Chick-Fil-A

[NDBoiler]

As you may be aware, a CFA exec made some comments about gay marriage recently that spawned some negative feedback, which spawned CFA Appreciation Day this past Wednesday, which spawned "Same Sex Kiss Day" at CFAs today. Your thoughts?

 

[notredomer23]

What's wrong with someone coming out and saying they support the traditional biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Its not like he said he was anti-gay. Personally I think they should have every single right, just call it a civil union. I don't see the big deal. You can say your married but why not compromise with the people who are entirely against it.

I saw a meme the other day that was true. if you boycott this, then boycott using anything from China or OPEC because those countries kill their homosexual citizens.

Edit: sorry I was wrong about China, they actually made homosexuality legal in 2001...

 

[Grahambo]

Who cares? It's a Christian run restaurant. What would you expect? Regardless, everybody is free to do as they please and they did, so non story here.

Protect this house Friday!

 

[ClausentoTate]

The problem is not that they hold the beliefs, it's that they fund, with company money, anti-LGBT organizations. Being against something and lobbying against something are very different. If it was the guy's personal money it would be a different story.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

One thing's for sure -- the pro gay marriage lobby just got a great lesson in the Barbara Streisand effect. Chik-fil-a is breaking all kinds of records this week.

 

[NDBoiler]

The problem is not that they hold the beliefs, it's that they fund, with company money, anti-LGBT organizations. Being against something and lobbying against something are very different. If it was the guy's personal money it would be a different story.

That's a legitimate point. I am a Christian (Catholic) who feels that the definition of "marriage" is between a man and a woman. I have no issue with someone who is homosexual or in a homosexual relationship, so maybe it's more of a semantics thing for me. This is just my personal belief. I would consider supporting the comments made by the CFA exec, but when you point out that there is company money tied to policitcal lobbying in it as well, it makes it difficult to support as soley a "freedom of speech" or belief comment. Interesting topic!

 

[mgriff]

Oh goodness. I love the blatant hypocrisy on both sides of this throughout the fiasco. Conservative groups decided to boycott Oreo when they did the gay cookie, libs go crazy. Liberal groups decide to boycott Chick-fil-A and conservatives go crazy. Everyone seems to want their rights but allow them to no one else. This is absolutely disgusting from everyone involved, the left and the right. We keep talking about nonsense like this which only serves to widen the divide, while our country is 15 trillion in debt, our civil liberties erode, and our foreign, monetary and economic policies remain largely unchanged from administration to administration. Why don't the meat and potatoes of policy get covered on the news?

I'm off to work to you'll have to wait patiently for a response.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

If it was the guy's personal money it would be a different story.

Chick-fil-A is a privately owned company. I won't pretend to know much about business but wouldn't this make it Cathy's money?

 

[Emcee77]

Ugh, I just want this to go away so I can go back to eating Chick Fil A without feeling like I am making a political statement. I don't agree with Dan Cathy's views but I love his chicken. Now I feel like I can't eat it, or people will assume I'm endorsing his views.

It's hard to know where to draw the line with this stuff. If I get into the business of boycotting every business run by someone who has political views I don't agree with, its going to really make things difficult for me as a consumer.

Basically, I don't feel comfortable supporting a business that (in my mind) supports bigotry, but I'm pissed off about it, because really I just want to eat the chicken.

 

[connor_in]

I wasn't going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole, but then I thought why not.

My view on the whole situation...too much drama over nothing.

The owner of Chick-fil-a openly expresses his opinion on same sex marriage...so what, right? This is America; Freedom of Speech is one of our most sacred hallmarks.

PEOPLE LOSE THEIR MINDS OVER THIS!

There is no reason to. There is no reason to boycott them. There is certainly no basis to deny them the ability to open new restaurants.

There has been no proof of ANY discrimination by Chick-fil-a itself. In fact, there have been homosexual Chick-fil-a employees working during all this fracas. I am sure that there have been homosexuals who have eaten their food as well. Do you think they were asked their sexual preference when they went through the drive thru so as to effect how they were served?

Personally, I like their food and eat it from time to time. I don't really give a squat about their politics. Same is usually true with movies/tv. Where I like a show is based on the show and not the politics of all those involved in the show.

So what the owner thinks about anything is up to him. As long as the company follows the rules and laws, then let them be.

