DescentBB

Went and got breakfast at Chick-Fil-A the other day--something I'd been meaning to do since I heard some of the reactions to their CEO, Dan Cathy's statements about marriage. Later found out it was "Chick-Fil-A appreciation day", and my family bought lunch and dinner there as well. I wanted to report the experience, because I was surprised/impressed by just how big it got. In the morning I noted, in passing, that there were more cars in the driveway than I would have expected. For both lunch and dinner there were cars backed-up out of the parking lot--a 45-55 minute wait. Apparently they were ready for it, because they only started to run out of things during dinner, and they handled the high-volume in an extraordinarily professional manner (someone managing the door, another person dedicated to keeping the lines moving at the counter, ...).

Thoughts? Did anyone else here notice?

Still haven't found the original statement, but here's one interview.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/edLSNF7l7Eo (how do you embed video?)

I like Chick Fil A's good. It's pretty damn tasty.

So I'm not quite sure where I'm at on this whole boondoggle. It seems that every time someone from Group B says something that someone from Group A doesn't like, Group B must be boycotted. If people don't want to spend their money at a given company for any particular reason, they are entitled to that. However, the thing that stands out to me here is the idea behind the "appreciation" day. Were all these people out supporting the right of someone to say something or were they supporting the inequality faced by members of the LGBT community?

I don't think everyone that works for Chick Fil A maintains the same beliefs as the CEO, so it makes me wonder why this is such a big deal. In a country where free speech is a right, sometimes people are going to say things that are offensive, i.e. Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP, but the circus that ensues is just a crock of shat. For the record, I enjoyed a meal at Chick Fil A on Tuesday--I did not want to support the whole appreciation day thing because I think there is something else to it besides the freedom of speech, but I am not going to start eating at KFC again. Yuck.

CobGobbler wrote:Were all these people out supporting the right of someone to say something or were they supporting the inequality faced by members of the LGBT community?

Frankly I don't know that I've ever seen it fought from their side truly as a matter of equality. It's a matter of acceptance. They're after this guy for saying essentially that theirs is not a healthy lifestyle, particularly when it comes to the concept of a family (but of course he didn't even say that, it's just implied). For the people making a big deal out of it I think it shows their true colors. It's his right to say so, and it's his right to pursue that as his vision for his company (that is still a right, isn't it?). I wouldn't fault anyone for not wanting to eat at Chick-Fil-A for that reason, aside from the fact that I believe they have a skewed sense of right and wrong--it's their right. Normally if someone in the business world stands up and says something that I really appreciate, as this guy has, it makes me take another look at their company. But beyond a "good for them", ordinarily that's about as far as it goes. What gets me in this case is that a lot of folks seem to be hell-bent on wreaking as much havoc to his company as they can just because he isn't pandering to their wishes. Nothing has changed in his company, and he didn't say anything hateful towards them, he just spoke up. If speaking up is enough to get a good man smacked-down by these ★■◆●, them I'm inclined to throw a little support his way. Aside from that, I prefer a McD's Crispy Chicken sandwich myself. Now if I can just find one that isn't pumped full of hormones...

ST wrote:They're after this guy for saying essentially that theirs is not a healthy lifestyle

There are less ironic ways of promoting a healthy lifestyle than eating fast food three times in one day.

Bah! Jesus said it's not what goes into a man, but what comes out of him that defiles him!

We do tend to eat better than that, ordinarily, but calories don't scare me. Like I said it's the hormones in the meat that are my biggest concern.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Still haven't found the original statement, but here's one interview.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/edLSNF7l7Eo (how do you embed video?)

He spouted this little turd of wisdom.

Dan Cathy wrote:“I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage' I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

Cathy sounds a little like Pat Robertson, blaming the gays for our nation falling out of favor with God. So maybe he talks to God and knows what's pissing him off about or nation and humanity. Uh huh. What a hopelessly uninformed, arrogant, Bible thumping, bigot. He can claim he's not against gay people all he wants, but his money and corporate policies are talking a different tune.

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2 ... omophobia/

And it appears Dan Cathy also tolerates sexual harassment in his company.

