The Chick Fil A Flap

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by skcin

But I would simply choose not to buy their product - I don't get why people are surprised or outraged either.

with you about not knowing why people are surprised and outraged.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Wow. Really? Okay... I suppose it's fine for you to have an opinion about people on the Ledge. But for you to try to initiate a dialogue over a current topic by first insulting everyone's intelligence and coming across as someone better/smarter/wiser than everyone else is pretty pathetic. Fail.

Yes. Really. I'm not better/smarter/wiser than anyone else. There just aren't many intelligent and thoughtful exchanges that happen on the Ledge anymore. I lament that fact. There are certainly smart people who still read and post here. This thread shows that. I even got Paula out the woodwork and inspired you to share a number of facts about the issue. So I call it a success.

I find the melee over this whole thing fascinating. And oddly, the MSM is not really reporting on the exact kinds of destruction that are the result of many of the groups this money goes to support. I wonder why?

The twist in this is the debate over trying to shut him up. I don't think he should be shut up. The more these groups are talked about, the more facts that are revealed, the more the general public is disgusted by them. Much of what they do is shrouded by the "protect marriage" and "wholesome" tags they put on themselves. When the exact nature of their activities is in the blinding light of day, it horrifies people.

It is a huge misfire for anyone to have said they want to ban the restaurants. You can't just shut people up because you don't agree with them. What you can do is expose exactly what the money is doing. Hopefully, this drama will bring more of that to light.

[sparky]

Originally Posted by CADreaming

-CFA acknowledged the Henson company's decision the day after CFA recalled the toys for safety reasons.

I have heard some things that counter the timing and imply that there was dialogue behind the scenes about pulling the toys earlier. Dunno how reliable it is.

-CFA does support a marriage retreat (along with other youth centered programs).

I had read about that and think it is a good thing. I doubt I'd agree with some of the things they teach and talk about, but that is actual support of marriages and kids and that is going in the right direction.

I think it's a shame anyone is attacked for their beliefs. This is America. We all have a right to express our opinions and stand up for them, to build companies, to give money to organizations of our choice, and most importantly to VOTE for the people we feel will make every effort to represent us fairly in the arena that makes the laws.

People shouldn't be attacked for their beliefs. However, they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. Hejira pointed out many dangerous and destructive things that are the result of the actions of the groups CFA's money goes to support. That is what needs to be talked about.

Gay marriage laws will not be passed on whether or not people buy a chicken sandwich.

I agree. It is interesting that so much is turning on this particular subject and how much information is being brought out by it. I like seeing that.

It looks to me to be the last gasp of a certain mindset on the cusp of becoming a minority. They are going down swinging and it is fun to watch. What I am looking forward to is the time when the war is won, and what the discourse is going to be then. Canada has gay marriage. So do many other countries. I wonder what horror stories that has created? None that I've heard of. During this whole debate I never see anyone trotting out statistics and tales of countries falling into ruin because of homos getting married. It is kind of like the DADT repeal. There isn't so much as a whimper. What will the next battlefield be when gay marriage is legal and it turns out to have been nothing to be worried about? I can't wait to see what happens.

[olive]

why would anyone want to put that ( or any fast food) in to their bodies?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by sparky

It looks to me to be the last gasp of a certain mindset on the cusp of becoming a minority. They are going down swinging and it is fun to watch.

I tend to agree with this. They have their own movies, music, etc, and now they'll have their own fast food joint.

Mr. Cathy is entitled to his beliefs/opinions, as are those who choose to eat at CFA. I do find it interesting that some are arguing this is a First Amendment issue, when it's really not. Clearly, it's about the $$$ being pumped into hate organizations by CFA. And before someone says "they're not hate organizations," denying people their rights is a form of hate to some of us.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by HomerMcvie

It's strange here. I live in the most liberal city in my state, and CFA supporters are lined outside our mall(our only CFA is in the food court of our mall). People are posting pics of them on FB. I'm honestly shocked, as liberal as my town is, that that many people would choose to show their bigotry.

Or it could just be they are standing in a line for free speech...and/or bigotry.

I support & believe in free speech and therefore have no problem with Chick-fil-la's right to take a stand and express their beliefs as a company. But on a macro level what is much more disconcerting to me is freedom of speech being manipulated and co-opted - whoever has the biggest bank accounts also has the biggest megaphone's. And let's face it, there are a lot of citizens of the world who still chose to live their lives in a bubble and believe that they are not affected, or turn a blind eye, to this seemingly big chess game for the soul of the country, if not the world, as we stand by and witness an intensely growing zealousness and divisiveness that Corporations and their super rich allies are perpetrating.

