Chic-Fil-Gay day.

[Brazen Endeavors]

Good morning, everyone.  I'm sure, by now, many of you have heard about the company president's stance on gay marriage and their recent Appreciation day.

I've heard quite a bit about today being Chic-Fil-Gay day, where same sex partners go to their local branch and share a kiss in front of customers.  Of course, I have my own thoughts and opinions concerning this, but I am curious to hear other POVs.  Opinions and the like.  If you have plans to participate, I'd love to hear how it goes. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Hmmmmm.  I don't think it's worth any sensible persons time to do.  The guy isn't going to magically change his tune, the core customers arent the problem and the ultra conservatives will react badly (as usual) to it.

Of course after I met the CEO years ago, I don't do any business at all with him. And Im not one of the folks he is against. (Personally I support Gay marriage as I think stable relationships of all sorts should be fostered and most of the same sex couples I know have been in secret for a while. Military couples)

[Sasquatch421]

If they want to then more power to them. I see it as a waste of time though.... All it's going to do is stir the pot and maybe get some people angry. It might start some fights as well, depending on who is present.

Honestly I'm just tired of hearing about it though. I think it's stupid to base where a person goes to eat based on how the CEO looks at marriage. It's his opinion and this eat here if you love religion and marriage being a man and woman, or don't eat here if you support same sex marriage is a bit to far.... What drives where I eat? My stomach....

I'm for doing what makes person happy with in reason of course. Melting down a bus full of nuns might make someone happy, but it's not right so that is out the window. If two people truly love each other then yes they should get married it doesn't matter if they are man and a woman, man and a man, woman and a woman, or a 7'5" man and a midget....

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's a demonstration of support for same-sex marriage but it's like poking a hornets nest with a stick.  You might get stung but so would everyone around you.  The store is a family type restaurant and is it worth showing a group of children that grown ups can act like two-year-olds?  Hand out flyers or picket near the store but demonstrations of public affection as a protest turn me off.

Personally, I stopped patronizing the place once I learned about their politics and anti-gay stance even though I thing their waffle fries could beat McDonalds hands down.

[Silverfyre]

Perhaps your stomach rules where you eat but my wallet rules mine.  I refuse to give money to a company that advocates a message of intolerance under the guise of "religious freedom" and "free speech".  It disgusts me that these people would call themselves Christians and act in such a manner.

[Oniya]

You just jogged my memory to post about crinkle-cut mandolins to all my Facebook friends.  I support the boycott, but the kiss-in... could get contentious.  Many of the posts I've seen about boycotting (when I see any regret at all) have mentioned waffle-fries, so looking one up and posting how to use it is my own way of supporting it.

[TheGlyphstone]

From what I understand, the issue isn't simply 'the CEO dislikes Gay marriage', but the fact that the company makes corporate donations to anti-LGBT groups. Thus, buying their food is, indirectly, supporting anti-LGBT activities to some fraction.

[Beguile's Mistress]

*nods at Glyph*

[Oniya]

From what I understand, the issue isn't simply 'the CEO dislikes Gay marriage', but the fact that the company makes corporate donations to anti-LGBT groups. Thus, buying their food is, indirectly, supporting anti-LGBT activities to some fraction.

This.  And, source.

[TheGlyphstone]

This.  And, source.

Thanks. I had found it as True on Snopes via Google, but Snopes isn't exactly a peer-reviewed journal-level source.

[Oniya]

I back-tracked it from a HuffPost article - also not peer-reviewed, but link-tracking has been a hobby of mine since before I had a computer.

[Florence]

If they want to then more power to them. I see it as a waste of time though.... All it's going to do is stir the pot and maybe get some people angry. It might start some fights as well, depending on who is present.

Honestly I'm just tired of hearing about it though. I think it's stupid to base where a person goes to eat based on how the CEO looks at marriage. It's his opinion and this eat here if you love religion and marriage being a man and woman, or don't eat here if you support same sex marriage is a bit to far.... What drives where I eat? My stomach....

I'm for doing what makes person happy with in reason of course. Melting down a bus full of nuns might make someone happy, but it's not right so that is out the window. If two people truly love each other then yes they should get married it doesn't matter if they are man and a woman, man and a man, woman and a woman, or a 7'5" man and a midget....

I think what you might be missing is that its not just the CEO's position, its a matter of where the money you're spending is going. It's easy to say that politics shouldn't matter, but if you know that the money you spend is going to go towards aiding political movements you despise, how can you be comfortable spending that money there?

