PDA

View Full Version : 'Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day' sets record amid gay marriage debate


Williamsser
Aug 3rd, 2012, 03:54 AM
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ap_chickfila_mr_120801_wg.jpg

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/

Chick-fil-A says it set a sales record on Wednesday, the day that supporters rallied around the fast-food chain amid a debate over its president's opposition to same-sex marriage.

The chain won't release sales numbers, but "we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day," said Steve Robinson, Chick-fil-A's executive vice president of marketing.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee had called on people to buy food at the chain on Wednesday, which he dubbed "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day," after a backlash against the company and their president.

The controversy started after an interview with the fast-food restaurant chain's president and COO, Dan Cathy, appeared in The Baptist Press on July 16. He weighed in with his views on family.

"We are very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit," Cathy said. "We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

On a Facebook page Huckabee created announcing the event, more than 620,000 people said they would participate.

He called for a response to a backlash against the restaurants and its president. Customers flocked to the restaurants on Wednesday, many showing their support for the chain and Cathy's opposition to same-sex marriage.

Gay rights activists are planning to hold a "national same-sex kiss day at Chick-fil-A" on Friday.

delicatecutter
Aug 3rd, 2012, 04:01 AM
Kristin Hersh said it best: "so...now homophobes're lashing out by clogging their own arteries? i think i know who's gonna win this fight"

:worship:

cowsonice
Aug 3rd, 2012, 07:44 AM
Why is this issue such a hot topic all of a sudden? It's been known for years.

Archaeo
Aug 3rd, 2012, 12:05 PM
It's obvious to everyone (especially these people) that opposition to gay marriage is dwindling in the United States. If they think that eating at a fast food restaurant is making some sort of statement, then whatever. :shrug:

In 30 years, people who denounced gay marriage will be viewed on the same level as people who opposed interracial marriage.

Sally Struthers
Aug 3rd, 2012, 03:42 PM
People on both sides need to get a life and stop messing with others'. If you like the food, eat there. If you don't, then don't. If you don't agree with what the owner said (and I don't) that's fine, but you don't have to go out of your way to try to destroy the company and harm the innocent employees.

*JR*
Aug 3rd, 2012, 05:12 PM
People on both sides need to get a life and stop messing with others'. If you like the food, eat there. If you don't, then don't.

If you don't agree with what the owner said (and I don't) that's fine, but you don't have to go out of your way to try to destroy the company and harm the innocent employees.

No Sal, there's nothing wrong with boycotts (on whatever issue) and you, as a supporter of a free market, should realize that.

The problem is when politicians (like the Mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco in this fight) pander for polical support by threatening to block licensing the business in their cities, even if all laws will be adhered to. :shrug:

cowsonice
Aug 3rd, 2012, 05:47 PM
I know gay people who work there at chick-fil-a, so in a way, I find it ironic that pro-gay rights people are boycotting this place and anti-gay marriage supporters are flooding here.

It's a company's values, it can do whatever with its profits. It doesn't mean that they will discriminate when it comes to employment or serving people.

Of course, such companies like these do not help with the advancement of society.


Sent from my iPod touch using VS Free

Tennisation
Aug 3rd, 2012, 06:27 PM
Chick-Fil-Hate CEO's freedom of speech to express his Christianity view on marriage? No problem
Chick-Fil-Hate donating millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations? OH HEO NO!

NyCPsU
Aug 3rd, 2012, 06:40 PM
The CEO has the right to express his view on marriage and spend his money wherever he pleases.
You, as the customer, have the right to not spend your money there based on the CEO's views.

The mayors of those cities DO NOT have the right to ban the company liscenses in their districts based on the expressed views of the CEO.

Most of the people that came out were actually supporting that notion, more so than the notion of being anti gay marriage itself, whether the media would lead you to believe that or not.

égalité
Aug 3rd, 2012, 07:09 PM
The CEO has the right to express his view on marriage and spend his money wherever he pleases.
You, as the customer, have the right to not spend your money there based on the CEO's views.

The mayors of those cities DO NOT have the right to ban the company liscenses in their districts based on the expressed views of the CEO.

Most of the people that came out were actually supporting that notion, more so than the notion of being anti gay marriage itself, whether the media would lead you to believe that or not.