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/

We don't have Chick-fil-A restaurants in Oregon, but I've eaten at one in Colorado. The food is very good, but the CEO is unfortunately, a jerk, and if he built a new restaurant in my town, I would not patronize the place. The same way I will not patronize the mini Walmart that's being built here in my end of town either. Walmart, who institutionally treats their employees like dirt and pays them as temps with non-living wages and no benefits and puts out of business any other store nearby with their predatory pricing.

I agree with his statement. The U.S.A. is already under judgment, IMO. According to the Bible, LGBT is actually a result of judgment.

my thoughts on this one are pretty basic: I am completely in favor of government recognizing gay marriages(in fact, I wonder if the government has any role whatsoever in sanctioning or defining marriages, better left to churches or individuals). I feel that folks who describe God judging us badly due to our tolerance of homosexuality are nothing short of complete loons.

That said, Mr.Cathay has every right to express his opinion in this country without outcry from ANY government officials, at any level, let alone threats of official reprisal. Freedom of speech works for ALL, or it works for none of us.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I agree with his statement. The U.S.A. is already under judgment, IMO. According to the Bible, LGBT is actually a result of judgment.

I feel like, if Jesus were walking around today, he would happily kick the ass of everyone expressing similar statements.

More on-topic, I think Cathy's viewpoints are sad and misguided, but I'm not really planning on boycotting Chick-Fil-A as a rule...my choosing to eat there or not isn't exactly going to affect the CEO or his policies either way. By the same token, I found it exceedingly silly (though I guess unsurprising) that people would make a run at their locations to "support" Cathy's personal beliefs, and some of the comments listed in the linked articles are just disgusting.

Oh, and apparently, same-sex groups are promoting a "kiss-in" counter-protest this week, with the amusing slogan, "Kiss Mor Chicks."

callmeslick wrote:I feel that folks who describe God judging us badly due to our tolerance of homosexuality are nothing short of complete loons.

Judging us badly and judging us are two different things. We will all be judged badly unless we're forgiven in Christ, but judgment is a separate concept present in scripture where even in this life things are only allowed to get so bad before tragedy falls as a check and a warning on ungodly behavior. The U.S. being overthrown or taken over may be a worse-case scenario. Biblically-speaking there will be a point where things are allowed to go all the way, just before the Lord returns, but we're not there yet.

Top Gun wrote:I feel like, if Jesus were walking around today, he would happily kick the ass of everyone expressing similar statements.

I guess being a Catholic your feelings probably carry more weight than scripture too, so who am I to argue.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I feel like, if Jesus were walking around today, he would happily kick the ass of everyone expressing similar statements.

I guess being a Catholic your feelings probably carry more weight than scripture too, so who am I to argue.

Ahahahaha. You fundies can't even discern between the different literary styles in the Bible, and you're about to lecture me?

My opinion, this is a huge distraction from real issues. It gives both candidates time to back up and regroup.

Try to keep it simple, Flip, I'm still busy being confused about the literary styles of the Biblical record of Sodom and Gomorrah, along with every other part of the Bible that disagrees with Top Gun, his inerrant feelings, and his priest.

A great deal of churches and religious organizations these days are built around community and not a real relationship with the Creator. This is ongoing in every denomination.

EDIT: In fact, I was meditating on this a few years ago, what came to my mind is this

"People have more fear of their pastors than they do of Me, so instead of taking on My nature, they take on the nature of the pastors."

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Try to keep it simple, Flip, I'm still busy being confused about the literary styles of the Biblical record of Sodom and Gomorrah, along with every other part of the Bible that disagrees with Top Gun, his inerrant feelings, and his priest.

If you had actually read said story properly, perhaps you would understand that there's no real consensus that the punishment meted out to Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality. That is one among several interpretations, and there's much evidence against it. Regardless, do you still hold that a code of laws followed by a people three thousand years ago should be transferred to the present age verbatim, when current knowledge directly contradicts them?

