Chic-Fil-Gay day.

[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.