General

Chat

Opinion on Chick fil a?

Anyways, with all the scandal, what is y'alls opinion on Chick-fil-a?

Personally, I don't care what they stand for. It's a great sandwich. Whenever I eat the sandwich, I don't care about the CEO's opinion. I care that it's the best southern style chicken sandwich in the world.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/580779_10150964068092869_1460836878_n.jpg

yup.

July 26, 2012

63 Comments • Newest first

aznseal

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/375763_448856601801302_371727493_n.jpg

Reply July 27, 2012
SupraX

@Deciduous: Hmm yeah, you're right but still, they're not particularly respecting other people's views. Boston's mayor is saying "Stay out of Boston Chick-A-Fila" basically, just because of the CEO's views on homosexuality. That's somewhat restricting another person's rights.

Reply July 26, 2012
DrHye

[quote=Kingsleh]Honestly, I thought of this guy when I read it.

http://www.php-web-host.com/ckfinder/userfiles/images/dr-evil.jpg[/quote]

Why do you think I wear the mask? ;D

Reply July 26, 2012
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]I'm not trying to make a "comeback." I just don't care enough to keep on arguing about something that doesn't matter. And nah, I'm probably not the only person that thinks that someone thinking that they "take their opponents down" on a Basilmarket forum on a thread about Chik-Fil-A is rlly lulzy.[/quote]

If thats what you want to think, Ok. Cya.

Reply July 26, 2012
LordZubin

I think it's dumb that they gave a few million to anti-gay groups and I also have a prejudice against them because of the Muslim incident a few years ago. However, I still like their sandwiches and fries.

Reply July 26, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=DrHye]This was funny to read [/quote]

[i]See?[/i] Even DrHye agrees!

Reply July 26, 2012
DrHye

[quote=saddays]To be honest, when I get into online debates, I find flaws of my opponents. Once I find a flaw, I exploit it to the fullest and tear my opponent down.[/quote]

This was funny to read

Reply July 26, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]Then you have a strange sense of humor. 8 whole minutes? I didn't know I was such a comedian - but then again, you are probably just weird.
I am not taking myself seriously at all. To be quite frank, this is how I always debate on the interwebs - Its just my style.

Once again, if you want to debate CFA again, this is an invitation. No need for juvenile comebacks.[/quote]

I'm not trying to make a "comeback." I just don't care enough to keep on arguing about something that doesn't matter. And nah, I'm probably not the only person that thinks that someone thinking that they "take their opponents down" on a Basilmarket forum on a thread about Chik-Fil-A is rlly lulzy.

Reply July 26, 2012
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]I've literally been laughing at the "ruthlessly exploit it" or w/e quote for the past 8 minutes or however much time has passed (100% srs, not trying to be a jerk, I've been giggling at my computer screen this whole time). I'm not offended at all, just find it funny how srs you're taking yourself here.[/quote]

Then you have a strange sense of humor. 8 whole minutes? I didn't know I was such a comedian - but then again, you are probably just weird.
I am not taking myself seriously at all. To be quite frank, this is how I always debate on the interwebs - Its just my style.

Once again, if you want to debate CFA again, this is an invitation. No need for juvenile comebacks.

Reply July 26, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]I find it amusing that you continue to reply to my comments in vain. Clearly, I have offended you, otherwise you wouldn't resort to this naivety. Was there an actual point you wanted to discuss? We could start talking about CFA again if you wanted.[/quote]

I've literally been laughing at the "ruthlessly exploit it" or w/e quote for the past 8 minutes or however much time has passed (100% srs, not trying to be a jerk, I've been giggling at my computer screen this whole time). I'm not offended at all, just find it funny how srs you're taking yourself here.

Reply July 26, 2012
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]Yeah, I wouldn't want to be "taken down" through a barrage of text that I didn't bother to read. That stuff is just way too humiliating.[/quote]

I find it amusing that you continue to reply to my comments in vain. Clearly, I have offended you, otherwise you wouldn't resort to this naivety. Was there an actual point you wanted to discuss? We could start talking about CFA again if you wanted.

Reply July 26, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]Indeed, that is what I think. I suggest the next time you debate, you tread carefully. Anything you say can be used against you.[/quote]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be "taken down" through a barrage of text that I didn't bother to read. That stuff is just way too humiliating.

Reply July 26, 2012
HouseRedoran

now southie cant get their chicken fix.

