CFA response to anti-gay alleg. "Guilty as charged." Do NOT gloat about eating at CFA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just read the interview. Seemed like standard fare for what most any Christian would say. Where do you all disagree?
 
The Chic-fil-a at my university has a limited selection, but it is always ready for you to just grab.. no waiting. They keep the sauce in the back though. Sneaky.
 
Supporting a business does not equal supporting its beliefs. I'm not paying $3 for a sandwich + $2 for anti gay rights. I'm paying $5 for a sandwich. Whatever the company does with its money is its own business.
 
SmokeMaxX said:
Supporting a business does not equal supporting its beliefs. I'm not paying $3 for a sandwich + $2 for anti gay rights. I'm paying $5 for a sandwich. Whatever the company does with its money is its own business.
Click to expand...

LuchaShaq said:
How far does it have to go? Would you continue buying food there if the owners advocated physical violence against gays?
Click to expand...
Gonna keep referencing this question this til somebody who holds your opinion answers it directly.
 
LyleLanley said:
Most any bigoted/homophobic christian.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting that. Certainly if you read between the lines the message is clear: we don't support same sex marriage. It's almost a tautology though; that particular stance is to be expected in this interview. I'm thinking it's the "guilty as charged" bit that is getting to people, but Cathy doesn't even directly refer to gay people nor homosexuality.

This particular point and one's own inference of the tone of the interview could be a pivot that is driving some people away while others are going "it's just fast food."

blame space said:
really? where do we disagree?
Click to expand...

Concerning the tone of the interview, yes. How do you see it as flaunting?
 
I'll Devil's Advocate for a bit.

I'm queer and I'd rather like to be able to marry the person I love, but I also know that it's in my best interests to establish and perpetuate a strong norm in favor of political and lifestyle pluralism. The ability and inclination of the collective to exercise coercion over those who hold different views on a proper political course or on what the good life entails is necessarily restricted as far as possible in a liberal society. To that end, I oppose withholding business, employment, friendship, or any other kind of voluntary association with other people on the basis of political opinion or even activism.
 
LaserBuddha said:
Chick-fil-A reported sales of $3,582,473,798 in 2010, and donated $2,000,000 to anti-gay organizations in the same year.

That means that for every, say, $7 combo you bought, you were contributing approximately $0.004 toward these donations. Eat there 250 times and you've contributed almost a dollar.
Click to expand...

I don't think I can live with myself knowing that I gave less than 2 cents to some anti gay organization.
 
Trey said:
I'm not getting that. Certainly if you read between the lines the message is clear: we don't support same sex marriage. It's almost a tautology though; that particular stance is to be expected in this interview. I'm thinking it's the "guilty as charged" bit that is getting to people, but Cathy doesn't even directly refer to gay people nor homosexuality.

This particular point and one's own inference of the tone of the interview could be a pivot that is driving some people away while others are going "it's just fast food."
Click to expand...
Did you not read the part where they donated $2 million to anti-gay groups?
 
LaserBuddha said:
Did you not read the part where they donated $2 million to anti-gay groups?
Click to expand...

Then they're flaunting it as much as other companies that donate to such institutions. I thought we weren't making that connection in this thread.

I was specifically referring to the interview that a good portion of the linked article is taking from.
 
Trey said:
Then they're flaunting it as much as other companies that donate to such institutions. I thought we weren't making that connection in this thread.

I was specifically referring to the interview that a good portion of the linked article is taking from.
Click to expand...

Setting up an interview to say "guilty as charged" in response to controversy is flaunting it.

What qualifies flaunting to you? Full-window posters in their restaurants?
 
Amibguous Cad said:
I'll Devil's Advocate for a bit.

I'm queer and I'd rather like to be able to marry the person I love, but I also know that it's in my best interests to establish and perpetuate a strong norm in favor of political and lifestyle pluralism. The ability and inclination of the collective to exercise coercion over those who hold different views on a proper political course or on what the good life entails is necessarily restricted as far as possible in a liberal society. To that end, I oppose withholding business, employment, friendship, or any other kind of voluntary association with other people on the basis of political opinion or even activism.
Click to expand...