I will say, though... this whole thing is probably giving them no shortage of publicity. I'll be honest... maybe they just don't have any branches near me... but I never even HEARD of Chic-Fil-A until all of this. I mean, this whole fiasco single handedly made me aware that Chic-Fil-A is a THING. Granted its a thing that I will now strictly avoid under any circumstances.

[Brazen Endeavors]

Ah, Glyph, I contested the same point to a right wing conservative.  She's a good friend and wonderful perso, but we disagree strongly on politics and religion.  I shared a post on FB about this, and she stated, "Don't be fooled, they're demonstrating freedom of speech and freedom of religion."  My response was, "Of course.  Spearheaded by a CEO that provides monetary support to organizations who try to strip Americans of their basic rights".

I don't necessarily support the method of protest, but I do support the message.  There was a brief moment where I was tempted to grab a girl friend and share a kiss.  Mostly, though, I think I'll watch from the sidelines and stop buying from them.

Checkers fries are way better, anyway.  Mmm...

[Oniya]

I don't necessarily support the method of protest, but I do support the message.  There was a brief moment where I was tempted to grab a girl friend and share a kiss.  Mostly, though, I think I'll watch from the sidelines and stop buying from them.

I'm 100% androsexual (even my male characters like guys) and I was tempted.  O:)

[Callie Del Noire]

Like I said.. when I met him.. I got some sort of 'vibe' I didn't like. There was just something.. smug and a bit sanctimonious about him. Like the religious types I went to school with and my portion of the south dealt with all the time. (PTL, Oral Roberts, ect). I just.. didn't like him and wouldn't want to deal with him. So, I didn't.

I appreciate the idea behind the Kiss-in but the crowd you're dealing with won't respond to it positively. You're going to have them lock arms, and actually improve his business in some areas. I know folks I grew up with who would literally go MILES out of their way to get one up on the 'sick people' doing this to a 'poor honest christian'.

I support gay marriage, though I am thinking it's more prudent to take a slow long off approach in steps that the rigid moral conservatives taht have hijacked my party (yeah.. I consider myself a moderate republican) need to stay in power. Conflict empowers these folks, they LOVE to feel put upon and persecuted. Moving on a lower level, pushing forward civil unions and rights of couples to the same things as folks with marriage licenses and such. It sucks, I won't lie, but nothing worth doing isn't worth working the long road to get. Rev. King knew that when he got involved in Civil Rights in the US.. it was going to take years. And it did.

I know it doesn't look like it now.. but there has been progress. Once upon a time.. being gay was a 'disease' that could get you locked up. You could be beaten and no one would give a damn..the authorities wouldn't help you. You could be murdered and folks wouldn't give a damn. Now, its' a hate crime, and things are changing.

In this case... I don't think confrontation will do anything but empower him and his.

[Brazen Endeavors]

I'm 100% androsexual (even my male characters like guys) and I was tempted.  O:)

Inorite?  I'm married with two hellions, and I was thinking of taking the whole family +1 and share a kiss.

Callie, I agree with a lot of what you say, and I do think we're on the right track.  Ten years ago there was no same-sex marriage, period.  Now, state by state, its encroaching.  Slowly, but surely, its becoming more accepted and normal.

It was disheartening to see the coverage given to Chic-Fil-A over all of this, and to know its continuing today.  Boycotting really does seem more effective, and with far less of this lucrative media coverage.

[Callie Del Noire]

Prior to reading Gandhi, I had about concluded that the ethics of Jesus were only effective in individual relationships. The "turn the other cheek" philosophy and the "love your enemies" philosophy were only valid, I felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict, a more realistic approach seemed necessary. But after reading Gandhi, I saw how utterly mistaken I was.

Gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. Love for Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.

I do not want to give the impression that nonviolence will work miracles overnight. When the underprivileged demand freedom, the privileged first react with bitterness and resistance. Even when the demands are couched in nonviolent terms, the initial response is the same. So the nonviolent approach does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had. Finally, it reaches the opponent and so stirs his conscience that reconciliation becomes a reality.