According to what exactly? The First Amendment does not protect us from the consequences of our speech. It only gives us the right to make that speech. Part of the privilege of being allowed to say whatever stupid shit you want to say is the responsibility of dealing with the repercussions of it.

cowsonice
Aug 3rd, 2012, 08:02 PM
It just doesn't make sense how the mayors of these cities are banning this company's license. There is no concrete proof of discrimination in hiring or serving people, no proof of unhealthy conditions, the usual things in labor and health codes that will merit a licensing ban.

It's just a company's belief system. Gay rights is a hot button issue right now, so the mayors doing so is largely a political move, imo.

NyCPsU
Aug 3rd, 2012, 11:24 PM
^Exactly.

For the record Ive never eaten at a Chic-Filet and I do not support their views. But I do not support their being banned in certain cities especially for what seem to be political motivations.

The Prophet
Aug 4th, 2012, 01:20 AM
The CEO has the right to express his view on marriage and spend his money wherever he pleases.
You, as the customer, have the right to not spend your money there based on the CEO's views.

The mayors of those cities DO NOT have the right to ban the company liscenses in their districts based on the expressed views of the CEO.

Most of the people that came out were actually supporting that notion, more so than the notion of being anti gay marriage itself, whether the media would lead you to believe that or not.

Most likely, this is true. I still find it surprising how somebody, without even a hint of irony, can actually say "We're open and tolerant so you're not welcome here..." and be completely oblivious to the contradiction. :o

*JR*
Aug 4th, 2012, 01:32 AM
In public areas, the first amendment protects citizens from "consequences" of their political beliefs. That is why the KKK is allowed to hold demonstrations on city streets. Granting business licenses is also within the public area. Therefore, a business owner cannot have his business revoked for his political beliefs.

And not have it denied either, which the Mayors in question seem to have accepted. Tom Menino of Boston said like a week ago that he had "only been using the bully pulpit" ala rallying public opinion, not threatening to deny the license. (Not what he originally said, but if it "merely" delayed someone's planned opening for a week, nobody's gonna sue him).

Even NYC's Mike Bloomberg (of bans on Big Gulps and previously trans fats, along with major crackdowns on cigarette smoking in public) told his friend Menino that he'd lose in court on the license question, if the CFA franchisee followed the same laws other fast food places do there.

But I fully accept the right of objectors to organize boycotts of Chick-fil-A locations if they wish, as that's potential customers "voting with their wallets". Next venue in this war: college campuses, where PC campus activists will try to get them denied franchises, or boycott those that are still on a campus.

Novichok
Aug 4th, 2012, 01:54 AM
'Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day' :lol: Cute.

égalité
Aug 4th, 2012, 03:20 AM
It's just a bunch of radicals making noise to try to hide the fact that that their views on homosexuality are quickly becoming a minority opinion :lol: Have fun looking (even more) stupid 20 years from now (than you did today).

meyerpl
Aug 5th, 2012, 04:37 PM
Most likely, this is true. I still find it surprising how somebody, without even a hint of irony, can actually say "We're open and tolerant so you're not welcome here..." and be completely oblivious to the contradiction. :oSo, if one is truly tolerant, one should tolerate other people's intolerance?

faboozadoo15
Aug 5th, 2012, 05:35 PM
Most of the people that came out were actually supporting that notion, more so than the notion of being anti gay marriage itself, whether the media would lead you to believe that or not.

You must be kidding.

faboozadoo15
Aug 5th, 2012, 05:42 PM
It's just a bunch of radicals making noise to try to hide the fact that that their views on homosexuality are quickly becoming a minority opinion :lol: Have fun looking (even more) stupid 20 years from now (than you did today).

Exactly. It's blatant homophobia masking as a "free speech" rally. Do you think thousands of people (these same people) would line up around the block to defend the free speech of a gay business owner? They are defending the "free speech" of someone who they agree with.

And if they want to promote their christian values, why don't they line up at a food bank to help the needy, which you know, is something Jesus would actually want them to do.

gentenaire
Aug 5th, 2012, 05:53 PM
It seems to me that the president spoke out against divorce as well. I wonder how many of the homophobes who decided to eat at this fast food chain just because of the president's views, have been divorced.

plantman
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:53 AM
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6572/layx.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/layx.png/)

ToopsTame
Aug 6th, 2012, 03:46 AM
reactionary garbage

I hope you have the chance to get married some day. :kiss:

dybbuk
Aug 6th, 2012, 04:01 AM
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6572/layx.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/651/layx.png/)

Maybe because Obama hasn't donated large sums of money to organizations that try to get African countries to pass laws making homosexuality punishable by death. You get the receipts showing me Obama has done something like that and we'll call him and Chick-Fil-A square, ok?

