Friday, June 17, 2011

Anti-Gay Chick-fil-A

Hat-tip: "M"/facebook

I dunno how it's recieved elsewhere in the country, but around here the notion that the "Chick-fil-A" restaurant chain is operated by a family Fundamentalists is widely-recognized (mostly from the whole "closed on Sundays thing) but generally treated as kind of a "quirk" of it's existance - "huh-huh, could Jesus beat up The Colonel," that sort of thing.

Turns out, it's not all quite so cute...

So, in what probably shouldn't come as any kind of shock, turns out "Chick-fil-A's" charitable arm is all tied up with some of the more radical anti-gay-marriage groups.

Super. One more for the "Bob doesn't eat here anymore" list. If Wendys and Manchu Wok turn out to be douchebags, too, I'm gonna start losing a shitload of weight. Too bad, it's actually pretty good chicken. Not "overlook that my money is going to assholes" good, but pretty good.

Incidentally, this goes in-tandem with an effort by College students to get "Chick-fil-A" instalations out of their campus food-areas, information and petitions about which can be found HERE.


Kholdstare said...

I've disliked Chik-fil-A for years now and now I just have one more reason to dislike them. I'm gay and my ex still works at Chik-fil-A. It seems almost masochistic at this point.

M said...

Glad you re-posted this. I do love me some Chick-fil-A, but no. Never again. Not even in an airport when there's nothing else..


Mikabelle said...

yep it's pretty despicable, I love their lemonade and waffle fries, but will just deal with the lack. I refuse to fund that hatred.

Avistew said...

Never heard of them, but if I encounter them when I go back to the US, I'll remember the name and make sure to avoid them.

(Money's been tight lately though, so even if I was living in the US right now, there is no way I could afford fast food for the foreseeable future. With a name like that, they ARE fast food, right?)

Arturo said...

Is Domino's still donating money to anti-abortion organizations?

Drunken Lemur said...

Zaxby's has better chicken. Just throwing that out there. If you have a Zaxby's anywhere near you, or if you ever see one in your travels, stop there, even if it's the middle of the night. This goes for all of you. We used to have one close to my house, but it closed down. Now there are only two within a fifty mile radius of where I live. As for Chick-fil-A, I never really ate there that often, maybe three times in my entire life, and once since moving to Florida. Oh, that reminds me that it only exists in twelve south eastern states, stretching as far as Texas. Great, now I'm hungry for Chicken.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

After looking at the list in the article, I have to wonder what would constitute a non-radical "anti-gay-marriage group" to you.

Can't say I've even heard of Chik-fil-A before, but if I had, I likely wouldn't eat there anymore either.

Chris Cesarano said...

It's not all that widespread. There's a few here in South Jersey, and it's pretty much the best mall food at my local shitty center of commerce, but when I went to school in Rochester, NY there were none. I even joined a Facebook group exclaiming "The North Needs a Chick-Fil-A" back in what...2004? I dunno.

This reminds me of the whole ordeal over Shadow Complex, where Orson Scott Card was in charge of the story and is vocally opposed to gay marriage, and as such many gamers felt they should boycott the game. A whole debate went over about whether the developers should suffer for what is ultimately a minor role in the game (let's face it, no one cares about writers in games yet). Would the same argument be applicable here?

More over, what if Wendy's decided to start funding organizations that are pro-Abortion, and people decided to boycott those establishments? Would you feel their choices are legitimate? Or would you criticize them because you happen to think (theoretically) Abortion is alright?

I don't know whether I should boycott Chick-Fil-A, honestly. I see no problem in gay marriage, politically speaking at least, so I do view this as being a shameful act. At the same time, isn't the head of Chick-Fil-A free to do as he wants with his money? Sure, he can write himself a check so it ends up being "personal" cash, but it's his cash either way.

Blue Highwind said...

I've never even seen a Chick-Fil-A in my entire life. I live in North Jersey. Honestly Popeyes and the Colonel's seven herbs and spices will cover my fried chicken needs.

Also, I don't think I'm quite ready to stop eating at places just because the owners are twats. I mean, I still eat at McDonalds, right?

Avistew said...

@Chris: "At the same time, isn't the head of Chick-Fil-A free to do as he wants with his money?"

Yes, totally. I think the point is that people feel if they buy his stuff, it's their money being used there indirectly, and they don't want it used for something they don't support. That's pretty much the point of boycott.
Then it's a matter of how strongly you feel about the issue, and how much your patronage affects it. Sometimes, it's more of a symbolic thing (you don't want people to think you support something even if no money would go towards it) but in cases like that there is a more direct connection of "the money I spend could be used for things I don't support".
And in that case, it makes sense to buy an equivalent product that you feel won't lead to the same consequences.