I have come to see more and more the need for the method of nonviolence in international relations. While I was convinced during my student days of the power of nonviolence in group conflicts within nations, I was not yet convinced of its efficacy in conflicts between nations. I felt that while war could never be a positive or absolute good, it could serve as a negative good in the sense of preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. War, I felt, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system. But more and more I have come to the conclusion that the potential destructiveness of modern weapons of war totally rules out the possibility of war ever serving again as a negative good. If we assume that mankind has a right to survive then we must find an alternative to war and destruction. In a day when sputniks dash through outer space and guided ballistic missiles are carving highways of death through the stratosphere, nobody can win a war. The choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.

I am no doctrinaire pacifist. I have tried to embrace a realistic pacifism. Moreover, I see the pacifist position not as sinless but as the lesser evil in the circumstances. Therefore I do not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian nonpacifist confronts. But I am convinced that the church cannot remain silent while mankind faces the threat of being plunged into the abyss of nuclear annihilation. If the church is true to its mission it must call for an end to the arms race.

A wise man.. this is not a fight that can be won by kissing someone beloved in the lobby of a fast food restaurant. This is a fight that will be one by patience, tolerance..and like the Dr. said.. loving those that hate us. We are all human beings, we feel.. we hurt, we bleed, we live.. we die.

My guiding principal this election isn't to vote for the 'lesser evil' but to listen to the men and women asking for my vote..and voting for the one who doesn't rely on fear. Who doesn't point the finger and defines his foe as the 'evil corrupting this country/world/hovel'.

It started before 9/11, but since then I feel .. we vote our fears. Something in us, as a country, has withered and sickened. We vote out of fear. In fear of what we might lose, or what others might 'take' from us, or force on us.

I'm done.. I'm calling family and finding out what they are doing.. I want to hear about my nieces and nephew, in-laws and what my brothers are doing, how my mom and dad are doing.

[Torch]

I'm not sure why folks are surprised by Mr. Cathy's views. This is a company that is closed on Sundays, ostensibly to give their employees the day to worship with their families. The fact that the Cathy family does not support gay marriage should not come as a surprise to anyone, especially folks from Georgia (like me) who have long known of the family's support of conservative Christian causes.

This is not exactly a revelation, it's old news where I come from.  *shrug*

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's not old news to those of us who are only now or have recently heard about this.  While the company has been in my area (Western Pennsylvania) for many years it's presence isn't a major one.  I've bought food there about a dozen times over the years when I was unaware of the nature of their politics.  Now that I know I won't eat there again. 

I'm 32 and don't know everything, yet.

[Oniya]

I haven't known everything since I was about 16.  ;D

[Sasquatch421]

I think what you might be missing is that its not just the CEO's position, its a matter of where the money you're spending is going. It's easy to say that politics shouldn't matter, but if you know that the money you spend is going to go towards aiding political movements you despise, how can you be comfortable spending that money there?

I will say, though... this whole thing is probably giving them no shortage of publicity. I'll be honest... maybe they just don't have any branches near me... but I never even HEARD of Chic-Fil-A until all of this. I mean, this whole fiasco single handedly made me aware that Chic-Fil-A is a THING. Granted its a thing that I will now strictly avoid under any circumstances.

I don't even think we have a Chic-Fil-A here in the great state of Nebraska. If we do it's probably in Omaha or Lincoln... So me spending money there is a moot point.

[Torch]

It's not old news to those of us who are only now or have recently heard about this. 

Well, that was sort of my point. Companies don't give up 1/7 of a week's worth of profits just on a whim, they only do it because they have to (i.e. state or local blue laws) or because TPTB want it that way.

All the folks who are shocked never bothered to figure out that the Chick Fil A corporation is Christian-based? Really? Why did they think the stores are closed on Sundays? Just for the heck of it?

Come on, no one ever connected the dots?

[Torch]

Of course after I met the CEO years ago, I don't do any business at all with him.

Callie, did you meet Truett or Dan?

The reason I ask is because I met Truett years ago when I was in college (He was the guest speaker at a symposium I attended in Atlanta). I actually liked him a lot, he was very personable and was patient with all of our questions. I've never met Dan (the currect CFA CEO) so I don't know what he's like.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Well, that was sort of my point. Companies don't give up 1/7 of a week's worth of profits just on a whim, they only do it because they have to (i.e. state or local blue laws) or because TPTB want it that way.

All the folks who are shocked never bothered to figure out that the Chick Fil A corporation is Christian-based? Really? Why did they think the stores are closed on Sundays? Just for the heck of it?

Come on, no one ever connected the dots?

