Wednesday, August 01, 2012

Today Is #OtherChicken Day

I've been retweeting (when able) people's photos of themselves buying/eating lunch at any Chik-Fil-A rival today as a little counter-protest against "Chik-Fil-A Appreciation Day;" wherein Republican/Conservative politicians have been encouraging followers to patronize said restaurant chain to show their solidarity with bigotry and anti-gay discrimination.

So far, this is my favorite, tweeted by @laputanwmachine

62 comments:

Tracy said...

I think I love that one too

Aiddon said...

fun times. I hope this does become a thing. Also, doesn't the owner of Domino's donate money to some organization that's against gay marriage?

Anonymous said...

@Aiddon....yes, as do the owners of Carl Jr's/Hardee's.

Aiddon said...

Well, glad I don't eat at Hardee's

Shark said...

Should we care if the owners of fast food restaurants donate money to organizations against gay marriage?

Fabian said...

@Shark

You might wan't to take a look at this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iWwHh5I9y6g/UBln6ob23fI/AAAAAAABhuI/CqSQ-1ix1GI/s1600/CFAUgandaLarge.jpg

It's ugly, I know.

UNHchabo said...

I support this campaign, but what makes me uncomfortable is the cities who are announcing that they will block Chik-Fil-A locations from being built.

Do we really want any government to be able to block a legal business from opening in their town based on the religious views of the owner? What would stop a town from blocking all non-Christian business from opening up?

Anonymous said...

Discrimination? As in people were denied jobs or service because of their sexual orientation? Or as in it's easier to pretend the opposition hates us than to actually make an argument?

People are free to do their little boycotts against Chick-fil-a, Oreo, or whomever else. If people want to be political about their food, that's their decision.

But when the government starts going after a business--which does not actually have discriminatory policies--for a freaking thought crime, you better believe I'm backing up the business. Anyone who believes ungoodthink is a sound reason for government coercion is a fool.

Matthew said...

@Shark

We do if those organisations use that money to lobby against Gay Rights.

FCR organization btw, used some of that money to try and get US law makers to not decry Uganda's "KILL THE GAY" law

Basically the goal of those organizations is to make it illegal to be gay, if not a capital crime.

They are trying to mandate their beliefs into law.

People would throw a fit if I was a vegan (though I'm not) and I tried to make beef illegal.

Anonymous said...

Fuck that! I want some Chik-Fil-A right now. I'd suck a dick for some Chik-Fil-A sandwiches.

Megabyte said...

You know what? I find it sad as fuck that people have made chicken sandwhiches political. That is all.

Anonymous said...

Nobody who's viewing this comment from an apple computer made from child labor has a right to complain about a fast food chain that's spending their money in a way that reflects their own beliefs.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Matthew

"People would throw a fit if I was a vegan (though I'm not) and I tried to make beef illegal."

Or, people would pretty much ignore it because vegans impotently trying to illegalize meat is so common that it isn't worth paying attention to any more.

James said...

And Bob, you support a president who thinks gay marriage should be left up to the state. You hypocrite.

lordoffaceplam said...

James you're a troll with a half baked political ideology. both you and it don't belong here or anywhere else for that matter so just go the fuck away from this site and this whole damn planet while your at it you self-righteous little shit!

James said...

lordoffacepalm: fuck you. I will call out Bob for his arrogance, hypocrisy, and holier-than-thou bullshit every day until he decides to ban me.

Bob: YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. You don't care about the rights of others - you just want to look self righteous.

Anonymous said...

@James
Bob can't ban you because Blogspot does not allow the banning of individual commenters or I.P addresses, you idiot.

Also James, you are mentally sick. I have read your twitter posts and what you have on your Facebook. You aren't hard to trackdown, what with your insane ramblings.

So, if anyone would like to bother James, you can see him at facebook.com/james.bevan.161

And if anyone lives near him, please report him to the police. He is dangerous.

James said...