So unlike, super PACs, which thus far (because of a dominant Republican congress) are not required to be transparent and disclose names of donors who are dumping unlimited amounts of money (because of a Supreme Courts decision to lift long standing donor limits in 2010) which help fill the coffers & flood the media with paid free speech to elect candidates whom further their greedy agenda's, I appreciate that a company like Chick-fil-la (which over the last 20 yrs. has grown steadily in franchise visibility and power) openly admits its philosophy and activism towards limiting the civil rights of a portion of their potential customer base (LGBT community AND Woman's rights, etc.). Because armed with that disclosed information I and the public gets a chance to support or boycott that establishment and their beliefs. I wish more companies were that expressive in the press regarding their social and political philosophies and causes they support.

[QueenStevie]

Originally Posted by Christopher

Because armed with that disclosed information I and the public gets a chance to support or boycott that establishment and their beliefs. I wish more companies were that expressive in the press regarding their social and political philosophies and causes they support.

Target and Amazon are two companies that have come out as pro-gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-gay-marriage I'm glad that those companies have come out as pro-gay marriage, because now I know better than to give them my business!

[olive]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

Target and Amazon are two companies that have come out as pro-gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-gay-marriage I'm glad that those companies have come out as pro-gay marriage, because now I know better than to give them my business!

at this rate the only places that are going to be left for you and one million moms to shop at will be the dollar store and dress barn

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by QueenStevie

Target and Amazon are two companies that have come out as pro-gay marriage: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...n-gay-marriage I'm glad that those companies have come out as pro-gay marriage, because now I know better than to give them my business!

Say what?

The whole CFA thing is ridiculous. I haven't been following it closely (and unfortunately have only had time to skim over most of the comments here) but why was the owner/CEO(?) even asked about this to begin with? I don't eat chicken, so I can't comment on the quality of the food, but I can say that I've always been somewhat intrigued with the idea they are closed on Sundays. I would think Sunday would be a profitable fast food day; these people must be serious to lose that kind of revenue in order to make a statement like that.

[TwistedGypsy]

Well being from the south I've known Chick-Fil-A since pretty much birth. The food is fine the service is better and the bathrooms are really nice. They have mouthwash in some for goodness sake. But I really kind of indifferent, cause like someone mentioned about Target and other companies coming out as pro-gay, I shop at Target all the time. No telling what other companies stand for. The way I see the world, if you are decent human being that doesn't intentionally cause harm to others I'm fine with you, gay or straight.
I wasn't too fond of Chick-Fil-A today though, because I wait tables and a CFA is right next door and I didn't find out why we were so friggin slow till I got home and saw the news. So thanks alot CFA supporters you cost me some dough today!

[Macfanforever]

I never heard of a Chick-Fil-A joint until this flap started.

[jbrownsjr]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

Wow. Really? Okay... I suppose it's fine for you to have an opinion about people on the Ledge. But for you to try to initiate a dialogue over a current topic by first insulting everyone's intelligence and coming across as someone better/smarter/wiser than everyone else is pretty pathetic. Fail.



Would it make any difference then if Chik Fil-A donated millions of dollars to the Ku Klux Klan? I mean, it's a free country and that is their right, right? That wouldn't make it an evil company, right? They would just be supporting what they believe in.

Yes, that is a slightly extreme comparison, but the principle is the same- the company actively supports organizations that seek to harm LGBT by denying them equal civil/financial rights and by practicing "reparative therapy," which has been completely discredited by the psychiatric community, and has been shown to inflict extreme psychological harm (often resulting in suicide). The Southern Poverty Law Institute has dubbed these organizations, e.g., Focus on the Family, Exodus International, etc. as hate groups. I think the KKK technically qualifies as a hate group as well. If the term "gay marriage" was substituted with the term "people of color" in Dan Cathy's interview, would that affect your stance on whether or not to continue to patronize Chik-Fil-A? And if the answer is yes, why do you think supporting discrimination/animus against GLBT is any different than supporting discrimination/animus against racial minorities?

Much has been said about this controversy and I think it's pretty straightforward.