You present a decent point against telling others that they're bad people for eating there, but avoiding going there by yourself certainly won't ruffle any feathers. Worst comes to worst if somebody asks you can say they have some policies you disagree with which in no way causes any sort of rift. If they ask then of course you can get in to details, but in and of itself it seems a person boycott seems like a fairly harmless act? Nobody said that being accepting of their ideas means you have to support them.
 
LaserBuddha said:
Setting up an interview to say "guilty as charged" in response to controversy is flaunting it.

What qualifies flaunting to you? Full-window posters in their restaurants?
Click to expand...

Nah, something more immediate. Couldn't think of what, however.

I did think that the guilty as charged part is what gave people that impression. It's more hostile in the article than in the interview but it does stand out in both.
 
I've been across and throughout this great land, and spent considerable time in the Bible thumping regions where this company is particularly well represented, and I'll tell you something: I've never encountered a Chik Fil A restaurant that wasn't within 5 minutes walking distance of other fast food establishments. Most of them have been within 30 seconds of other joints (in the next food court kiosk).

The entire premise of this chain's merchandizing strategy has been to provide an option in a palette of many fast food choices. They are definitively non essential.
akmcbroom said:
I live near Seattle, no CFA around here that I know of. This thread has been crazy, is their chicken really that good?
Click to expand...
I haven't eaten there in years because they are expensive for what you get, their sandwiches are extravagantly greasy, and the food gives me the 30 minute runs.
 
Acerac said:
You present a decent point against telling others that they're bad people for eating there, but avoiding going there by yourself certainly won't ruffle any feathers. Worst comes to worst if somebody asks you can say they have some policies you disagree with which in no way causes any sort of rift. If they ask then of course you can get in to details, but in and of itself it seems a person boycott seems like a fairly harmless act? Nobody said that being accepting of their ideas means you have to support them.
Click to expand...

Specifically refusing to do business with them because of their political activism is attempting to coerce them into falling into line with my political opinions. I will attempt to persuade them through friendly discourse, but not through withholding from them the means of making their living.

I think it would be terrible for my employer to fire me, not hire me, or whatever, based on either my sexual orientation or my political activism. This is far less of an injustice than that, obviously, but I think people tend to significantly underestimate the coercion of the marketplace. People are are under no obligation to hire me if I've done political work in the past that offends them, but I think our country would be a much better place in general, and especially for those with unorthodox opinions, if we committed to doing business with individuals of different political opinions or activisms than our own.

I think of it in similar terms to religious toleration. Like religion, political belief and practice are largely a matter of choice and conscience. I don't have to associate with a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian if I don't want to, but this country is a better place when people of all faiths, or no faith at all, can participate fully in civic and economic life. Refusing to associate with people of different religious faith not only deprives the nation of a vibrant religious culture, it also undermines the atmosphere of tolerance that is necessary to live a happy life as an atheist in a predominantly religious country.

Or to put it another way, the first amendment is there for a reason. Yeah, I know that legally the first amendment does not apply to boycotts, but the reasons behind the amendment are jeopardized when social power is exercised against unpopular political opinions or speech. All of that stuff about the marketplace of ideas, the sanctity of conscience, and the wisdom of pluralism apply just as forcefully when private power is brought to bear to silent dissenting voices as when state power does it.

cajunator said:
This is what I was getting at. It really only hurts the local economy when people boycott something.
Click to expand...

It's not like the boycotters incinerate the money they would have spent on Chik Fil A. The business will go across the street to the fast food restaurants around there. If it gets bad enough, Chik Fil A will close, but the employees there will be able to find jobs at the fast food places that benefitted from Chik Fil A's downfall.
 
Went there once to see what the fuss was about. Wasn't impressed, way overpriced. Heard about the anti-gay stuff, never went back. I'm not missing anything.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
Specifically refusing to do business with them because of their political activism is attempting to coerce them into falling into line with my political opinions. I will attempt to persuade them through friendly discourse, but not through withholding from them the means of making their living.

I think it would be terrible for my employer to fire me, not hire me, or whatever, based on either my sexual orientation or my political activism. This is far less of an injustice than that, obviously, but I think people tend to significantly underestimate the coercion of the marketplace. People are are under no obligation to hire me if I've done political work in the past that offends them, but I think our country would be a much better place in general, and especially for those with unorthodox opinions, if we committed to doing business with individuals of different political opinions or activisms than our own.