Reply July 26, 2012
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]Okay if that's what you want to think.[/quote]

Indeed, that is what I think. I suggest the next time you debate, you tread carefully. Anything you say can be used against you.

Reply July 26, 2012
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]Actually, I am not offended by you calling my views retarded at all. To be honest, when I get into online debates, I find flaws of my opponents. Once I find a flaw, I exploit it to the fullest and tear my opponent down.
[/quote]

Okay if that's what you want to think.

Reply July 26, 2012
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]I'm enjoying the fact that you're this offended that some random dude on the internet called your views retarded. Honestly it doesn't really matter what you believe nor does it matter what I believe. I still think people raging over this instead of stuff that actually matters but hey, your choice.[/quote]

Actually, I am not offended by you calling my views retarded at all. To be honest, when I get into online debates, I find flaws of my opponents. Once I find a flaw, I exploit it to the fullest and tear my opponent down. While I may appear offended, it is because I was exploiting your weaknesses.

Your first flaw was that you childishly called my argument, and the argument of others that we should not support Chik-Fil-A due to their support of anti-gay organizations, "retarded" and "dumb".
Your second flaw was that you argued that the CEO exclusively used personal funds, and I corrected you by showing everyone that CFA itself donated money to said organizations. These two flaws in your argument allowed me to rightfully dismantle your credibility.
Your third flaw came after I corrected you regarding CFA's handling of donations, whereupon you attempted to derail my argument by obfuscating yours, arguing that because I was not a shareholder, I had no right to complain. Here is a hint; obfuscation only works if you are arguing with a stupid person. Because I am not stupid and because I am strong willed, I saw through the obfuscation and provided an analogy that discredited your argument.

Because I feel like a jerk, I will reveal a 4th flaw. Your final flaw is that instead of admitting that you are wrong, you are now attempting to use "Ad Hominem" to close your argument, vis-a-vis; your are claiming that I am overreacting because I am offended. You technically are admitting that you are wrong, though unwillingly ("Honestly it doesn't really matter what you believe nor does it matter what I believe&quot, you are still trading barbs.

If anyone is offended by CFA's actions, it is their right, and it is their right to express their opinion and actions. I will refrain from being immature, but I personally believe your argument was . . . "dumb", for the lack of a better word.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]You said it was a dumb argument for me, or anyone else to boycott CFA for support anti-gay groups. THAT is our argument, and you claimed it was "retarded", and "dumb".

[/quote]

I'm enjoying the fact that you're this offended that some random dude on the internet called your views retarded. Honestly it doesn't really matter what you believe nor does it matter what I believe. I still think people raging over this instead of stuff that actually matters but hey, your choice.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
LostInTheOzone

Isn't it illegal for government to restrict a business based on personal belief? Hell, You ever wonder why chick-fil-a closes on sundays?
The CEO's a christian.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]I'm saying it's still primarily owned by the guy so the corporations funds are pretty much his property. How in the hell is that a dumb argument?[/quote]

You said it was a dumb argument for me, or anyone else to boycott CFA for support anti-gay groups. THAT is our argument, and you claimed it was "retarded", and "dumb".

[quote=WontPostMuch]It's a petty revision. Okay, so the corporation and the people who make the financial decisions are using the funds of their company as they see fit. Doesn't affect my viewpoint at all. [/quote]

But it does mine, and a lot of the other "dumb" and "retarded" people out there too.

[quote=WontPostMuch]Also, srs, the comparisons to Neo-Nazis, violent people who want to completely alter society and separate a group from society doesn't compare to a CEO not wanting gay unions to be recognized by the state. That's srs one of the dumbest comparisons ever.[/quote]

It is called an analogy you buffoon. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what, or where it is. The Nazis used discrimination to take the lives of other people. Obviously, not as extreme as what CFA supports, but groups like Focus on the Family and the Eagle Forum want to nationally ban same-sex marriage, and they could honestly care less if gay people were victims of work-place injustice, or general hatred. Hell, many of them DO say that they encourage violence against gay people. It isn't every other day we hear some crazy lunatic in the news or aradio commentator or another student on the bus/class exclaiming about how he wants to "round up homosexuals and get rid of them", or how "gays are going to destroy "mer'cuh so we need to stop them". The whole point of my analogy was to convince you that discrimination is terrible, and that these companies, by funding such groups explicitly support it.