1. Chik-Fil-A and/or Dan Cathy are entitled to their opinions and are entitled to exercise free speech.
2. The American consumer has a right to exercise his/her free speech by either condoning or boycotting businesses that are/are not in alignment with their values.
3. As long as Chik-Fil-A is observing all local ordinances regarding the opening of franchises, they should be allowed to conduct business wherever they choose.
4. Chik-Fil-A has the right to rise or fall as a result of their chosen position on a controversial social issue.

Personally, regardless of their corporate philosophy, I would never eat at a Chik-Fil-A because I don't meat. And even if I did eat meat, I would balk at the notion of eating so many deep-fried, cholesterol-laden, sodium-laden calories that lack any semblance of nutrition. To sum it up- it's disgusting and unhealthy. Everyone else is free to do what they want with their bodies, and they are free to patronize businesses that are consistent with their core values. However, I also strongly believe that when you spend one penny at organizations that actively support hate groups, you are implicitly saying that it is okay. We are blessed to have choices in this country and Chik-Fil-A is just one of a gazillion other places where hungry Americans can get a quick bite to eat. Why support the establishments that support/condone hatred at the expense of truly charitable "Christian" causes such as helping the poor, downtrodden and underprivileged? If you truly disagree with their stance on the issue of civil rights for GLBT, is it that much of a hardship to choose to voice your disagreement by spending your money elsewhere? Choosing to knowingly support hate groups with your money is simply bad karma.

As a man, "who happens to be gay", I'm very proud to read this post (5th grade grammar notwithstanding) and; I am in awe of your lucid and articulate views. These concepts are very close to my thoughts on the subject. Only an individual can decide what they choose to believe and support. It's really that simple. Follow your conscious folks.

[TrueFaith77]

The KKK is a vigilante organization, which means it is a criminal enterprise. So there is a difference.

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

I never heard of a Chick-Fil-A joint until this flap started.

I just found out it's pronounced "Chick-Fillet" instead of "Chick-Fillah" which is how I always read it.

[jannieC]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

The KKK is a vigilante organization, which means it is a criminal enterprise. So there is a difference.



I just found out it's pronounced "Chick-Fillet" instead of "Chick-Fillah" which is how I always read it.

No, down South it's pronounced "fi-lay." I just read on FB Chick-fellatio.

[sodascouts]

It's no secret that the owner of Chick-fil-A is a Serious Business Southern Baptist. The guy expressed his opinion in an interview in a Christian magazine. It's not like he set fire to a gay couple's house or lynched a gay man ala the KKK, refused to serve gay people, refused to hire them... he just expressed his opinion. You don't have to like it, but it's his right.

I find it highly disturbing that some governmental officials apparently feel free to bar people from doing business based on their perfectly legal private opinions and donations. You can use the rhetoric of "hate group" to apply to "Focus on the Family" if you choose, but it's a legal organization. Last time I checked, people were free to give their money to legal organizations without fear of reprisal from the government.

If you don't want to go there, fine. However, denying this man the right to do business because of a socio-political belief he holds - a belief which is perfectly legal and indeed aligns with the law as it currently stands in most of the country - is wrong in every way.

Think of it this way. What if you have an ultra-conservative mayor in a very conservative town who proclaims that he's going to block Home Depot from opening a franchise due to the fact that its owner donates to pro-gay marriage groups? Would that be OK?

Let's do a "plug in the manipulative rhetoric," tweaking the Boston mayor's phrasing to show what it would be like on the other side. "You can't have a business in the city of [UltraConservativeTown] that discriminates against a [traditional family-friendly] population. We're a [traditional] city, we're a city that's at the forefront of [support for the traditional family]... If [Home Depot] needs licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they [change] their [stance]." How about the Chicago mayor? "[Home Depot] values are not [UltraConservativeTown] values. They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents."

Would anyone here be cool with that?

When this whole "the Southern Baptist owner of Chick-fil-A opposes gay marriage - GASP - SHOCK" started, I shrugged it off. Of course he does. So what? Those who don't want to support his establishment don't have to.

It's only when these mayors started coming out and saying they're going to block him from doing business that I took note. This precedent cannot be established. If it is, where does it stop? Are mayors going to go through each business owner's tax records to ensure that he only gives his money to "acceptable" groups (which begs the question, "acceptable" to whom)? And those who don't hold the "acceptable" views or donate their money to "acceptable" groups have to pack up and leave town? Since when is this OK in America?