Paladin said...

McDonalds isn't so bad by comparison. At least then the money eventually goes to make stuff like "Avatar."

Robert said...

This post makes me hungry for more Chick-fil-a.
Zaxbys is meh, Wendys is amazing, and Manchu Wok is bullshit. Nobody can make a Chick-fil-a sandwich as good as they can.

Why can't a restaurant fund a certain group that share some of its values?


no shit?

or did all become NOT OKAY to eat there as soon as they announced that THEY ACTUALLY PUT THERE MONEY WHERE THERE MOUTH IS.

Oh well, while everybody else is being "trendy" by not enjoying some delicious chick-fil-a, ill be biting into the best spicy chicken sandwich ever mass produced.

Fuck all.

antecedentless said...

@Robert, if you didn't read, aparently the likes of Campus Crusade for Christ are a bunch of electro-shock-therapy supporting militant anti-gay activists.

But I can assure you there is no truth in that assertion.

Popcorn Dave said...

"or did all become NOT OKAY to eat there as soon as they announced that THEY ACTUALLY PUT THERE MONEY WHERE THERE MOUTH IS."

Yep, that's pretty much how a boycott works. You don't want your money being used for something you don't agree with, so you don't give it to them. Not sure why you find it so crazy to be honest.

The Tickle Phantom said...

Actually there are chick fil as as far wast as calli, and i'm right by the ocean. Its the only one i have seen locally and my home city is so politically confused that it gets decent business. As for me, i'll stay away. The sandwiches are meh and not all that impressive. I'll stick to popeye's and kfc for my chicken and leave the fundamentalist not open on sundays for the politically unaware.

Anonymous said...

Bob, make sure to never eat at In-N-Out Burgers because they put Bible verse numbers on their packaging.

"OMG! OMG! BOYCOTT! Fundies trying to sneak Jesus propaganda on my fry box and drink cup!"

You're a parody of a hyper-outraged militant atheist Liberal douchebag who gets his views from the Daily Show and TPM.

Robert said...


Also, In-N-Out is also the best fast food burgers i've ever had.

Robert said...

@Popcorn Dave

Yes, but you missed the point. Its hilarious how people are just now starting to boycott Chick-fil-a just because they don't agree with same sex marriage, when they should have started boycotting it the second it started closing on Sundays, Thanksgiving and Christmas, since all Christians are against same sex marriage by definition.

Anonymous said...


Here is a good article on the whole nontroversy:

OMG, a local PA franchise catered for a retreat by the Pennsylvania Family Institute...which never even talked about gay marriage!


Typical libtards looking for a boogyman.

Nick "Sylocat" Barovic said...

Its hilarious how people are just now starting to boycott Chick-fil-a just because they don't agree with same sex marriage, when they should have started boycotting it the second it started closing on Sundays, Thanksgiving and Christmas, since all Christians are against same sex marriage by definition.

Um, did you miss the part where nobody has a problem with the place being run by Christians? Did you miss the part where that was common knowledge and the rest of us didn't care until they started pulling this bullshit? That's kind of how boycotts work. I'm not sure why you're having such trouble processing this concept.

Off topic: My CAPTCHA is "gitub." As a programmer, that's hilarious.

Avistew said...

@Nick "Um, did you miss the part where nobody has a problem with the place being run by Christians?"

No, he missed the part where not all Christians are against same-sex marriage, whether they choose to work on Sundays or not. I think he's No-True-Scotsmanning us.

Chris Cesarano said...

"since all Christians are against same sex marriage by definition."

As a Christian I take issue with this statement.

I'll do some quick paraphrasing here. Jesus gives people rules to follow to lead a good life. But he also says to yield to your government. He was no Malcom X. His form of revolution was "if they kill you, die happily, because you're free of this world". Not the most radical of concepts.

With that in mind, while I personally disagree with homosexuality, it's no different than me disagreeing with someone being a liberal or thinking PC gaming is teh bestest. It's just a disagreement. We live in a country full of freedoms, one of them religion, and as such I feel that gay marriage should be a fundamental freedom. Christianity is for me on a personal level, but my Government is its own body, and while I can disagree with some of what it does, I should still yield to its laws.