Novichok
Aug 6th, 2012, 04:07 AM
Maybe because Obama hasn't donated large sums of money to organizations that try to get African countries to pass laws making homosexuality punishable by death. You get the receipts showing me Obama has done something like that and we'll call him and Chick-Fil-A square, ok?

That cartoon is ridiculous anyway because President Obama was criticized often for his position on gay marriage.

JN
Aug 6th, 2012, 12:08 PM
That cartoon is ridiculous anyway because President Obama was criticized often for his position on gay marriage.

When plantman posts something, you can always count on it being ridiculous.

*JR*
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:39 PM
I have 2 questions relating to this for anyone who wants to take a whack @ them. And just to remind ppl first, I totally approve of boycotts (though not politicians acting like thought police by withholding business licenses) etc.

One is what threshold should be reached to trigger a boycott. For example, the CEO of Whole Foods Market (John Mackey, a "small L" libertarian) spoke out against the Affordable Care Act, indeed any mandate to carry health coverage; and gave money to groups opposing both.

CEO Fred Smith of Fedex has not only gotten their employees (I think the pilots being an exception) to vote down unionization, but founded the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose main (though not only) activity has been trying to weaken the US labor movement.

Should Whole Foods or Fedex be boycotted? :scratch: Again, both CEO's went beyond just their own company's interests; Mackey gave "voice and meaningful money" to try to block the Obama healthcare plan (or anything similar). Smith's CEI tries to make unionization in the US harder in general.

Is socio-ecenomics a major basis for deciding who to boycott? The Cathy family are Christian fundamentalists based in Atlanta, and the chain is strongest in the southern US. Whereas Whole Foods sells mostly to "enlightened ppl", and (albeit based in Memphis) Fedex doesn't have a regional flavor.

Or is it just the issue. If wealthy consevatives use some of what they make from their businesses to fight other things liberals like (ala trade unions and healthcare access for all, including the unprotected working poor in the US) is that a less compelling cause for a boycott than the owner's view on gay marriage... especially if he's an old fashioned Southern Baptist?

Of course I haven't heard any politicians saying things like "We don't want Whole Foods in this city, it doesn't reflect our values" (or even that their local governments merely won't use Fedex themselves). :scratch: Oh, besides the aforementioned Mayors of SF, Boston, and Chicago, scandal-plagued Mayor Vincent Gray of Washington, DC had threatened to bar them. :help:

HippityHop
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:51 PM
It's just a bunch of radicals making noise to try to hide the fact that that their views on homosexuality are quickly becoming a minority opinion :lol: Have fun looking (even more) stupid 20 years from now (than you did today).

As I've stated before, I am in favor of anybody marrying anybody they wish. However there seems to be a real question as to whether or not the question of gay marriage is becoming a minority position. Every time it's been voted on it's lost, even in California where one might expect it to pass.

It makes one wonder about the validity of polls that show people are becoming more open to the idea of gay marriage.

Of course I suppose that there is a difference between views on homosexuality and views on gay marriage.

HippityHop
Aug 6th, 2012, 01:54 PM
I have 2 questions relating to this for anyone who wants to take a whack @ them. And just to remind ppl first, I totally approve of boycotts (though not politicians acting like thought police by withholding business licenses) etc.

One is what threshold should be reached to trigger a boycott. For example, the CEO of Whole Foods Market (John Mackey, a "small L" libertarian) spoke out against the Affordable Care Act, indeed any mandate to carry health coverage; and gave money to groups opposing both.

CEO Fred Smith of Fedex has not only gotten their employees (I think the pilots being an exception) to vote down unionization, but founded the Competitive Enterprise Institute, whose main (though not only) activity has been trying to weaken the US labor movement.

Should Whole Foods or Fedex be boycotted? :scratch: Again, both CEO's went beyond just their own company's interests; Mackey gave "voice and meaningful money" to try to block the Obama healthcare plan (or anything similar). Smith's CEI tries to make unionization in the US harder in general.