Anonymous: I am not dangerous. I am not a violent person. I fight with words and ideas, not weapons or fists. Some of my thoughts are out there, but I'm far from insane.

Also, HOW am I "mentally sick" for saying we should move towards a more libertarian style of government?

Dustin said...

You're not mentally insane, James, but you are a gigantic asshole.

lordoffaceplam said...

@Anonymous "please report him to the police" I think I love you.

Dustin said...

"You know what? I find it sad as fuck that people have made chicken sandwhiches political. That is all."

That's reductive, intellectually dishonest, and you damn well know it is.

David (The Pants) said...

@UNHchabo the people. The people of a city will protest if a business is being banned by their government. If the people think that the grounds to ban this business are stupid.

But the people of Chicago and Boston don't think it's bad to ban a business that gives money to people who want to restrict the rights of human beings. Christian or not, the people aren't rallying against the mayor of Boston being a BAMF and making his decision.

Anonymous said...

Bob, while I appreciate you standing up for your ideals, I gotta say you should be the last person eating fast food.

Anonymous said...

@lordoffacepalm
Why thank you!

@James
Yes you are dangerous. Do you even know what Cyber Harrassment and Cyber Stalking is? It is a actual, fucking crime you ignoramus. Here is a link for you so you can educate yourself.
ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspex
I hope that link works, but if not, just google it you dumbass.

@Moviebob
Bob, you have a case against James that you could easily win if you reported him. Please just think about.

@Everyone else who is reading this and their pet goats
Please just report the fucker to the authorities or the FBI. I already have.

UNHchabo said...

@David,

Banning a business from setting up in a city by majority rule is dangerous. Does a city have the power to ban businesses that supply birth control to their employees? Sure, maybe there are some cities where more than 50% of the population is okay with that, but that doesn't make it a good thing.

a.k.a.A.M.V.P said...

"But if anyone says to you, 'This was offered to idols,' do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake." - 1 Corinthians, 10:28.

Admittedly, that's not the only reason I didn't get Chick-fil-a today. I've already had Bojangles this past Monday (startling how much food they'll give you for $6) and a delicious chicken breast grilled under bacon and ham yesterday, so I'm pretty much poultried out at this point.

Laserkid said...

I support the people who ate ate shick fil a today.

I also support those of you who did not.

I also support those of you who ate elsewhwere as a statment.

All of you are making your opinions known through $, and thats beautiful for all of you.

What I do not support is a government deciding that an owners opinion (not buisiness practice mind you, just opinion) is so offensive that they must band the owners buisiness form operating.

What would happen if somepodunk dipshits decided to ban Ben & Jerry's for the creators being gay. It's be just as ridiculous and stupid, but a lot of you would jump to immediatly call the move wrong (which it would be).

Freedom of speech does not just apply to those you agree with, it applies to everyone.

Even those that donate money to causes you may not like - you have the right to make your own voice ehard by boycotting them and should do so if you feel that way. They still have the right to operate so long as they are following the law, and the law cannot dictate what is and is not good opinion.

Megabyte said...

@Dustin

"That's reductive, intellectually dishonest, and you damn well know it is."

Is it? You have a whole shit-ton of people who are boycotting a chicken sandwhich over the politics of the CEO (not even the company, the CEO's personal politics), and a whole shit-ton of other people who took time out of their lives TODAY to show those people that their politics are wrong by *gasp* BUYING THOSE SAME CHICKEN SANDWHICHES!

Today, we have actually reached a point where the only difference between the phrase "finding politics in a ham sandwhich" and literal life out there is the meat in the god damn sandwhich.

So I say again: "You know what? I find it sad as fuck that people have made chicken sandwhiches political. That is all."

Anonymous said...

@Megabyte

To be fair, I ate at Chick-fil-a today, not because of the CEO's politics, but because of government coercion against the company. People can have their tiny, meaningless protest against any cookie or sandwich they like, but the moment the government steps in because of the beliefs, not policies or actions, of the owner, I'm going to stand with them.