I think of it in similar terms to religious toleration. Like religion, political belief and practice are largely a matter of choice and conscience. I don't have to associate with a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian if I don't want to, but this country is a better place when people of all faiths, or no faith at all, can participate fully in civic and economic life. Refusing to associate with people of different religious faith not only deprives the nation of a vibrant religious culture, it also undermines the atmosphere of tolerance that is necessary to live a happy life as an atheist in a predominantly religious country.

Or to put it another way, the first amendment is there for a reason. Yeah, I know that legally the first amendment does not apply to boycotts, but the reasons behind the amendment are jeopardized when social power is exercised against unpopular political opinions or speech. All of that stuff about the marketplace of ideas, the sanctity of conscience, and the wisdom of pluralism apply just as forcefully when private power is brought to bear to silent dissenting voices as when state power does it.
Click to expand...

Your money is going towards hate. Not wanting your money to go towards hate is not a bad thing, regardless of how many words you type trying to rationalize it.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
Specifically refusing to do business with them because of their political activism is attempting to coerce them into falling into line with my political opinions. I will attempt to persuade them through friendly discourse, but not through withholding from them the means of making their living.

I think it would be terrible for my employer to fire me, not hire me, or whatever, based on either my sexual orientation or my political activism. This is far less of an injustice than that, obviously, but I think people tend to significantly underestimate the coercion of the marketplace. People are are under no obligation to hire me if I've done political work in the past that offends them, but I think our country would be a much better place in general, and especially for those with unorthodox opinions, if we committed to doing business with individuals of different political opinions or activisms than our own.

I think of it in similar terms to religious toleration. Like religion, political belief and practice are largely a matter of choice and conscience. I don't have to associate with a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian if I don't want to, but this country is a better place when people of all faiths, or no faith at all, can participate fully in civic and economic life. Refusing to associate with people of different religious faith not only deprives the nation of a vibrant religious culture, it also undermines the atmosphere of tolerance that is necessary to live a happy life as an atheist in a predominantly religious country.

Or to put it another way, the first amendment is there for a reason. Yeah, I know that legally the first amendment does not apply to boycotts, but the reasons behind the amendment are jeopardized when social power is exercised against unpopular political opinions or speech. All of that stuff about the marketplace of ideas, the sanctity of conscience, and the wisdom of pluralism apply just as forcefully when private power is brought to bear to silent dissenting voices as when state power does it.
Click to expand...
Chick-Fil-A isn't a private individual defending a controversial opinion, it's a company that contributes a portion of its revenue to discriminatory organizations that exist to limit the rights of millions of normal human beings. It's not intolerant to decline to support a politically active corporation that uses its money to harm people. In fact, if you want to support cultural pluralism, you'd do well to boycott businesses like Chick-Fil-A when they use their clout to marginalize minorities.
 
I don't think boycotting something you disagree with is a bad thing, cad. In this instance, you're not "working with" CFA. They're a business and you're a consumer.
 
I don't consider spending money on food to get food means you support a companies stance on a specific subject.

Purchasing Devil May Cry doesn't mean you support Ninja Theory's ideals on a personal level, it just means you want said game.
 
Valnen said:
You say that like all chicken is the same. Chicken tastes different depending on where you get it. If someone prefers the taste of Chick-Fil-A of course they're going to keep eating there.
Click to expand...

Only if they don't care that they're funding an anti-gay agenda.

Kokonoe said:
I don't consider spending money on food to get food means you support a companies stance on a specific subject.

Purchasing Devil May Cry doesn't mean you support Ninja Theory's ideals on a personal level, it just means you want said game.
Click to expand...

If Ninja Theory admitted they use the profit from their games to take away rights, or deny rights a group doesn't yet have, would you still say this?
 
Amibguous Cad said:
Specifically refusing to do business with them because of their political activism is attempting to coerce them into falling into line with my political opinions. I will attempt to persuade them through friendly discourse, but not through withholding from them the means of making their living.

