Sounds good Eyrn so we should not be bashing a company on a thread either just because they don't fit or believe in this website. We could be here all day doing that to many places of business that don't agree with this lifestyle. This is a place for support and friendship conversation. I do know for a fact that there are many gay folks who actually work for Chik Fil la
Seems weird how a business would allow their beliefs to hinder their income. I mean if they want to get nit picky about right and wrong then they should not allow credit card use either. To keep my post from getting moderated I will leave it at that.
You go public with hate towards a group and you tend to lose that sector's business. They should have stayed neutral.
In their defense - whatever server or filter they use probably didn't single out a few sites (like this one) just to discriminate. Too many TG sites out there ARE porn so this one probably just got mistakenly lumped in. A computer program doesn't have a clue what is porn and what isn't. OK put it this way -
At work our Internet has filters of course and there is a lot of blocked things that one would be like "WTH?" I mean just silly crap. When I am working at one of the stations that has a computer, I often like to surf the web like we are not suppose to be doing, maybe searching images of "living room" or whatever and 1/2 the images are blocked.
In the bigger scheme of GLBT rights, chick-fil-a really has little to no influence. Who gives a damn about some greasy chicken sandwich dump hole fast food place? Give me a big greasy cheeseburger instead.
It takes a true Erin to be a pain in the assatar.
I believe that Chik Fil la is entitled to do what they want with their business. I am also entitled to boycott their business if I feel like their bigoted view of a piece of my personality doesn't fit my image of a friendly place to eat.
Just my opinion.
Staci
Trying to justify theft by saying "It was open" doesn't hold up. Commercial businesses provide services and products for their clientele, for profit, for the benefit of the business, officers, employees, and shareholders. Taking their services or products without permission or without payment of some kind is theft, plain and simple.Originally Posted by Tamara Croft
Last edited by Jenny Green; 10-04-2013 at 12:07 AM. Reason: Typo
Yeaaah if we're going to bash Chick-fil-A let's do it for the owners' politics, not for a reasonable public wi-fi policy. Pornographic or not, there is plenty of sexual content on this site.
NO company has the right to make health care decisions for their employees. Health care is an individual right to decide.
Furthermore, chik-fil-A doesn't have the right to decide what's too adult for people and what isn't. There are accepted societal norms, and unless they decide they're Disney (hah!), they don't have that right. Even Disney doesn't have that right (and they've failed anyway). If they don't like people accessing certain websites on their property, that's purely ideological. You can argue they contracted with a third party for that work and it's a fine argument that ignores all the other businesses that don't give a flying eff about what people look at.
Someone, somewhere, has blocked this site for ideological reasons, and Chick-fil-A agrees with it.
Tamara: We're surprisingly on the same page. If you want some carefully crafted "I hate you, but I'm saying it in a nice way" prose, PM me and I'll deliver.
Last edited by Leona; 10-04-2013 at 12:29 AM.
Well I'm sure if that's the case they don't have those rights than is this some kind if dictatorship we live in. Companies make decisions everyday business related or not it's there money and we or you don't have to eat there. There are plenty of other places to go. I just get tired of the one way street when it comes to bashing someone for their beliefs. This is still a free country. Last time I checked
I suspect this site is blocked because of general word associations. How many times have I read on this site that the member should guide their wives or girlfriends to this site so they do not "Google" cross dressers and have the entire page fill up with numerous pornographic sites or at a minimum sites of a really lesser class.
Have you even read any of this thread, because quite honestly, I don't think you have. This thread has got NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR BELIEFS, READ THE BLOODY THREAD!!!
This thread is discussing why this company has blocked this website for supposedly having pornography on it, when it does not. There might be mild sexual content, but like the OP said, all she needed to do was go on google and get access to 'purty girls' (her words) without it being blocked, THAT IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD.... It's pretty damn obvious it is being blocked for being a cd site, but the actual reason given is false, which is why I said I was going to make a complaint. They can block us all they like, that isn't the issue, the issue is, this does NOT have pornography on it!!! IS THAT CLEAR FOR YOU!!! gosh!
Last edited by Tamara Croft; 10-04-2013 at 02:14 AM.