It's not so much that they didn't bother but that they didn't notice.  The company kept themselves pretty much under the radar that way.  I don't shop much on Sunday so I probably wouldn't have noticed and most people would just accept the place closes on Sundays because some people actually do voluntarily not open on Sunday. 

It takes someone in the know, like the people in Georgia who supposedly knew, to make a noise and get the bandwagon rolling.

[Torch]

most people would just accept the place closes on Sundays because some people actually do voluntarily not open on Sunday. 

Right, and the people that do voluntarily close on Sunday do it because of religious reasons, just like shops in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods are closed on Saturdays to observe the Sabbath (something that I had never seen until I moved to NYC).

I'm just marveling at all the folks who happily ate their chicken sandwiches last month while never once considering if perhaps the store they are patronizing is closed on Sundays because of the owner's religious views.

I know if I went to a restaurant that was closed on Sundays (traditionally a heavy profit day in the food service industry), the first thing I would think of would be "Damn, they must be hard core Jesus freaks".

[Shjade]

It seems to me that protesting this kind of thing in any way that involves bringing bodies to the restaurants is going to end up bringing them more money rather than less. More bodies = draws attention = inevitable customer increase.

Granted, my thought process is biased due to having heard from an employee at one of these places telling me that is exactly what was happening at hers: lots of people showing up in a "what's going on?" capacity and buying lunch while they're there.

[Torch]

It seems to me that protesting this kind of thing in any way that involves bringing bodies to the restaurants is going to end up bringing them more money rather than less. More bodies = draws attention = inevitable customer increase.

Granted, my thought process is biased due to having hear from an employee at one of these places telling me that is exactly what was happening at hers: lots of people showing up in a "what's going on?" capacity and buying lunch while they're there.

Yup. This will be a banner week of profits for CFA. Between Wednesday and today, their accountants must be grinning from ear to ear.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Right, and the people that do voluntarily close on Sunday do it because of religious reasons, just like shops in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods are closed on Saturdays to observe the Sabbath (something that I had never seen until I moved to NYC).

I'm just marveling at all the folks who happily ate their chicken sandwiches last month while never once considering if perhaps the store they are patronizing is closed on Sundays because of the owner's religious views.

I know if I went to a restaurant that was closed on Sundays (traditionally a heavy profit day in the food service industry), the first thing I would think of would be "Damn, they must be hard core Jesus freaks".

*shrugs*  That's you and probably some others and that's fine. 

If that were me I'd be wondering why people weren't talking about that and then try to spread the word.  People who knew didn't say anything so the word didn't get out until someone who thought like you took up the cause.  Now people do know and instead of worrying about why I didn't know sooner I think about what I can do now.  I don't even worry about why the concerned people who knew for years never made a noise.  None of that will add anything positive to the here and now. 

We have a job to do, to get everyone educated about this situation.  When knowledge like this comes to light in the future we need to be the someones who make sure the everyones hear about it.

[Shjade]

Indeed. In the above mentioned conversation someone slammed the CEO for not listening to his PR team, but considering the likely results, I dunno about that.

[Oniya]

Right, and the people that do voluntarily close on Sunday do it because of religious reasons, just like shops in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods are closed on Saturdays to observe the Sabbath (something that I had never seen until I moved to NYC).

I'm just marveling at all the folks who happily ate their chicken sandwiches last month while never once considering if perhaps the store they are patronizing is closed on Sundays because of the owner's religious views.

I know if I went to a restaurant that was closed on Sundays (traditionally a heavy profit day in the food service industry), the first thing I would think of would be "Damn, they must be hard core Jesus freaks".

One can be Christian without being hateful.

[Torch]

If that were me I'd be wondering why people weren't talking about that and then try to spread the word.  People who knew didn't say anything so the word didn't get out until someone who thought like you took up the cause.  Now people do know and instead of worrying about why I didn't know sooner I think about what I can do now.  I don't even worry about why the concerned people who knew for years never made a noise.  None of that will add anything positive to the here and now. 

We have a job to do, to get everyone educated about this situation.  When knowledge like this comes to light in the future we need to be the someones who make sure the everyones hear about it.

Where does it end, though?

Do all the folks out there making Toll House cookies know about the Nestle boycott that began in the late 70's?  Nope, I doubt if most people have ever heard of it.

Do all the folks out there ordering Domino's Pizza know that the former owner of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan, was a prolific contributor to anti-abortion organizations such as Operation Rescue? Nope, probably not.