That said, considering the Ten Commandments and Christ's teachings (and none of those crazy rules in the Old Testament that I'm awfully suspicious of), I'm not even sure if homosexuality is explicitly mentioned as being sinful. Sexual immorality? Yes. But the clearest definition of that is "no hankey pankey unless you are married", and that's even a bit iffy. Is homosexuality truly a sin? It would take more research on my part to uncover.

In fact, I should.

Anyway, point is: anti-gay is more a Right-wing extremist perspective, less a "Christian" one, though if you were to have a Venn Diagram of where they cross over you'd probably have a convincingly solid single circle.

Robert said...

Hey guys, back from some delicious Chick-fil-a

@Avistew Yes, that is exactly what I am doing, Christains are against gay marriage by default, please try to ignore other people who cherry pick rules from the bible and tell you otherwise.


I agree with everything you said. Same sex couples SHOULD be allowed to have all of the benefits a married couple has...... their partnership should be called something else, anything but the word "Marriage"

I also personally disagree with same sex couples raising children, but thats an argument for a different day......

Avistew said...

I think we should take the religious part of the ceremony and call it something else, like "Goddage", so people don't mix it with my marriage - civil contract filled at the city hall without setting foot in a Church, without wearing Christian wedding rings and other religious traditions, and without anyone involved believing in God.

Whatever religious rights are given to people or whatever religious ceremonies they can have is not something to be decided by the state, but by religious authorities. Countries decide what civil rights people have regardless of religious affiliation. And that contract has always been called marriage, whether religious or not, so there is no reason for it to be any different. If I can have a perfectly secular marriage, two men or two women should be able to as well, and I see no reason to call it something different.

Robert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert said...

@Avistew "Goddage" huh? Thats pretty clever haha ....... (-.-)

Religious authorities? You mean like the Pope? Allow me to steal one of Bob's sayings and say "spoiler alert: NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN"

If you don't mean the Pope, please elaborate.

You see no reason to call it something different? Nice argument.
I see no reason for it to be called marriage.
This is the part where I say all the stuff about marriage being between a man and a woman, how its been that way for a very long time yada yada yada. But when it comes right down to it I can't change a definition of a word for you because definitions are 100% opinionated. So i'm just going to go to bed and try to figure out if i should have the spicy chicken biscuit tomorrow or the delicious mini chicken biscuits.

Avistew said...

I meant that religion and state are two different things and don't follow the same law. I admit to being biased by the fact I was born and raised in France, where religious "marriages" have no legal value.
By which I mean you can have as many religious ceremonies as you want, if you don't go to city hall with witnesses to sign the contracts in the presence of elected officials, you're not officially married in the eye of the law.
And on the other hand, just do that with no ceremony of any sort, and you're officially married.

I think that's the way it should be. For benefits provided by the state, the state gets to decide and issue it. For spiritual benefits, it's not the state's decision.

It's hard to say who is in charge of the religious portion. Obviously to a religious person, the only real person in charge is God. On the other hand, it's generally accepted that priests and the equivalent can try and interpret and transmit their message.
What I meant is that, as far as religious ceremonies go, religious officials can decide whether they're willing to perform them or not, and God can decide is they count or not.

But for anything that's a legal benefit, and leads to things like tax cuts, inheritance rights, visitation rights, different statuses, etc, it's human law and not religion, and I think they shouldn't be mixed because there can be more than one religion, and within a religion more than one religious interpretation, but the law is meant to be the same for all.

As far as eating over there, nobody here prevents you from eating there every meal if you want. You're not really hurting my feelings by saying you're planning on doing just that, whatever floats your boat. Sounds more like provocation than anything though.

I hope my point of view was clearer here. I don't think the state or the assembly or the senate should get to decide who gets baptized or have their bar-mitzva, or that the Ramadan or Lent should be enforced by law. these are religious things. Whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry according to a religion is of no relevance to law-making.

Nos, you might say "I'm fine with that, but then anything that is under the domain of the law should have a different name than 'marriage', which should only be used for religious unions". Excluding the fact that every single mention of the word "marriage" ever would need to be replaced then, the problem with calling the French non-religious marriage a civil union is that we also have a civil union, open to same or opposite-sex couples, and it's different and provides less rights and advantages. Neither the civil union (PACS) or marriage are inherently religious, but both can have religious ceremonies performed if one wishes.
I believe strongly in the separation of Church and State and I see this as one example. I don't think quoting the Bible for a legal issue, or using the Bible as the basis for a law (or any other religious book) should be done, as I think laws need to hold water and prove their role on their own, without any religious text, as they apply to people of all religions as well as people who have none.

Popcorn Dave said...