That aside, you have already demonstrated in this thread several times that you have little knowledge of the literary styles being used in several books. Much of Genesis is comprised of allegory and mythos...hell, the repeating pattern of Genesis 1 is pretty much that of a poetic myth. And to remove Revelation from the social context at the time of its writing completely misses the point that it was trying to deliver, which was decidedly NOT a literal portrayal of some magical "Rapture" that's supposedly going to happen soon.

This is what gets me when this argument is raised. The fundamentalist position always seems to be that your average Joe can crack open the Bible and automatically come to an understanding of exactly what's being conveyed. But tell me, where's the check if they screw something up? What if they aren't aware of the historical significance of certain books, or of the literary devices being used? You make this fun game of decrying Catholicism (which, need I remind you, essentially was Christianity for over a thousand years), when that organization has allowed for innumerable scholars to study the Bible in depth and properly take it in context. So what do you have that stands up to that?

The true face of the 'tolerant' leftist...

http://www.youtube.com/embed/bPLNgkP9nzc

So one guy acts kind of like a jerk to a poor employee who had nothing to do with this whole issue, and that is somehow worth a blanket statement about "leftists."

Now why does this remind me of so many other TB posts...

Top Gun wrote:So what do you have that stands up to that?

1 Corinthians 1:27-28, and 2 Timothy chapter 3.

Interesting. I'm not finding much in here I personally agree with, with the exception of these:

callmeslick wrote:...I wonder if the government has any role whatsoever in sanctioning or defining marriages, better left to churches or individuals...

flip wrote:My opinion, this is a huge distraction from real issues...

------------

TG & Thorne, I think we've established that you both see the interpretation of Biblical scriptures regarding this subject very differently. Allow me to ask this, to get back to the original topic of Chick-Fil-A:

Does boycotting or supporting a business which makes an ethical/spiritual/social statement make a difference?

I would say that it may potentially make a difference to the individual, depending on one's personal feelings on the statement in question, but from a practical standpoint, it doesn't really accomplish much. Looking at this issue, I'd guess that anyone who actively chose to boycott Chick-Fil-A in the future was offset by some other person choosing to give it more of their business, so the whole thing comes out a wash. And in a year or so, I think the issue will have faded enough from most people's minds that there won't be any discernible long-term trends.

OK. Dan Cathy has the right to be a bigot. It's a free country and he can hold whatever beliefs he wants. I have the right not to spend my money in his place of business. Where I draw the line is when he actively puts his corporate money behind political groups that openly denigrate or deny rights to another segment of the population of this country. Once he does that, he's fodder for attack in the political arena.

As for marriage, civil marriage should be a right for all people in our secular system. If religious institutions want to only sanctify religious marriage between a man and a women, that should be their right as well. That being said, religions in this country should keep their noses out of civil marriage if they decide they want to discriminate based on the personal traits of 2 taxpaying citizens of the U.S.

Dang it foil, I had him right where I wanted him and I was about to deliver a crippling blow.

Foil wrote:Does boycotting or supporting a business which makes an ethical/spiritual/social statement make a difference?

Sure it makes a difference, but I think the question, more appropriately might be, "should we desire to make ethical/spiritual/social change in a company by placing and exerting force on the nose-ring of profitability". If a business is lead only by profitability, IMO it's a bad situation, and while I would be interested in using that where necessary to curb destructive/amoral behavior, I don't see any good in going that route to encourage profitability-based ethical behavior. I would just as soon support a company that does not have money as its highest ideal. For that reason when I hear a company make a positive ethical/spiritual/social statement I tend to lean toward "good for them," now they need to earn my business on a separate note by running a good business. A different consideration for me is that I cannot, in good conscience, support a company that is involved in something wrong, so I will boycott as a matter of conscience (sometimes against my interests) without having any notion of effecting change. I'm not interested in destroying them, I just can't be a part of that.

As a side note, I'm not stupid about business--I know a business must be profitable, but there are a lot of other considerations that have their place as well.

Foil wrote:Does boycotting or supporting a business which makes an ethical/spiritual/social statement make a difference?