(FYI, this place is also closed on Sundays because of the owners religious beliefs, but I bet you they have all kinds of religions represented by both their workers and their clients)

 

[Veer option]

 

[IrishInFl]

Without a doubt, this is the best thing to come from the whole Chick-Fil-A story:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3Ephh9J5BWQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u-zbQ4zLNps" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/P6ugAXpH_tY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[JadeBrecks]

The problem is not that they hold the beliefs, it's that they fund, with company money, anti-LGBT organizations. Being against something and lobbying against something are very different. If it was the guy's personal money it would be a different story.

What is the difference between what he does and what target does? Nobody complains that they use company money to support LGBT organizations or planned parenthood. What bothers me is that it is ok to say you believe and back up one side of an argument but all heck breaks loose if you stand for the other side.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Barack Obama held the same stance for 9/10 of his Presidency...where's the outrage?

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

People are protesting because of the money going to anti-gay things, not just for saying it. Corporations shouldn't have a side in stuff like this.

 

[fitz_bu47]

I am a Christian, Catholic specifically. I don't give two poops who other people marry. I also love Chik-Fil-A's food, and like some other guys have said, I hate that going there is some kind of political statement now.

This issue, combined w/ an election year has made me HATE Facebook.

 

[Buster Bluth]

People are protesting because of the money going to anti-gay things, not just for saying it. Corporations shouldn't have a side in stuff like this.

Umm, why not? It's a privately owned corporation, right? The owner is free to do with his company as he pleases.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Umm, why not? It's a privately owned corporation, right? The owner is free to do with his company as he pleases.

Because it's pointless. Making a press release on your own beliefs is worthless.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

People are protesting because of the money going to anti-gay things, not just for saying it. Corporations shouldn't have a side in stuff like this.

Why not? There's a huge list of corporations that have come out in support of the LGBT community. I see no issue with taking a side.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Why not? There's a huge list of corporations that have come out in support of the LGBT community. I see no issue with taking a side.

I don't think that corporations should be giving money to support a political agenda on either side, including the side I support. I hate hearing about the Chik-Fil-A stuff and it takes away from what matters. I dislike media circuses.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

I do think it's funny how Chick-Fil-A is come out in support of anti-gay marriage while their beverage supplier Coca-Cola has come out as pro-gay marriage. It shows how pointless protests and counter-protests are when it comes to corporations.

 

[AvesEvo]

What's wrong with someone coming out and saying they support the traditional biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

The traditional biblical definition of a marriage is actually between a man and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a woman and a....

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

I just want someone to answer this question. Maybe you all can help.

Say you're a christian...and you believe that since you've been saved, and you try to live a Godly life, and you believe you're going to Heaven...then let's say a gay couple moves in next door, you know their gay, it's no secret, how does this effect YOUR chance at getting into Heaven? Does it?

I mean I was raised in the church, but I consider myself an atheist now...but I still can't wrap my mind around HOW anyone who is a straight christian would CARE if someone was gay. I mean can't you stand at the gate with St. Peter and say na na na na boo boo I told you it was a sin, and just get on with it? Why do gays have to be bashed constantly and denied marriage equality?

I don't get it. I thought God was loving. I thought God was tolerant, and I thought God was the judge? Not Chik-Fil-A, not you, not me...maybe I'm wrong.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...then let's say a gay couple moves in next door, you know their gay, it's no secret, how does this effect YOUR chance at getting into Heaven? Does it?

...

I'm no theologian, nor can I speak on behalf of Christians for that matter. But it seems to me that being against what you personally consider sin, in general, is a much more pro-active stance than simply being against only things that hurt your own chances at the pearly gates.

That is, you don't want to sin, but you also don't really want other people sinning either, regardless of whether it puts you closer to Hell. Part of it is probably an internal moral code, based on your culture, and part of it is proably a love of the sinner and a hope that they go to Heaven too.

For example, these hypothetical neighbors could do a lot of different sinning that wouldn't hurt anyone else's chance at Heaven -- they could kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. (Obviously, the possibilities are endless.) But just because the murder next door doesn't hurt a Christian's chances at Heaven doesn't mean that a Christian wouldn't or shouldn't have a position on whether murder should occur in general.

 

[AvesEvo]

I just want someone to answer this question. Maybe you all can help.

Say you're a christian...and you believe that since you've been saved, and you try to live a Godly life, and you believe you're going to Heaven...then let's say a gay couple moves in next door, you know their gay, it's no secret, how does this effect YOUR chance at getting into Heaven? Does it?