Administrator
Missing my Libra babe Sherlyn, I hope she's rocking up there with the angels
Missing our Rianna, doesn't seem right, gone to early, hope she's partying with Sherlyn
Indeed. Personally, having some experience of the technology, I seriously doubt if they went out of their way to block this site. The contractor who installed it would have been remitted to "block adult content" - there are a number of proprietary products out there to do that, all of which use a very "broad brush" approach. In my opinion, if I may quote the Bard, "Much Ado About Nothing".
Knowing yourself is so much more, Take one step forward and you open up the door. T'pau - Secret Garden.
Check out my blog - You Can't Do That With People
and you'd find you were wrong had you bothered to read the rest of the OP's posts in this thread
Administrator
Missing my Libra babe Sherlyn, I hope she's rocking up there with the angels
Missing our Rianna, doesn't seem right, gone to early, hope she's partying with Sherlyn
Agree. Not much of a user of free wi-fi at restaurants, etc. but I have had this site blocked in hotels and have complained loudly and forcefully to their management.
I think there was an incident where aol, or perhaps one of the other major ISPs, tried to block porn or something and blocked the word "breast" which, for a day or so, meant that their subscribers couldn't access information on breast feeding or breast cancer.
Think I'll try to arrange lunch tomorrow at Chik-Fil-A, en femme of course, and bring my laptop and see if it happens at my local one.
Meanwhile, go get 'em Tamara!
Hugs,
Persephone.
"If you are living the life you want to live you've successfully transitioned to being the person you want to be." - Eryn.
"If you truly care about me you should damn well want for me what I want for myself" - Michael Westen (Burn Notice)
-.-. --.-/-.-. --.-/-.-. -../ Persephone™ and Persephone™ are trademarks of Persephone herself, accept no substitutes. The terms "en femme" and "en drab" originated with Marcia Sampson/Staylace (OBM).
They get those site blacklists from various sources, and they often blacklist things they shouldn't and do not block things they are supposed to, it is the nature of those shared blacklists. They often just blacklist anything that sounds like it is about crossdressing, because they are like much of the general public and still think anything about crossdressing has to be adult in nature. (TG Forum is probably blocked too, among other sites.) I doubt Dan Cathy actually sent out some kind of executive memo ordering all their stores with wifi to blacklist this site specifically or something.
Chik fil a has every right to block whatever they want. I also have a right to decide if they are telling me they do not like me and where to spend my money. Too bad to because they have the best chicken biscuit in the world. Ok so I stopped eating biscuits for weight reasons...but still I know where I am not wanted.
If it was something that fell between the cracks it is still a reminder of some statements they have publicly made that show ignorance and blind negativity towards something that never hurt anyone. Gay marriage never hurt a single person and who are they to tell me who I can love?
Last edited by Angela Campbell; 10-04-2013 at 03:47 AM.
All I ever wanted was to be a girl. Is that really asking too much?
Well then I am a hetrosexist then... The whole big to do with the views of the owners of CFS is not in whole or part in the policies of their corporation. The haters are the ones who continue their bigotry against a company that exists to make a profit just as any other. If you want to live in your own universe where you are always right, fine! You don't have the right to dictate what everyone is allowed to believe in mine.
Do you really believe the owners of CFA would go to the effort of banning this forum when they most likely have more important issues to deal with than such a petty issue as this.
Egad! why did I allow myself to get sucked into this petty bs in the first place?
Y'all go forth and be petty, it reflects so well on the rest of us.
eryn, ban me please so I won't be tempted to come back anymore...
Last edited by Annette Todd; 10-04-2013 at 04:26 AM.
It may not be part of their policies as a corporation, but they have made a public statement. Would it be petty if they said that they believe a woman's place is in the kitchen? Or that black children should be segregated into separate schools? They supported the use of government force to stop something that hurts absolutely no one because of blind bigotry.
Last edited by Angela Campbell; 10-04-2013 at 04:23 AM.
All I ever wanted was to be a girl. Is that really asking too much?
I had trouble convincing T-Mobile to let me access this site until I said it was for educational and therapeutic reasons.