Anonymous said...

@Everything involving James

There are ways to block particular commenters and IP addresses, but it involves technical bullshit Bob apparently doesn't care to involve himself with. At least if he decides to prosecute, we have three services to subpoena, two of which are really invasive when it comes to privacy. Since Bob obviously isn't going to give in to the childish demands, there's no scenario where James "wins" and if he was smart, he'd get the fuck away. Shame he isn't.

As has been said numerous times, allowing people like James to stay around unchecked is very bad for a community. He's an extremist that sets a pretty nasty tone by derailing topics, throwing tantrums, and insulting everybody. It drives away people that don't want to involve themselves with that kind of shit. We only need to look at sites like TV Tropes and 4chan to see what unchecked extremism leads to.

Dustin said...

@Megabyte

I rest my case. You are completely unwilling to address what is at the heart of this: bigots supporting bigotry. I'm sad that I have to explain that. The chicken is just the medium. It HAD to come down to the chicken, as ridiculous as that is. This was democracy and the first amendment in action. I vote with my money, you vote with yours. They vote with their money, I vote with mine. That is SO American. That you want to dismiss ALL of this is what's sad. Yes it's ridiculous, but so is life. This is exactly the way discourse goes in a free country. You vote with your voice and your money, I vote with mine. No one has to be happy with the oppositions opinion, but that we are allowed to have it at all is wonderful and oh so human. I'd rather we vote with chicken than with violence.

So yes, reductive and intellectually dishonest, you bet your fuckin ass.

Saarai'ari said...

Don't have a twitter account to post a pic of me doing it, but I did go to the Hooters in the city next to my hometown to get their delicious chicken wings. And since it was "Wingsday" on their menu, the wings did cost less so that's a good bonus. That and of course the bonus of being in a restaurant who's waitresses are hot. Especially the bartender today named Brandy. :)

Redd the Sock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Redd the Sock said...

No Chick-Fill-As here to boycott, but ate a KCF sandwhich in solidarity.

As for the larger politcal issue, I find it downright funny. "How dare we be denied what other people are allowed just becuae of who we are and what we beleive." Talk about your irony. Now I only wish the politicians behind it were trying to make that point that it isn't fun to be on the discriminated side, instead of actually being discriminatory themselves. Still, watching people try and defend an organization inalienable rights while that same organization donates money to groups that want to deny and take away rights of homosexuals makes for a good time. Who's going for the gold in moral gymnastics?

Cam said...

Nothing says America like persecuting minorities and eating shitty fried food.


Is it any surprise that every other country thinks we are a fucking joke.

I'm so glad I don't live on the mainland anymore. :-/

Andrew Eisen said...

"Kiss Mor Chiks" counter-protest scheduled for Friday. Methinks we'll get some better pics out of that one!

TheAlmightyNarf said...

Ok, I've been hearing a lot of conflicting stories so I'm hoping some on here could perhaps clear things up for me...

Has the Chick Fil-a corporation itself actually discriminated in any way?

Has the Chick Fil-a corporation itself donated any money to anti-gay-marriage organizations or were the donations independently made by people associated with the corporation?

Has the Chick Fil-a corporation itself directly said anything at all on gay-marriage?

Anonymous said...

Narf, I love you. You are my hero.

Ralphael said...

HAHA.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Chick-fil-A-customers-show-support-for-CEO-s-marriage-beliefs/-/1735978/15923130/-/l0mcuyz/-/index.html

Andrew Eisen said...

Narf,

Discriminated as in refused to hire or fired someone due to their sexual orientation? Not that I've heard. Although one woman is suing for gender discrimination.

Donations to groups against gay marriage? Yes.

Said anything on gay marriage? Yes.

Anonymous said...

@ Narf

http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201207020001

So, for me, the issue is that I don't want to buy food from people who will use the profits to fund hate groups.