Robert, even if I do believe that all Christians are against same-sex marriage (which is bullshit), the family's private views don't matter. Who cares if someone is a bigot behind closed doors? It's only when they start giving substantial amounts of money to the cause that a boycott becomes necessary.

Popcorn Dave said...

But then, if that National Review article is accurate all of this fuss is about nothing anyway.

Chris Cesarano said...

Robert, I'm not able to follow your train of thought. In particular, I never bought the idea of "marriage as a sacred thing" as marriage has been a part of just about every culture since the history of ever. It's taken on many forms, but most often God was the least aspect of it. The idea that marriage is sacred is likely limited to certain cultures, and even then. There's plenty of marriages in the Bible that were certainly not sacred but about things like property.

I don't know why it should be considered a universally sacred thing now, and that homosexual marriage would "taint it". Marriage is, for all intents and purposes, a contract made in public telling the world that you are going to be united with your spice and as such behave a certain way.

Besides, let's consider how things like the white wedding dress are supposed to signify a woman's virgin purity. How many liars do we have out there getting married in a white wedding dress? Probably a lot. So I think the sanctimonious aspect was flown from the window long long ago. It's not an argument, not a sound and logical one anyway, to oppose gay marriage.

But then again, that would be because there really is no good argument. But this is also America. If you want to give money to someone that doesn't believe in gay marriage, then you do it and you be proud, because that's the taste and smell of FREEDOM! (even if it is in an attempt to step on someone else's)

Anonymous said...

"But then, if that National Review article is accurate all of this fuss is about nothing anyway."

It is. Just the usual suspects getting butthurt over nothing.

No pun intended.

Joseph said...

@ Everybody ESPECIALLY you, Bob

Pump the brakes people. Take a breath. Bob, give me that soapbox.

Honestly people, you must ALWAYS hear both sides of the story. Stop jumping to conclusions and being so eager to be a part of the outrage machine.

"There was the decision by a Chick-fil-A operator in Pennsylvania to supply food to an event sponsored by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which has worked to defeat gay marriage initiatives and has become a lightning rod for gay rights groups."

Now let's recap:

An operator a.k.a. MANAGER of a Chick-fil-A had an event catered, which turned out to be an anti-gay marriage group. It wasn't corporate mandate or from the higher-ups, no the operator of ONE Pennsylvania Chick-fil-A catered two seminars of an anti-gay marriage organization.

So by the logic of Bob: Chick-fil-A, as a whole, supports the anti-gay marriage organization and should be boycotted.

This is like Conservatives saying Al Qaeda supports Obama, therefore Obama should be impeached.

Come ON people, you all know better than this.

Joseph said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

This is a waste of a petition. Now rather than looking at it from an intellectual perspective, weighing the story from both sides and discerning where the facts lie, you've opted to post a link to confirm your own assumptions. Bob, your 27 years-old, you KNOW you must always look at both sides of a story. Bob, ask yourself, would you be outraged by this if it wasn't an organization with Christian values that was connected? You joke about this, but over 28,000 people have signed this petition to ban Chick-fil-A across US campuses. You have so many people that follow you but rather than being a voice of reason to bring the matter to everyone's attention; showing both sides of the story you chose to post one side of the story and a link so even more people will blindly sign a petition to half of the story. You've contributed to creating more sheep, a crime that you have often accused Christianity of. Based on this post you are synonymous to the "Christian" fundamentalists you despise so much with your desire to only research an issue with viewpoints that will coincide with your own presuppositions. I'm guilty of that as well, but I'm trying Bob and I'm aspiring to be a Professor.

I'm writing this after letting what I've read from you, the petition, the company sink in. You'll most likely ignore this post like all others, but if your reading this I sincerely want you to know something: I'm praying for you buddy. You may group that statement in with pictures of Bill & Ted, Flanders' kids, doesn't matter because I'll still pray for you. I'm not saying this to be self-righteous or create a delusional sense of superiority I sincerely mean it. Mock me, laugh at me, whatever happens it won't stop me from praying for you. Peace

Robert said...

^Glad people like you still exist Joseph

@Chris- I disagree with your point about marriage being not sacred. Let me ask you a question, why is it that Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists are against homosexuality? Its because of their religion calls them to think that way. And yes, many people have tainted marriage by screwing other people which to be honest is really depressing. But you said that that wasn't really an argument so I wont go on from there.