Is socio-ecenomics a major basis for deciding who to boycott? The Cathy family are Christian fundamentalists based in Atlanta, and the chain is strongest in the southern US. Whereas Whole Foods sells mostly to "enlightened ppl", and (albeit based in Memphis) Fedex doesn't have a regional flavor.

Or is it just the issue. If wealthy consevatives use some of what they make from their businesses to fight other things liberals like (ala trade unions and healthcare access for all, including the unprotected working poor in the US) is that a less compelling cause for a boycott than the owner's view on gay marriage... especially if he's an old fashioned Southern Baptist?

Of course I haven't heard any politicians saying things like "We don't want Whole Foods in this city, it doesn't reflect our values" (or even that their local governments merely won't use Fedex themselves). :scratch: Oh, besides the aforementioned Mayors of SF, Boston, and Chicago, scandal-plagued Mayor Vincent Gray of Washington, DC had threatened to bar them. :help:

IIRC, and I do, there were actually some calls to boycott Whole Foods. It didn't get very far however. Why it didn't is a very interesting question. I don't know about FEDEX.

*JR*
Aug 6th, 2012, 05:03 PM
IIRC, and I do, there were actually some calls to boycott Whole Foods. It didn't get very far however. Why it didn't is a very interesting question. I don't know about FEDEX.

Re. Fedex, it would have fallen to organized labor to get a boycott going, and they have other priorities. Also, they generally take the view that rather than call for boycotts of the many companies who fight unionization, "someday the climate may change, etc". :shrug: (IMO, they put far too much faith in politicians changing the laws regarding organizing a workforce).

On Whole Foods, I didn't know there had been an effort to start a boycott. Which underlines it having been a halfhearted endeavor. Also, I'm sure that Mayors, etc. weren't threatening their right to open new locations. After all, Mackey just gave money to groups that opposed the ACA and other liberal legislation, not :scared: "culturally incorrect" ones like Focus on the Family, etc. :rolleyes:

plantman
Aug 6th, 2012, 07:10 PM
When plantman posts something, you can always count on it being ridiculous.

Playing the victim as you do on a consistent basis, is truly being the ridiculous one. I choose not to take that path!

Carry On!

The Prophet
Aug 6th, 2012, 07:47 PM
So, if one is truly tolerant, one should tolerate other people's intolerance?

Yes.

plantman
Aug 6th, 2012, 08:21 PM
I hope you have the chance to get married some day. :kiss:


:scratch:


My partner of many years and I could do that today in a number of states.

We do very well without that piece of paper, but I still have wet dreams about an all nude wedding!:D

Paneru
Aug 6th, 2012, 09:19 PM
Most likely, this is true. I still find it surprising how somebody, without even a hint of irony, can actually say "We're open and tolerant so you're not welcome here..." and be completely oblivious to the contradiction. :o

THIS!

I think it is because true tolerance comes with a price.
A price that many are only willing to pay with lip service.

ToopsTame
Aug 6th, 2012, 09:39 PM
:scratch:


My partner of many years and I could do that today in a number of states.

We do very well without that piece of paper, but I still have wet dreams about an all nude wedding!:D

And Chik Fil A and others keep donating to try and overturn those laws. :lol: You are hilarious. :rolls:
:rolls:
:rolls:
:rolls:
:rolls:
:rolls:

Also hilarious are the people in this thread defining tolerance in a way that a 9 year old would be able to see through.
:rolls:

JN
Aug 6th, 2012, 09:52 PM
Playing the victim as you do on a consistent basis, is truly being the ridiculous one. I choose not to take that path!

Carry On!

In your stereotype-laden dreams, you walking paradox. :lol:

dybbuk
Aug 6th, 2012, 10:29 PM
Yes.

So what about Chick-Fila-A's support of organizations that have spearheaded the "kill the gay" laws in Africa? Is that also an intolerance we should tolerate and get over? This is far from being just about marriage, and people making it just about marriage actually trivialize the situation.

égalité
Aug 6th, 2012, 11:22 PM
Yes.