In the end, probably not. You'd have to get more than 50% of the people to get a boycott to work. Right now, they cancel each other out, because the one side's never patronized the business in the first place, and the other side always has, for their own closely held and unchanging reasons.

Top Gun wrote:...I'd guess that anyone who actively chose to boycott Chick-Fil-A in the future was offset by some other person choosing to give it more of their business, so the whole thing comes out a wash.

tunnelcat wrote:...they cancel each other out, because the one side's never patronized the business in the first place, and the other side always has, for their own closely held and unchanging reasons.

Interesting. Both of you are saying there's zero net effect, but for completely different reasons.

Let's say we break it out like this:
A = # who previously visited CFA, and now would not (boycotters)
B = # who had not visited CFA, and now would (extra supporters)

TG is saying A = B, to a net zero effect.
TC is saying A and B are negligible, because boycotters never visited in the first place, and supporters have always supported the company.

Perhaps someone will come back to this thread in a few months, once the quarterly reports have dropped, and we'll see.

TC's point does have some good merit, too. I think the majority of the public will probably wind up saying, "Who cares about the politics...I just want a chicken sandwich." For better or worse, I'm probably closest to that opinion myself.

This is my response to a PM wondering why I thought this would affect the presidential race. Just a copy/paste but after watching several of these races I feel it's pretty consistent.

Sure it does, it takes up media time, gives everyone a break. If that is not the intended consequence(may not be) it is surely the end result. I drop things like this and try to keep on point. In fact, every election cycle it's something exactly like this. They divide people on moral issues. When Bush was in, it was all about abortion, now it's gay marriage but both times will be the same result. Simpleton's will vote for a candidate just on one moral issue instead of real policies they support

I was referring to the ideological polarization in this country. Since people seem to be split about 50/50 around ideological lines in the U.S., most people in general will stick to their personal beliefs, especially now that this has became a public hot button issue. So why should anyone change their minds watching displays of protest or affirmation? Most people will stick to their belief system and dig in their heels in response. Any arguing is going to just be a back and forth screaming match, with little change in hearts and minds. Yes flip, that's the way the presidential race is going too. You also see that going on here, and no one ever changes their minds, do they.

But the back and forth is sure entertaining.

Chaz the Intolerant Chick-fil-A Chicken

slick:

if we left marriage up soley to the church, you can bet your last dollar they will refuse gay marriage for decades. Who do you think is trying to lobby against it?

had my chicken on CFA Day. It was delicious.

I used to eat at Chick-fil-A all the time. Didn't even mind the prayers on the tablemats. But since Cathy had to go all bigoted and political in his views, I couldn't stomach his food now. He's tainted it.

tunnelcat wrote:I used to eat at Chick-fil-A all the time. Didn't even mind the prayers on the tablemats. But since Cathy had to go all bigoted and political in his views, I couldn't stomach his food now. He's tainted it.

I wonder if a 'kiss-in' will be staged in a mosque when the imam speaks against gay marriage- or even calls for the death of gays.

I wonder when you'll stop interjecting your rampant Islamophobia into every damn thread on this board.

So on the one hand we have the mayor of Chicago not wanting a business to expand in his city because the CEO simply states his beliefs about gay marriage (of which the business hires people) and yet openly embraces Louis Farrakhan who once said:


“With your state filled with homosexuals, filled with degenerates, filled with disease... With all
of this going on in your state, you should welcome me like the return of Jesus Christ” -- Farrakhan in
a speech in Los Angeles, California, September 14, 1985"

I guess in Rahm Emanuels case, what homophobe you cotton up to depends on if they can help your cause and get votes for the next election.

Top Gun wrote:I wonder when you'll stop interjecting your rampant Islamophobia into every damn thread on this board.

I second that. And woody, Rom Emanuel is a slimy 2-faced politician with no principles, just like all the rest of them out there. Didn't like him when he worked for Obama, don't like him now. Good riddance, Chicago can have him.

tunnelcat wrote:

Top Gun wrote:I wonder when you'll stop interjecting your rampant Islamophobia into every damn thread on this board.