If the KKK opened a barbecue stand, I would also not buy their food. This case strikes me as very non-complicated unless you oppose gay marriage, and then it's complicated by the fact that in order to understand it you first have to stop being a bigot.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Andrew Eisen

What did they say, specifically? I've only managed to find one quote being thrown around, and it's a bit of a stretch to consider it "anti-gay".

@ Anonymous

Well, the "complication" is whether the outrage is being directed in the right direction (I'm starting to think it is), and whether the outrage is actually accomplishing anything (which, considering this has easily been the most profitable week Chick Fil-A has ever had, it most certainly is not).

Anonymous said...

My outrage at the idea that because you run a fast food chicken franchise you have the right to tell people who love each other that they're not allowed to get married because they're abominations in the eyes of God has nothing to do with what that outrage will accomplish and everything to do with the fact that that that idea and everything associated with it is utterly repulsive.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bob,

Though I am an occasional commentator, I'm posting as an anonymous user to protect both my identity and that of my 16-year-old sister. Why? Because she had the courage to come out to me as homosexual this very night (August 1st), and I am the first one she has told in our primarily conservative household. I have always supported gay rights, but it touched me in a way I don't really believe I've felt before when she came out and began to sob in my arms.

I tweeted a photo of my anti-CFA support to you today, and in fact you retweeted it, so thank you. It's not a lot, I know, but it means something.

I've also just lost about six friends that I've known for years due to my stance on the CFA debacle. I don't know if I'll ever regain them as friends, but I'm more concerned for the rights and health of my little sister.

I very much question a line of thinking that propagates such fear in a small girl, one who has never known great peer anxiety or a lack of outward kindness.

It's funny, I picture supporters of CFA saying it sort of like this...

"How dare you revoke our rights to build Chic-fil-A stores based on beliefs you hold?! That's just wrong."

In closing, I'd like to thank you as I usually do when posting for your hard work and intelligent, blunt opinions. I don't always agree, but I feel I can create a much more educated stance when taking your opinions into account.

Anonymous said...

Saw this on facebook. Good read.

"With the recent Chick-fil-A controversy, I now realize modern man is almost incapable of distinguishing between these four things:

1. Approval and Implicit Condemnation. Just because you support one thing doesn't mean you're viciously antagonist toward another (i.e. "anti-" the opposite.) If Dan Cathy supports traditi
onal marriage between one man and one woman, that doesn't mean he ipso facto "hates gay people" or is "anti-gay."

2. Disagreeing and Hating. I disagree with ideas all the time. This does not necessitate hating the person who proposed them. Your beliefs are not your identity.

3. Beliefs and People. This is somewhat similar to #2. Rejecting a belief does not equal rejecting a person. You can reject the validity of same-sex marriage on philosophical and social grounds while still profoundly loving people with same-sex attraction. I reject at least some opinions or actions from each of my friends (such as "double-rainbows are boring" or "playing the lottery is wise.") They in turn reject plenty of my own. But we don't hate each other. In fact, just the opposite is true. Our relationship is grounded on a communion of persons, not a symmetry of beliefs.

4. Bigotry and Disagreement. The definition of bigot is "one unwilling to tolerate opinions different than his own"--not "someone who disagrees with me." Toleration doesn't require agreement, merely recognition and respect. (Ironically, those quickest to accuse people of bigotry are often bigoted about their flawed definition of "bigot.")

The solution to these failures is not more dialogue. It's better philosophy, logic, and reason. Unfortunately, until two people are capable of making these distinctions, healthy, productive dialogue about same-sex marriage is almost impossible."

Andrew Eisen said...

Narf,

Recently:

The Baptist Press asked if his franchise supported the traditional family (I've never seen the exact question) and he responded, "Well, guilty as charged... We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

And he said on the Ken Coleman Show, "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' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is about."

You asked if it's said anything on gay marriage. It has. Whether you consider it anti-gay or not I'll leave to you.

Adam Meyers said...