I think it would be terrible for my employer to fire me, not hire me, or whatever, based on either my sexual orientation or my political activism. This is far less of an injustice than that, obviously, but I think people tend to significantly underestimate the coercion of the marketplace. People are are under no obligation to hire me if I've done political work in the past that offends them, but I think our country would be a much better place in general, and especially for those with unorthodox opinions, if we committed to doing business with individuals of different political opinions or activisms than our own.

I think of it in similar terms to religious toleration. Like religion, political belief and practice are largely a matter of choice and conscience. I don't have to associate with a Muslim or fundamentalist Christian if I don't want to, but this country is a better place when people of all faiths, or no faith at all, can participate fully in civic and economic life. Refusing to associate with people of different religious faith not only deprives the nation of a vibrant religious culture, it also undermines the atmosphere of tolerance that is necessary to live a happy life as an atheist in a predominantly religious country.

Or to put it another way, the first amendment is there for a reason. Yeah, I know that legally the first amendment does not apply to boycotts, but the reasons behind the amendment are jeopardized when social power is exercised against unpopular political opinions or speech. All of that stuff about the marketplace of ideas, the sanctity of conscience, and the wisdom of pluralism apply just as forcefully when private power is brought to bear to silent dissenting voices as when state power does it.
Click to expand...

I suppose one can see it that way, personally I just see it as not wanting to give my money to an organization that is actively attempting to discriminate.

*Laughs*

Your logic makes sense, but you're overthinking it. I agree it's wrong to demonize the customers of the establishment, but simply refusing to shop their yourself (and educate others if the subject comes up) in no way prevents them from sharing their opinions. The issue becomes less of whether or not this opinion should be accepted, but whether or not it is financially advisable. I'm happy to admit I will do my (admittedly small) part in making organizations that are openly discriminatory less successful. Capitalism ho and all that.
 
Billiechu said:
Only if they don't care that they're funding an anti-gay agenda.



If Ninja Theory admitted they use the profit from their games to take away rights, or deny rights a group doesn't yet have, would you still say this?
Click to expand...

But you aren't supporting what they do outside of their food business, you are purchasing food from them if that is what you want. If you are actually donating money to support said cause I could understand, but what people do with their own money is up to them.

I'm sure people buy things all the time people don't agree with on any kind of level, but that doesn't mean because they acquired that money from you, you agree with it and are supporting it.
 
Billiechu said:
Only if they don't care that they're funding an anti-gay agenda.



If Ninja Theory admitted they use the profit from their games to take away rights, or deny rights a group doesn't yet have, would you still say this?
Click to expand...
So by this logic, anybody who buys gas is also in support of the Saudi Arabic tradition of treating women as property. Let's boycott gas! If you don't then you hate women.
 
When gay marriage is eventually legal, people should organize post-honeymoon visits to Chik-Fil-A.

Rub that shit in if they're going to be vocal about it.
 
Billiechu said:
Only if they don't care that they're funding an anti-gay agenda.
Click to expand...
Well, it's more like they'll keep eating there if the extra value that a CFA sandwich has over the alternatives is more important than gay rights.

It's like if a CFA sandwich is a 9/10 and BK or whatever the 2nd best option is a 7.5/10, that extra 1.5 points is more important than giving an large group in our population equal rights.
 
Finally got through the entire thread. Holy shit @ all the bannings.

Anyway, I had Chick Fil A once at an airport layover. Didn't see what the big deal was with their chicken.

Needless to say, I won't ever give them any business anytime soon.
 
richiek said:
Finally got through the entire thread. Holy shit @ all the bannings.

Anyway, I had Chick Fil A once at an airport layover. Didn't see what the big deal was with their chicken.

Needless to say, I won't ever give them any business anytime soon.
Click to expand...

You'd assume so, eh?
 
Mods brought the hammer down on this thread. Also, is there really a "biblical definition of the family unit"? Someone throw some scripture at me.
 
Valnen said:
Good food is good food, I'll eat there regardless. No reason to punish myself for the actions of other people. It's not like me not eating there would change anything anyways.
Click to expand...
These types of posts blow my fucking mind. What kind of rationalization is that? Not eating there is akin to punishment, a fucking chicken sandwich means that much to you?!?