If I spent my entire day informing the public of the state of corporate welfare, I'd never have time to do anything else.  ::)

[RubySlippers]

It's a demonstration of support for same-sex marriage but it's like poking a hornets nest with a stick.  You might get stung but so would everyone around you.  The store is a family type restaurant and is it worth showing a group of children that grown ups can act like two-year-olds?  Hand out flyers or picket near the store but demonstrations of public affection as a protest turn me off.

Personally, I stopped patronizing the place once I learned about their politics and anti-gay stance even though I thing their waffle fries could beat McDonalds hands down.

My S.O. and I would do this, I don't care about little Johnny or Jenny seeing us make out for a bit in a restaurant if it pisses people off that is what a protest is supposed to be sometimes.

As for the money part we plan to get one small soda, share it then make out then we are customers and not making them much. :P  And with luck customers will walk out in disgust and they will lose some money.

And alternative picket outside and have same sex couples kissing all day that could be fun and drive away customers in a legal fashion.

I for one consider a counter protest fine that is the American way.

[Silverfyre]

I'm just disturbed by the fact Oniya doesn't know everything.  That's a lie right there. 

[Shjade]

I'm just disturbed by the fact Oniya doesn't know everything.  That's a lie right there.

Wait, what? Which part?

[Silverfyre]

That Oniya doesn't know everything.  She's the warehouse of knowledge.

[Valerian]

Where does it end, though?

Do all the folks out there making Toll House cookies know about the Nestle boycott that began in the late 70's?  Nope, I doubt if most people have ever heard of it.

Do all the folks out there ordering Domino's Pizza know that the former owner of Domino's Pizza, Tom Monaghan, was a prolific contributor to anti-abortion organizations such as Operation Rescue? Nope, probably not.

If I spent my entire day informing the public of the state of corporate welfare, I'd never have time to do anything else.  ::)

Just to clarify, I'd never heard of the place or its owner before all this fuss started -- we don't have any in this area and the first time I heard the name of the place I thought it was a joke.   ::)

Many times, it's impossible to boycott anything effectively because there's so much interconnection among the various companies and corporations.... but despite this, I admit to participating in the various boycotts against the companies that supported Scott Walker here in Wisconsin.  Probably most of the companies haven't really noticed, though I've heard that Johnsonville, at least, isn't doing so well.  (Of course, that may equally be due to Walker's terrible fiscal policies, but I digress.)

As Beguile's pointed out, it's entirely possible to be for the idea that marriage is only for one man and one woman without actively trying to stomp out efforts to change that.  I'd never assume that a business closed on Sundays must therefore be owned by a Christian; or, if I happened to know that said owner was Christian, I wouldn't then automatically leap to the conclusion that they must donate to anti-gay marriage groups.  Some businesses in my state aren't allowed to be open on Sundays, while other places, especially smaller mom-and-pop places, just choose not to open.

Really, if you traced back every major company to its roots to make sure said company was clear of anything you found offensive, no one would be able to buy anything from any of them, I think.

As for Chick-Fil-A -- and I still can't help but wonder why anyone would choose a name like that -- I think all that will happen today is that a lot of their restaurants will start exercising their right to refuse service to anyone.  Based on the news so far, it looks like there's very little turnout for this, and I think that's because a lot of people realize that this sort of counter-protest just isn't what's needed.

[Torch]

Really, if you traced back every major company to its roots to make sure said company was clear of anything you found offensive, no one would be able to buy anything from any of them, I think.

Yes. Thank you.

[Oniya]

That Oniya doesn't know everything.  She's the warehouse of knowledge.

No, no - I'm the Store House of Useless Trivia.  I specialize.  ;D

[Silverfyre]

Use is so subjective. I've found your trivia rather... intriguing and useful at times.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Proof that Google data mines.

I'm getting ads for Chick-Fil-A in my gmail. Yoiks!

Chick-Fil-A = Chicken fillet ~~ I mentioned the boycott at work and our mail person was passing through.  He's gay and as he was leaving the department called out:  "You know all their hens are lesbians, don't you?"

[Serephino]

There isn't one in my area, so kinda not an issue for me.  If there was one I wouldn't eat there knowing this, and I won't eat there if I go to the two places where I have seen their restaurants.  That is not a policy I can support.  The Christian thing, however, doesn't bother me.  My local Wendys was bought by a Christian.  I know this because when I go there they have a Christian radio station playing over the speakers.  It's annoying to me as a Pagan, sure, but most of the time I get my food and get out.  Hey, at least the guy fired the people that were spitting in the food...