All I know, Bob, is that while I love all of your research and thought, I still have a hard time agreeing with you on political subjects because you're so quick to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as being exactly like Rush Limbaugh that you never really consider all of the facts or sides in an issue. Demonizing everyone who disagrees with you establishes the kind of false dichotomy that stands in the way of actual progressive political dialogue. For what it's worth, here's the words of science fiction author Brad Torgersen responding to someone who also painted all conservatives with the brush of the extremists, and how to hold inter-political conversations as rational human beings. At least in his case, where he's a conservative and his wife is a liberal, they've actually managed to learn and understand each other's political positions, which means they can make their points intelligently without demonizing or straw-manning the other's views: http://bradrtorgersen.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/the-conservative-menace/

Joshua the Anarchist said...

I live in South Carolina so the local Chick-fil-A was PACKED with homophobic rednecks, including my own parents. Police were directing traffic & everything. Personally I went to Wendy's (would've gone to Zaxby's had I had more cash).

Cam said...

not that anybody asked my opinion. but i think the real issue here is: even though it 2012 we still have to have these rally's weather it be gay pride parades or these pro "traditional marriages" demo's. I'd like to think that if we just gave everybody equal rights, be gay, straight, man, woman, any race or region, and stop freaking out! every time somebody lives a different lifestyle then us.If this is the so called "GREATEST COUNTRY" then we should be able to see past our petty differences and move on with our lives.

but what do i know

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Anonymous 2:01

But, would you really rather vent your rage than actually do something about it?

See, this is unfortunately the major difference between how liberals protest and how conservatives protest... In this case the liberal protest is going to result in little more than a bunch of funny pictures showing up on Facebook and Twitter, while the conservative protest is going to result in hundred of thousands of dollars, if not millions, more going to anti-gay-marriage organizations.

If the goal was for less money to be used against gay-marriage, we would quite literally have been better off if this stayed quite. But, it seems like most liberals would rather feel good about doing something than actually making tangible progress.

Megabyte said...

@Dustin

"The chicken is just the medium. It HAD to come down to the chicken, as ridiculous as that is."

Actually, I think right here I rest my case since you made it for me.... btw...

"That is SO American. That you want to dismiss ALL of this is what's sad."

Your bigotry against Americans is showing.... just saying. :)

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Andrew Eisen

Fair enough. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

@ Narf

No, dude, the way liberals protest is WAY stupider than that. We're going to have a consensus-based meeting with hand signals and focus on involving the homeless in the decision-making process, and then we're not going to take clear political positions because that's just supporting "the system".

...no, but seriously, that's a total load of crap. Most Americans, regardless of their political beliefs, are for crap at any sort of useful political action. Arguing that conservatives are somehow more rational because their delusional hatred of gay people inspires them to buy chicken sandwiches strikes me as a loser of an argument.

In fact, lots of protest groups made noise in the media and there was a "gay kissing day" protest where gay couples would walk into CFA and make out, which to me is the most awesome thing ever, but it got drowned out by the sheer number of dumbass rednecks venting their grotesquerie in the guise of defending free speech.

Oh, and to the dude with the four problems with distinguishing, let me take a whirl:

1. The difference between disagreement and hate: when you disagree with someone, you tell them so or quietly disapprove. When you hate someone, you actively get in the way of their choices so that you can cause them misery, then accuse them of conspiring to destroy you when they object.

2. Approval and Implicit Condemnation: These are different when it's not a zero-sum game. If I like the Red Sox, it's not a lock that I hate the Yankees (although I do). But when your version of "liking" traditional marriage extends to donating money to people so that they can attempt to stop other people from having a different kind of marriage, and when you say that it's "arrogant" to think there might be a valid kind of family other than a heteronormative one, you are over the line.

#3: Beliefs and people. That's true. I think that people who oppose same-sex marriage are people, and I even like/love some of them. But I also think that - to the extent that they disagree with me on this issue, which is about the right of people who love each other to form families - they are being assholes. Opposing same sex marriage is morally indefensible. If you do, you are kind of a bad person, exactly in the same way that you would be kind of a bad person if you thought there should be laws against interracial marriage, women working, or integrated schools. Not that I can't care about a person with those beliefs, but that person still kind of sucks.