I honestly don't get all of these posters who value a piece of food made at a particular restaurant over human rights. Nobody is saying you can never eat fried chicken again, just try to get it somewhere else. And I honestly call bullshit on a chain restaurant having the best fried chicken on the planet as some in this thread would have us believe.
 
Doctor West said:
I honestly don't get all of these posters who value a piece of food made at a particular restaurant over human rights.
Click to expand...
Well if they don't deal in absolutes, then they probably just think that the sandwich is worth more to them than keeping a tiny fraction of a penny from going to anti-gay lobbying.

That's not really the same thing as "I'd rather eat at Chick-Fil-A than allow homosexuals to marry" (if you don't deal exclusively in absolutes).
 
Doctor West said:
These types of posts blow my fucking mind. What kind of rationalization is that? Not eating there is akin to punishment, a fucking chicken sandwich means that much to you?!?
Click to expand...
Yes, telling myself I can't have something I want is basically punishing myself.

I honestly don't get all of these posters who value a piece of food made at a particular restaurant over human rights. Nobody is saying you can never eat fried chicken again, just try to get it somewhere else. And I honestly call bullshit on a chain restaurant having the best fried chicken on the planet as some in this thread would have us believe.
Click to expand...

Different places taste different. If I want a specific taste I'm going to go get that specific thing and nothing is going to stop me. My one chicken purchase isn't going to make any difference toward anything when chances are I'd only be able to conveniently eat at this restaurant maybe a few times a year anyway.
 
I don't eat a Chick Fil-A anymore. But that is a personal decision.

I couldn't disagree more with people acting like you have a duty to refrain from doing so. Or that if you choose to continue eating there you don't care about gay people.

So, I disagree with Korey and do think he is being unfair in his post up there. I think Cyan has summarized at multiple points some of the logic people might have on the issue.

There being no moral obligation to refuse to do business also makes the decision more impactful when a large group of people choose to make it. Or even if a small number decide to do so personally, but without much effect.

Also, if that implication in the statement is true and they do stop funding anti-gay movements then I won't have a huge problem with them anymore. I would still disagree with them, but there is a difference between closely held personal beliefs and activism.
 
Doctor West said:
These types of posts blow my fucking mind. What kind of rationalization is that? Not eating there is akin to punishment, a fucking chicken sandwich means that much to you?!?

I honestly don't get all of these posters who value a piece of food made at a particular restaurant over human rights. Nobody is saying you can never eat fried chicken again, just try to get it somewhere else. And I honestly call bullshit on a chain restaurant having the best fried chicken on the planet as some in this thread would have us believe.
Click to expand...

Completely agreed. It's not like Chick-Fil-A is that great. It's not the Chipotle of fried chicken.
 
Valnen said:
Yes, telling myself I can't have something I want is basically punishing myself.



Different places taste different. If I want a specific taste I'm going to go get that specific thing and nothing is going to stop me. My one chicken purchase isn't going to make any difference toward anything when chances are I'd only be able to conveniently eat at this restaurant maybe a few times a year anyway.
Click to expand...
So you have no self-control? Good luck with that.
 
ivysaur12 said:
Completely agreed. It's not like Chick-Fil-A is that great. It's not the Chipotle of fried chicken.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It is good stuff. Also it is different than fried chicken, where I think KFC, Church's, Popeyes: they are all about the sandwich. I don't even know who competes in the fast-food chicken area. Obviously all your majors have at least 1 sandwich, but I don't know anybody else that specializes.


Billiechu said:
Chipotle had better not be anti gay because I don't want to switch to Freebirds :(
Click to expand...

Freebirds is pretty good! I like the three taco meal, get some carnitas and barbacoa.

I am very glad that we have Chipotle over Moes in Texas/Austin. Outside of the free chips and the fancy coke machines, Moes is very meh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

How often do you think about dying?
Cringe  2
57
713
ForAcademicPurposes replied
  • Locked
I think my dog might be gay
20
568
T8SC replied
What Are You Eating?
2
53
2K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
If you are reading this you’re gay! LMAO!!!
Live  2 3
142
602
violence replied
I have trouble seeing Starship Troopers as an anti-fascist film?
2
82
4K
StueyDuck replied
Top Bottom