Yeah okay, Borderline Betty. Real life isn't that black-and-white. You're taking "tolerance" to mean "complete moral relativism," and that's not what it means at all. Fighting for tolerance means fighting to end discrimination. Voicing disapproval for the CEO of Chick-Fil-A's views on marriage is not a form of discrimination. Mr. Cathy's donation of money to organizations that promote KILLING HOMOSEXUALS is pretty clearly a form of discrimination.

The Prophet
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:22 AM
So what about Chick-Fila-A's support of organizations that have spearheaded the "kill the gay" laws in Africa? Is that also an intolerance we should tolerate and get over? This is far from being just about marriage, and people making it just about marriage actually trivialize the situation.

If you're the person in charge of granting building permits to businesses in your town, then yes.

Wigglytuff
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:25 AM
Well naroow minded bigots aren't giving George Zimmerman any more money now that they see what we saw all along so it's their right to fine another hobby. And frankly this is great, I would rather they eat chicken than give a murderer money or do something similar

The Prophet
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:26 AM
Yeah okay, Borderline Betty. Real life isn't that black-and-white. You're taking "tolerance" to mean "complete moral relativism," and that's not what it means at all. Fighting for tolerance means fighting to end discrimination. Voicing disapproval for the CEO of Chick-Fil-A's views on marriage is not a form of discrimination. Mr. Cathy's donation of money to organizations that promote KILLING HOMOSEXUALS is pretty clearly a form of discrimination.

Denying a private business a building permit because you don't like their politics is also "pretty clearly a form of discrimination."

Wigglytuff
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:27 AM
For those who missed it, i was being ironic. Seriously though, enjoy it looks like it was a lot of fun for those who took part

dybbuk
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:30 AM
If you're the person in charge of granting building permits to businesses in your town, then yes.

That is a completely separate issue from people boycotting and protesting Chick-Fil-A, however. You and others in here seem to be conflating the two and saying they're both close-minded. I think people have every right to know that Chick-Fil-A openly supports the extermination of homosexuals so they can choose not to give murderers their money.

Wigglytuff
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:40 AM
So what about Chick-Fila-A's support of organizations that have spearheaded the "kill the gay" laws in Africa? Is that also an intolerance we should tolerate and get over? This is far from being just about marriage, and people making it just about marriage actually trivialize the situation.

The republican party and k street are the ones behind that movement. So, if anyone should be boycotted its the republican leadership.

Blah, I don't get the big deal, no chik fil a, for me. I just won't buy there. I think it's dead wrong for anyone to try to stop chik fil a from opening in any city or town over this. That's wrong. Not ok. Sorry.

Imagine if they tried to block whole foods from opening in the south because of their view on gay marriage? Not cool. As Mittens would say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Wigglytuff
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:43 AM
That cartoon is ridiculous anyway because President Obama was criticized often for his position on gay marriage.

I know that's true because I was one of them.

dybbuk
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:44 AM
The republican party and k street are the ones behind that movement. So, if anyone should be boycotted its the republican leadership.

Blah, I don't get the big deal, no chik fil a, for me. I just won't buy there. I think it's dead wrong for anyone to try to stop chik fil a from opening in any city or town over this. That's wrong. Not ok. Sorry.

Imagine if they tried to block whole foods from opening in the south because of their view on gay marriage? Not cool. As Mittens would say, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yes, but Chick-Fil-A has given large sums of money to support it too. And as I said in my previous post I've never supported not letting them open in these cities, but people seem to be condemning the protests and boycotts along with that. They're completely different issues and I and tons of other people don't want to give money to people paying for the extermination of minorities; boycotts are a time honored action in the free market system. What Chick-Fil-A supporters have done is deflected that issue and put it all on poor Chick-Fil-A being denied a business license for being against gay marriage, instead of people not wanting to give them their money because they pay for the killing of gay people.

The Prophet
Aug 7th, 2012, 03:46 AM
That is a completely separate issue from people boycotting and protesting Chick-Fil-A, however. You and others in here seem to be conflating the two and saying they're both close-minded. I think people have every right to know that Chick-Fil-A openly supports the extermination of homosexuals so they can choose not to give murderers their money.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have been talking specifically about the hypocrisy of self-professed "tolerant" mayors this whole time. Read my first post. If anybody's been conflating issues, it's you.

If somebody wants to boycott/protest Chick-Fil-A, that's fine with me.