4. Disagreement and bigotry: People who oppose gay marriage are bigots. That is to say, they want to use the force of law to prevent people from doing something that, although it does not harm or affect them in any way, they do not agree with. That's as intolerant a position as it is possible to have without building concentration camps. People who oppose bigotry and call the bigots out on it are disagreeing, since you will notice that, although I think CFA, its ownership, and anyone who celebrated "hate gay people with chicken day" or whatever it was called are bigots, nobody (sane) has suggested that CFA be outlawed, or that nobody should be able to voice those opinions. Go ahead and voice them, I say!

But if you do, you're an asshole. Clear?

Anonymous said...

It's clear that you'd rather define the opposition as unreasonable and hateful than actually think about stuff. Emotional arguments can be powerful stuff man.

Aiddon said...

and now we have this;

http://news.yahoo.com/chick-fil-opponents-stage-same-sex-kiss-225747622.html

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Anonymous 3:01

"Rational" is very distant from how I would describe what the conservatives are doing right now. I'm more inclined to use words like "effectual" or "practical", where I would describe the anti-Chik-Fil-A protest as "impotent" or "juvenile".

"In fact, lots of protest groups made noise in the media and there was a "gay kissing day" protest where gay couples would walk into CFA and make out, which to me is the most awesome thing ever,"

Awesome, but completely fruitless.

Shark said...

What will supporters of gay marriage do next? Protesting Chick-Fil-A didn't work. In fact, more people showed up to support Chick-Fil-A thanks to the free publicity the restaurant got because of the owner's view on gay marriage.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Shark

Actually donate money to pro-gay-marriage organizations or support corporations that are pro-gay-marriage and stop screwing around and wasting time doing things that were doomed to failure from the start?

Anonymous said...

@Narf

We are doing that already. I can donate to gay rights groups AND call homophobe hate groups out on their BS at the same time. We liberals can multitask.

And, you know, Narf...my side is winning. Gay marriage will exist in every state within 20 or 30 years. This doesn't strike me as a a big "win" for the pro-oppression agenda...it just seems like a lot of assholes buying saturated fat.

@Anonymous

To oppose gay marriage is to incur my contempt. There is no room for a "reasonable" argument over the personhood and civil rights of gay people. There is no rational argument to be made on the topic. Opposing civil rights is for third world dictators and supporters of eugenics. Don't confuse anger with ignorance here; I have thought about this plenty. On this topic, there simply can be no compromise, because there is literally no valid, fact-based rational argument that can be made against the civil rights of homosexual couples, and the ones implicit in the rhetoric of "defense of marriage" and "protection of marriage" amount to "we are afraid of change." Fuck those people. Seriously.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Anonymous

"We are doing that already."

I won't question whether you personally are doing that.

The problem is that the protest isn't encouraging it at all... Like all slactivism, it's actually disincentivising it for people who might other-wise have. After all, if they took a picture of themselves eating chicken at KFC or whatever, they already did their good deed for the day and don't need to donate money.

"Gay marriage will exist in every state within 20 or 30 years"

How do you figure that? Watching this whole mess, the issue seems even more divisive than ever. With out a change in strategy from the LGBT community, I'd say the odds of gay-marriage ever getting passed on the federal level are nearly nill.

Change doesn't just happen if you wait for it long enough... you have to go out and make it happen.

Anonymous said...

You are questioning it, but I know who I give money to, so I'm good.

But actually, I'm persuaded by you. Gay rights groups need a fast food chain of their own to adopt. I suggest something involving hot dogs.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Anonymous

"You are questioning it"

It's more an issue that whether or not you personally do is moot, and whether or not I believe you is moot. So, there's no point in going down that road.

And, I recommend Oreos (and by extension, the rest of Nabisko) who got comparatively very little attention or support when they came out in support of gay-rights.