[Silverfyre]

It shouldn't matter what religion the dude behind the counter giving me my food is.  It shouldn't even be a factor.  This is food service, not a church.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Whoever runs that chain is laughing his ass off.  You know he just did it for the publicity.  Anything for the bottom line.  He'd probably BE a bottom if it would boost that bottom line.

[Serephino]

I don't know about all that.  Yeah, sure some people might stop by to see what's going on and buy lunch, but that doesn't mean their business is increased.  They could have 15 people come in that way, but 30 who used to eat there regularly who don't anymore.  It'll cushion the blow, but bad press is rarely good for a business. 

[kylie]

     The company's big in Georgia, at least for some neighborhoods.  I have no idea beyond that.  Some natural avoidance here about fast-food chicken.  Or maybe it's just unsliced chicken generally?  It's that one kind of bone I never enjoyed picking over.

The store is a family type restaurant and is it worth showing a group of children that grown ups can act like two-year-olds?  Hand out flyers or picket near the store but demonstrations of public affection as a protest turn me off.

To me, this would be like criticizing union members for wearing their hard hats to a picket line over job conditions.  Doesn't it  make sense to have a display of orientation, when the protest is about an attack on a specific orientation?  Also, why exactly must "family" (who defines that?) and witnessing a kiss (or twenty kisses/10 min. on a random day) be considered contradictory themes?   

     That such a vague argument often flies, makes me think...  Social conservatives are betting that people will either fall into internalized homophobia or just internalized sex-negative ideology.  I am not saying you personally are(or aren't) any of those things on this issue-- that's really not my concern here.  I am saying that a vague claim, "'the flag of family' contradicts public kissing" works very well from a social conservative point of view at least partly because it activates odd social taboos that are not often defined or debated.  They may not even be the same exact taboos from one supporter to another.  But there's this mystique to taboo where people refuse to analyze the reasoning behind their chosen slogan.  It's about family, damn you, so shut up and do or don't do whatever I say.   

    As for me, I may not be super persuaded by a mass, endless display of kissing, but I wouldn't call it childish.  A major point of all this to me is that one side wants an orientation to have status, and the other doesn't.  Perhaps conservatives are primarily concerned with LGB as "demanding rights" generally (and I guess some liberals are too -- think, marriage at the expense of so many other platforms).  In contrast, I think the kissing is simply gays saying to each other and to the community, "Um hello, we're here and we're real no matter what Chick wants for us.  [Ergo: You can't make us go away.  You might as well be realistic and start dealing on status.]"  As an in-group thing too though: I see it more as an act of solidarity and resistance than a would-be silver bullet aimed at Chick per se.  It's kind of odd to argue that a group should restrain itself from displaying some of its most characteristic behaviors, when that group feels that it's basically being wished away by someone else. 

    (adds) Well.... Perhaps it's a disagreement about whether one can obtain status while denying their own membership a potentially very important mode of affirmation and support.  Did the Christian right gain political prominence by never showing a cross until the conservative right courted them as a voting bloc?  Or was it more the other way around?

[Oniya]

Whoever runs that chain is laughing his ass off.  You know he just did it for the publicity.  Anything for the bottom line.  He'd probably BE a bottom if it would boost that bottom line.

This 'bottom line' - I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

http://research.yougov.com/news/2012/07/27/chck-fil-takes-perception-dive-fast-food-eaters/

On July 16th, the day the Baptist Press published its Dan Cathy interview, Chick-Fil-A's Index score was 65, a very substantial 19 points above the Top National QSR Sector average score that day of 46.

Four days later, Chick-Fil-A had fallen to 47 score, three points below the Top National QSR Sector average score of 50. This past Wednesday, Chick-Fil-A had a 39 score compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43.

YouGov BrandIndex respondents in the South took Chick-Fil-A from an Index score of 80 on July 16th to its current 44. Chick-Fil-A's biggest drop took place in the Northeast, where it went from 76 to 35, a difference of 41 points.

Fast food eaters in the Midwest was the only part of the country which drove Chick-Fil-A's perception higher, moving from a 45 score on July 16th to a 70 two days later, staying elevated, and the dropping back to where it was before the interview was published.