Remember they are the ones that had a big production number with girls in pink singing "Home for the holidays."
I believe some girls from this site took part in the promo.
This was Dec 2011.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gwHx_LhdWA
Last edited by Beverley Sims; 10-04-2013 at 04:48 AM.
Work on your elegance,
and beauty will follow.
"Closed on Sunday" has voiced their opinion on social issues quite strongly.The Italian pasta maker recently did the same. They can do as they want but they both have lost more than a few customers from stating their positions on life issues"as they see it". I suspect the WiFi filter is as tight as they could have it,knowing their corporate views...
It SURE is my hair ! I have the receipt and the box it came in !
I agree with a lot of the other girls, I won't support CFA.
Stephanie
It would appear that most of the people in this thread don't understand how web content blocking works. Almost no one goes and blocks sites explicitly; they pick a category, such as adult content or weapons or religion and click a check box on their filter device/service/software. That product then blocks everything it has put on the blacklist for that category. CFA is unlikely to have put any specific sites on the list, very few vendors do.
The blocking is by URL, not by actual content scanning, which is why Google images brings up the porn. A firearms related web site I'm active on has two alternate URLs which seem to be on different topics; most web blocking software stops the primary URL but not the secondary.
Feel free to hate CFA for the owners religious beliefs; after all, you are human and you are entitled to the same beliefs as CFA, if from the other side, but dial down the paranoia on topics that are unrelated.
As much as i disagree on there policy they are a private buisness and have every right to block what ever they want to. After all they are offering you there internet acess. You have the right to not fequent the place. Even as a crossdresser i support their right to block this sight or any other they choose. Just like i support my right to shop and eat were ever i choose.
I guess it's my turn. This thread has nothing to do about religion. It's about blocking this website and is a legitimate complaint. Yes I know it may be blocking based on key words. The company has history though.
It's also about a business owner that spends millions of dollars from profits earned by his business to promote hate. Some of those dollars have come from LGBT patrons prior to this knowledge. He may even be indirectly responsible for hate crimes against those minorities because of his stance. Here's who he donates to.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/12...fil-a-sandwich
Last edited by Marleena; 10-04-2013 at 07:16 AM. Reason: added link
Here come the bomb-throwers. If you don't agree with another's ideology, accuse them of being haters. That's outrageous. It's their business and they can set the policies they want. You can choose not to go there. They pay for the wi-fi, you can use if for free, but you use what they provide.
At least once I have read "if you don't like the forum rules and how it's moderated, start your own CDing site." Same thing. Start your own chicken joint, and provide all the unfiltered wi-fi you want.
For every person who chooses to stay away from Chick Fil-A because of their policies, there are others who give them their business for the same reason.
Sorry but I just hate haters (which he is), it does not matter about religion or the lack of. Yes, they are allowed to set their own policies and express their views because it is a free country. LGBT are struggling because of narrow minded views like his, you are part of that umbrella. If you met this man enfemme in person you can be sure he'd be appalled by you.
*edit*
Here is a list of hate groups in the U.S. and the definition of a hater: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_group
Oh and sorry mods I've taken us off topic..
Last edited by Marleena; 10-04-2013 at 08:03 AM.
Time for a change-up ...
The time is coming - not tomorrow, not next week, but eventually - when publically-accessible wi-fi in places like malls is going to be looked at from a public accomodation standpoint. There is increasing interest in looking at internet access from a rights standpoint as the world becomes more and more dependent on it.
Should public wi-fi be treated as a "place" of public accomodation, religion-based blocking will lose (in the US, anyway), just as you can't block, say, a muslim from entering a mall.
I know a great deal about blocking, having been responsible for deploying web server infrastructure (among other things) globally. And while filtering runs *mostly* on rules and algorithms, the cabability always exists to filter or allow selectively at many levels and in many ways. There is NO sense in which a company is not fully responsible for their filtering approach - and resulting effects. There is case law on both the blocking and access sides of this, though the details vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Google it if you like.
Last edited by LeaP; 10-04-2013 at 07:34 AM. Reason: clarity
Lea
Posting Permissions
