says about running a business.)
) I believe you have the right to hire/fire whoever the heck you want for any reason you want/