[Will]

They've been slammed busy ever since the whole mess started.  Around here, at any rate.  The boycotts and protests might be effective in other parts of the country, but a vast majority of people in this area agree with Dan Cathy, one hundred percent.  So their business is booming.

This isn't the first time Chik-Fil-A's conservative sympathies have come to light.  I actually swore off eating there a long time ago, and I'm glad more people are finding out and choosing the same. 

I know it's not going to hurt their business, but that's not what it's about for me.  It's an issue of conscience.  Whatever money they give to close-minded, bigoted causes, it won't be mine.

And I know that there are a ton of other companies out there that donate to the same or similar causes.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time in my day to go and research every last business I patronize.  That doesn't mean, though, that I should just ignore the facts when they're handed right to me.  That doesn't even make sense.

[Apple of Eris]

I knew about the closed Sundays because the owner was christian. That isn't going to make me boycott a company, because I would have an incredibly difficult time caring less about an individuals religious views.

Once I found out they were contributing to anti-gay marriage groups I endorsed and joined the boycott. While my tummy may occasionally cry out for waffle fries and chicken sandwiches (for fast food, they're actually tasty), my pocketbook will remain firmly shut.

The CEO has the right to spend his money and his company's money how he chooses, and I have that same right with my own money.

[ambrosial]

Perhaps your stomach rules where you eat but my wallet rules mine.  I refuse to give money to a company that advocates a message of intolerance under the guise of "religious freedom" and "free speech".  It disgusts me that these people would call themselves Christians and act in such a manner.

Agreed.

I just want to shake them and say, "It's people like you who give Christians like me a bad name." (Sorry, Justified on the brain. :P)

But in all seriousness, it makes me quite disappointed as a member of a religion that is all about love and forgiveness that others claiming to follow it would be so hypocritical, intolerant, and hateful. And the libertarian in me refuses to understand why religion has to play any role in business anyway, but *sigh*.

[Scott]

I use to eat there, it was good. I don't like how they are treating my friends so the heck with them.

[Serephino]

They've been slammed busy ever since the whole mess started.  Around here, at any rate.  The boycotts and protests might be effective in other parts of the country, but a vast majority of people in this area agree with Dan Cathy, one hundred percent.  So their business is booming.

This isn't the first time Chik-Fil-A's conservative sympathies have come to light.  I actually swore off eating there a long time ago, and I'm glad more people are finding out and choosing the same. 

I know it's not going to hurt their business, but that's not what it's about for me.  It's an issue of conscience.  Whatever money they give to close-minded, bigoted causes, it won't be mine.

And I know that there are a ton of other companies out there that donate to the same or similar causes.  Unfortunately, I don't have the time in my day to go and research every last business I patronize.  That doesn't mean, though, that I should just ignore the facts when they're handed right to me.  That doesn't even make sense.

I would say most company CEO's aren't dumb enough to make their belief's publicly known.  People keep saying he has a right to his opinion, and he does.  The mistake he made was letting it be known where his profits were going.  Like he has a right to his beliefs, I have a right to not to give him my money so he can do that crap with it.   

[Starlequin]

I just don't understand the chain's popularity, no matter how religious it purports to be. I ate at one once, when i was a kid. The food was shit and the place was filthy. Now its got more fans than prune juice at a retirement home. WTF?

[Will]

Obviously quality can vary a lot from store to store.  I think they have some pretty good chicken.  I also think it's way overpriced, though.  A small, ordinary bun with a piece of chicken and two pickles?  I'm supposed to pay five dollars for that? 

[HockeyGod]

We don't have any here. Perhaps I should send them a holiday greeting of our family.

[Oniya]

If any one wants to know how to make waffle fries at home, drop me a PM.  There's a handy little device for cutting them, and home-made fries can be done a lot healthier.

[/hijack]

[WildCat]

Obviously quality can vary a lot from store to store.  I think they have some pretty good chicken.  I also think it's way overpriced, though.  A small, ordinary bun with a piece of chicken and two pickles?  I'm supposed to pay five dollars for that?

The two bolded observations were my impressions prior to controvercy.

Now? As has been said, he's entitled to voice his opinions and I'm entitled not to subsidize them.

[RubySlippers]

My big issue is a sandwich, soup, waffle fries and a diet soda would have over 3000 grams of sodium that is not exactly healthy.