I mean I was raised in the church, but I consider myself an atheist now...but I still can't wrap my mind around HOW anyone who is a straight christian would CARE if someone was gay. I mean can't you stand at the gate with St. Peter and say na na na na boo boo I told you it was a sin, and just get on with it? Why do gays have to be bashed constantly and denied marriage equality?

I don't get it. I thought God was loving. I thought God was tolerant, and I thought God was the judge? Not Chik-Fil-A, not you, not me...maybe I'm wrong.

I'm agnostic, but was raised in a pretty orthodox Catholic home. It isn't being gay that is the sin, it is acting upon the homosexual urges, just as it is a sin to act upon your heterosexual urges with anyone but your husband or wife. Also, it isn't as if a gay man can't get married, he just can't marry another man. A heterosexual man also can't marry another man.

 

[k1ssme1m1r1sh]

I'm no theologian, nor can I speak on behalf of Christians for that matter. But it seems to me that being against what you personally consider sin, in general, is a much more pro-active stance than simply being against only things that hurt your own chances at the pearly gates.

That is, you don't want to sin, but you also don't really want other people sinning either, regardless of whether it puts you closer to Hell. Part of it is probably an internal moral code, based on your culture, and part of it is proably a love of the sinner and a hope that they go to Heaven too.

For example, these hypothetical neighbors could do a lot of different sinning that wouldn't hurt anyone else's chance at Heaven -- they could kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. (Obviously, the possibilities are endless.) But just because the murder next door doesn't hurt a Christian's chances at Heaven doesn't mean that a Christian wouldn't or shouldn't have a position on whether murder should occur in general.

You can't compare murderers, thieves, and adulterers to homosexuality. Those "sins" hurt other people, homosexuality does not. I am not talking about people who are sick like Jerry Sandusky, I'm talking about your average Joe and Jane who just happen to be gay. That's the problem. Being gay gets compared to and treated as something like murder, and that's not right. If you want to marry your girlfriend no one would compare your marriage to murder. They might compare it to death though...hahaha

 

[CarrollVermin]

I am Catholic, and don't stand on any side of the traditional view of marriage. For me, this comes down to an issue of social equality and social justice. These gay and lesbian men and women pay taxes, support our public schools, serve in the military and therefore protect our freedom, and contribute to our governance. Therefore, they should be allowed the same civil liberties and protections as any other individual within our society. This should include the right to have a civil union, to have their assets granted to a partner in the event of death, to have the right to see their partner in a hospital if they are sick, to adopt children that are in loveless or broken homes, to be able to insure their partners, etc. If they do their share to allow our government to continue to operate, then they should be afforded the full rights that any other citizen is afforded. That's just my take.

 

[mkg77]

I wasn't going to touch this one with a 10 foot pole, but then I thought why not.

My view on the whole situation...too much drama over nothing.

The owner of Chick-fil-a openly expresses his opinion on same sex marriage...so what, right? This is America; Freedom of Speech is one of our most sacred hallmarks.

PEOPLE LOSE THEIR MINDS OVER THIS!

There is no reason to. There is no reason to boycott them. There is certainly no basis to deny them the ability to open new restaurants.

There has been no proof of ANY discrimination by Chick-fil-a itself. In fact, there have been homosexual Chick-fil-a employees working during all this fracas. I am sure that there have been homosexuals who have eaten their food as well. Do you think they were asked their sexual preference when they went through the drive thru so as to effect how they were served?

Personally, I like their food and eat it from time to time. I don't really give a squat about their politics. Same is usually true with movies/tv. Where I like a show is based on the show and not the politics of all those involved in the show.

So what the owner thinks about anything is up to him. As long as the company follows the rules and laws, then let them be.

(FYI, this place is also closed on Sundays because of the owners religious beliefs, but I bet you they have all kinds of religions represented by both their workers and their clients)

Great post. I personally think it's a bit silly to boycott CFA for the owner's political beliefs, but then again I think people have a right to (and inherently do) take just about anything into account they want when making their own private purchase decisions. Whatevs. What bothers me most, however, is when the government starts weighing into these sorts of matters. For example, we've heard the reports of certain big-city mayors spouting off that CFA shouldn't be able to have restaurants in their cities because of CFA's owner's political beliefs. That's a pretty scary proposition that strikes at the heart of the First Amendment: the government punishing you based on your political beliefs/speech.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You can't compare murderers, thieves, and adulterers to homosexuality...

I agree, you can't. Which was why I didn't. If you're trolling, then you just won.

 

[NDPhilly]

Went there yesterday. There my favorite fast food restaurant.