@Popcorn Dave- see.. now we start playing the definition game with the word Christian, something that gets us nowhere. And how much is substantial amount? :/

@Avistew tax cuts, inheritance rights, visitation rights, different statuses, etc. are things all gay couples have a right to, I just think it should be called something else. And yes, those statements WERE provocation ;-)

Avistew said...

@Joseph: I think he's 30, not 27, actually.

@Robert: I see, and honestly, I think a name doesn't matter that much. My main issue there would be that if there is, say, a vote about same-sex marriage, the question asked is implied to be "should same sex couple get that bunch of rights that we group together and call marriage" and if you say "no" because your answer is "they should get the same group of rights but it should be called something else", they end up not getting the rights at all, which sucks.
On top of that I don't see the point in singling out same-sex couples, as many other marriages aren't sacred, religious or meant to be either, and these should be called the same whether they're same-sex or opposite sex. So I feel if your issue is with the name being "misused", that's already the case, it's used more often for what you think isn't real marriage than for what you think is.
And I don't know that that can be changed. You can't usually push word on people, they'll just use what they're familiar with. While you might not have been impressed with my suggestion for a new word for your benefit, it actually stems from my belief that it's easier to change the word you personally use than the word everyone else uses.

Thank you for explaining your position more though, it can be very frustrating to read sentences such as "marriage is between a man and a woman" and it makes it better when you add "give them the same benefits with any other word and it's fine". It sounds like nitpicking, and something that could be worried about after they're being given those rights, but it seems like a more defensible position to me, far from your original "all Christians are against gay marriage" that a lot of people could be offended by if they are Christian and don't experience the linguistic dichotomy that you do.

Popcorn Dave said...

"see.. now we start playing the definition game with the word Christian, something that gets us nowhere"

When a big chunk of your initial argument rests on a No True Scotsman fallacy, arguing about definitions is kind of inevitable. But like I said, I personally don't care what they want to believe in private, and nor should anyone else. How much is "a substantial amount"? Since a boycott is about free individuals choosing how to spend their money, it depends on the customer(s) doing the boycott, of course.

Smashmatt202 said...

I eat at Wendy's all the time. It's probably the only one I eat at regularly.

antecedentless said...

>all Christians are against same-sex marriage

Here is a firebomb for you all (if anyone reads this late post): I think that Barack Obama just might have the Holy Spirit within him… e.g. he is a Christian. Let’s look at some basic questions for membership from my denomination, the PCA:

Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?

Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?

Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?

I think the our president, like many U.S. presidents before, would honestly answer yes to all of these. In fact, if asked if, say, crazy things like the world wide flood or God being born from a Virgin actually happened, he would say yes. I'll even go one step further: Moviebob is part of the physical kingdom of God. He was born into and baptized into the body of Christ. Whether or not he is part of the invisible church remains to be seen, but I still hold out hope for him.

That aside, President Obama said a silly thing about homosexuality in Leviticus and shellfish/shrimp. That does not make him a non-Christian. That just makes him wrong. I’ll just put it bluntly: God did not give Israel the death penalty for eating shellfish. He did require such (again, specifically for the physical kingdom of Israel, which no longer exists) for men laying with one another as a man laid with a woman, right along with bestiality, incest, and infant sacrifice (which was, sadly, a popular method of planned parenthood in the region at the time) in Leviticus 18.

>those crazy rules in the Old Testament

Well, those crazy rules where (food/dress/festivals/sacrifices) are deeply infused with symbolism, and are cited in other books in the Bible. They are by no means a bunch of "crazy rules" that got thrown in there somehow. These attempts to revise what God has said idea is based on the same premise that Mormons and Muslims follow: that God, who we claim created all the incredible things around and beyond us, somehow failed to preserve His word among men. Such deception leads to things like denying the authenticity of Paul’s apostleship and what the Holy Spirit said through him.

>One Pennsylvania Chic-fil-A

Chic-fil-A has given all of $1000 to the Focus on the Family founded Family Research Council, (along with $2,850 to the aforementioned Campus Crusade for Christ). FRC is an advocacy group that Bob and the left leaning Southern Poverty Law Center hates, especially since Erik Prince is among their financial supporters. However, as Dan Cathy said, they are not going to stop serving customers based on their life choices. They are not going to fire Kholdstare’s ex either.

Smashmatt202 said...

I'm Christian, and I'm not against same-sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

If marriage is so sacred then let us move to pass a law to make it illegal to get a divorce unless you were raped or beaten, go to a year of counseling, ask the pastor who married you to allow you a divorce and gather everyone who attended your marriage to apologize in person for not staying married since it is a sacred vow or perhaps if you want a divorce then we could stone you to death!