[TheGlyphstone]

My big issue is a sandwich, soup, waffle fries and a diet soda would have over 3000 grams of sodium that is not exactly healthy.

Fast food isn't supposed to be healthy. Sometimes it's (mis)advertised as such, sometimes it actually ends up being okay, but expecting healthy from fast food as a default isn't logical.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I would say most company CEO's aren't dumb enough to make their belief's publicly known.

Or, to put it in the gritty vernacular, only a fool shits where he eats.

[Aiden]

[TheRedFear]

What amazes me most about this whole comedically invented issue is how, when President Obama had the exact same stance on this issue just a few months ago all the people pissing and moaning about this stupid chicken joint were ominously silent.

What's different now? Well now President Obama morally supports gay marriage.
(In an election year no less! With the support of his political base on tenuous and shaky ground. I'm sure that has nothing whatsoever to do with his change of heart though...forget I even brought it up. That was stupid and ignorant of me. Bad Red! Bad!)

He's just not going to actually...you know...do anything about it. According to him.
(I mean...damn man. Not even an Executive Order? It's not like you havn't repeatedly demonstrated that you love issuing executive orders with little worry that they might thoroughly outrage your political opponants. And even less regard for the questionable legality of the EOs in question. You can't issue one more for the Gays you suddenly discovered your election-year tolerance for? Oh crap. I'm being stupid and ignorant again. Shame on me. Ignore my private thoughts you naughty telepaths, you!)

But the stupid chicken joint is the focus of all the righteous moral outrage?

Go fig.

[Avis habilis]

I think you'll find the difference here is that Obama hasn't been spending money from the coffers of the organization he heads to make contributions to a hate group.

[TheRedFear]

Yes. And they're hate groups because they actually work to advance the exact same stance Obama had just a few months ago.

So just so we're clear...up until a few months ago Barrack Obama was a hateful bigot, correct?

I realize this idea is going to go down on Elliquiy about as smoothly as a bucktoothed whore, but simply beleiving that the traditional image of marriage should be maintained does not make one a hatemongering bigot. There are a great many people who fully support gay rights in most issues but want traditional marriage protected.

I'm not such a person. I think gays should be allowed to marry(Or civil unions. Whatever. Same thing legally and the legal element is what matters). But I am capable of recognizing that people who have a dissenting point of view from me on the issue are not card-carrying members of hategroups by virtue of the simple fact that they disagree with me. So people that advocate their side of the debate are not hategroups either just because the politically correct smear machine brands them as such.

It trivializes real hate groups to brand most of these organizations as hategroups. But this is typical of the left. If you don't agree with them you're automatically a hatemonger, evil, ignorant, bigot, racist, miogynist, stupid, uneducated, etc, etc, etc. Problem with throwing these words around so loosely is they lose all their meaning.

And then you end up with a crackpot who takes them seriously, walks into a building with a bunch of Chikfila sandwiches, and starts shooting the place up because he thinks they're a hate group.

Oh wait...that already happened. Guess the damage is done. Carry on.

[Avis habilis]

Yes. And they're hate groups because they actually work to advance the exact same stance Obama had just a few months ago.

Unless he was actively working to prevent gay people from being able to adopt, preserve the ban on gays in the military, undermine their protection under anti-discrimination laws, & conflate homosexuality & pedophilia, it wasn't quite exactly the same stance.

[kylie]

     Not saying it's perfect, it certainly isn't the one-shot jump to legalize gay marriage in the face of DOMA... 

But RedFear, what exactly are you talking about?

http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/obama-administration-policy-and-legislative-advancements-on-behalf-of-lgbt

[Avis habilis]

     Not saying it's perfect, it certainly isn't the one-shot jump to legalize gay marriage in the face of DOMA... 

Nothing the feds could do about "legalizing" marriage anyway; each state sets its own rules for what will be recognized as a legally binding marriage.

[kylie]

     Agreed that historically speaking, marriage (and more particular rules about how as well as with who) have been state purview.  That said, DOMA set a national definition of what marriage could be.  Whether that's to be called enabling or legalizing, it marked a step in the direction of the federal government saying what can be (and what must not) be recognized as marriage. 

    It's kind of up to the courts (if the executive were actually seeking to enforce it presently) whether that will be allowed to stand.  It might simply be tossed as crossing states' rights too much, but technically, they could set a new precedent if they insisted I guess.  And to turn it around, the federal government could insist on a more egalitarian option.