I second that. And woody, Rom Emanuel is a slimy 2-faced politician with no principles, just like all the rest of them out there. Didn't like him when he worked for Obama, don't like him now. Good riddance, Chicago can have him.

He's a typical Chicago politician

Did I say that?

And what IS Mitt Romney hmmmmmmmmm? He hasn't stood ground or stuck to any ONE principle since he started running for any office. He's the king of the flip-floppers, even worse than Kerry. How do you know WHAT you'll get once he gets elected? Sure he changes his mind if he gets convinced he needs to change his position. But will it matter to you if he changes his position someday on some principle you hold dear? Will you get buyer's remorse a few months down the road like I did with Obama?

And we still don't know how the middle class is going to get stuck with his tax plan. If he eliminates all the nice loopholes and exemptions like he claims, which most middle class families now take advantage of, like your family assuredly does, they could end up paying more tax than they do now, while wealthier people would naturally pay less. And, if he starts messing with the tax rates on qualified and non-qualified dividends, the incomes of seniors will take a big hit. He's got a plan with no way to deal with the massive deficit he's promising to fix. The axe has to fall somewhere. He's either got to cut the military (unlikely), social programs (likely), Obamacare (maybe) and get rid of loopholes/exemptions to do what he promises, which is to cut the deficit. Either that, or he has to raise revenues from somewhere else. I'm quite sure HE doesn't want to pony up any more than he does now and since the biggest tax sector of our economy is the middle class.............. Do the math. He's promising the moon, and someone is going to get cheese.

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

I'm fine paying more income tax. As long as the 51 percent of the country that doesn't pay any federal income taxes at all start paying some.

Ass, Gas, or Grass nobody rides for free

Foil wrote:Interesting. Both of you are saying there's zero net effect, but for completely different reasons.

Let's say we break it out like this:
A = # who previously visited CFA, and now would not (boycotters)
B = # who had not visited CFA, and now would (extra supporters)

TG is saying A = B, to a net zero effect.
TC is saying A and B are negligible, because boycotters never visited in the first place, and supporters have always supported the company.

Perhaps someone will come back to this thread in a few months, once the quarterly reports have dropped, and we'll see.

I'm not going to try to predict what will come of supporters/boycotters, I do think that individuals should generally make a habit of voting with their dollars. That's on an individual level, however.

I also think there's a fairly significant difference between the CEO of a company saying/doing something as an individual and a company saying/doing something when it comes to the political end of things. For example, Home Depot officially sponsors LGBT events which makes a fairly significant difference to me as compared to Jeffrey Bezos pledging his personal money to the LGBT cause. I avoid giving business to HD, but don't particularly plan to stop buying from Amazon. I see a difference between the entity of an organization (which I think would generally stay neutral on political issues) and the individuals that make up the organization, who will inevitably have stances concerning political issues.

All that being said: I'm most annoyed at the big to-do that everyone's making this into. In my opinion, we should either take the ball away from everyone or give everyone a ball to play with. The LGBT community wants the word "marriage" - so be it... I don't particularly care at this point. Don't expect me to view it as some sacred thing (as if I'd view anything that the government does as sacred) but let's just stop wasting our time, energy, and money on this crap and turn to more important things like people starving and people being exploited/abused.

CUDA wrote:I'm fine paying more income tax. As long as the 51 percent of the country that doesn't pay any federal income taxes at all start paying some.

Ass, Gas, or Grass nobody rides for free

Considering that most of those 51 percent are poor and DO pay a lot of OTHER taxes, like payroll and state and local taxes, yeah sure, let's stick 'em and bleed 'em dry with even MORE income taxes on what little income they DO make, while ne'er do well rich trust fund babies like Romney, who clearly CAN afford it, hide it anyway they can. You dislike people who ride for free. What about people like Romney? He's never physically worked hard in his life, like you or I have, to make his dime. Meanwhile his types get a free ride by dodging taxes with offshore accounts and clever investment schemes. Me thinks your resentment is misplaced.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Romney's even in the doghouse in Italy for tax evasion. Once a crook, always a crook.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-0 ... taxes.html