[quote=WontPostMuch]Argument against CFA is summarized as follows: "I disagree over the CEO's allocation of funds based on his personal beliefs and this offends me greatly." Do u guise not realize how anal that sounds?[/quote]

No. It doesn't sound anal at all actually.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]Just admit that you were wrong. You originally argued that my argument was "dumb" because a CEO can do what he wills with his private funds. That is true, but I corrected you by stating that the company itself funds anti-gay marriage groups, and that is why I am opposed to it. Your followup argument is. . . because I am not a shareholder of the company, I shouldn't care what they do with their money?. . . what kind of excuse is that? If my local grocery store directly funded a local nazi group (a group that constantly held anti-jewish conventions and publically funded laws that discriminate against Jewish people), should I not care because I am not a shareholder? THAT is dumb.[/quote]

I'm saying it's still primarily owned by the guy so the corporations funds are pretty much his property. How in the hell is that a dumb argument? It's a petty revision. Okay, so the corporation and the people who make the financial decisions are using the funds of their company as they see fit. Doesn't affect my viewpoint at all. Also, srs, the comparisons to Neo-Nazis, violent people who want to completely alter society and separate a group from society doesn't compare to a CEO not wanting gay unions to be recognized by the state. That's srs one of the dumbest comparisons ever.

Argument against CFA is summarized as follows: "I disagree over the CEO's allocation of funds based on his personal beliefs and this offends me greatly." Do u guise not realize how anal that sounds?

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
doggyxdoggyx

I don't care. What does food have to do with views on something? I love their food . And their chik fil a sauce is so good!

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]Who do you think those funds belong to? It's a privately owned entity. Sure, other people own shares on it but not enough to determine where the donations go. It would make more sense to protest if you were a shareholder or something.[/quote]

Just admit that you were wrong. You originally argued that my argument was "dumb" because a CEO can do what he wills with his private funds. That is true, but I corrected you by stating that the company itself funds anti-gay marriage groups, and that is why I am opposed to it. Your followup argument is. . . because I am not a shareholder of the company, I shouldn't care what they do with their money?. . . what kind of excuse is that? If my local grocery store directly funded a local nazi group (a group that constantly held anti-jewish conventions and publically funded laws that discriminate against Jewish people), should I not care because I am not a shareholder? THAT is dumb.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
WontPostMuch

[quote=saddays]Your argument would be valid. . . except that you don't know the facts - The Company has directly sponsored activities of certain interest/political groups. If it were the CEO's own money, I wouldn't care. I have a problem with the fact that the company itself has donated money to groups like Focus on the Family and the Eagle Forum. THAT is why I don't support CFA.[/quote]

Who do you think those funds belong to? It's a privately owned entity. Sure, other people own shares on it but not enough to determine where the donations go. It would make more sense to protest if you were a shareholder or something.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Joshuadit

@iSpitOnLuk If I really felt like reading and thoroughly analyze each and every post on this thread, I would gladly post something that matches whatever your standard for intelligence is. I barely skimmed through some of the posts on this thread, and I decided to post a blatantly ignorant post just for the hell of it. If you want to be angry at me for that, that's not my problem.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Joshuadit

@iSpitOnLuk Please, enlighten me, oh intelligent iSpitOnLuk. Explain to me why I'm a moron.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Joshuadit

So if a person doesnt support gay marriage, he's a homophobe.
Basil Logic.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Deciduous

@Omegathorion: more like, a statement phrased in a discriminatory way. so i should've made it clearer that i think anti-gay attitudes/beliefs are ridiculous, as opposed to attacking the people holding them. oops i'm not perfect and had a kneejerk reaction.

still, there isn't a large, mainstream lgbt movement against anti-gays. the activism and such is focused on acceptance, integration, equal standing etc. as opposed to anything else. not going to deny gay individuals or smaller groups participate in discrimination though (i see it enough here so).
while it doesn't make sense to hit negative attitudes with negativity, it makes sense that gradually, "anti-" attitudes are seen as unacceptable. we are a social and cooperative people so it doesn't make sense to exclude and have arbitrary social/legal barriers.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
saddays

[quote=WontPostMuch]Srs, hands down one of the most retarded scandals ever. The guy has every damn right to use the money he rightfully earns to the cause he desires. Does the establishment prohibit gay costumers? No. Do they have gay employees? Yes.

Super dumb arguments. Both of those are like, creating violence towards a certain group. This is just the guy funding some democratic institutions to get his political views represented. It's the dumbest thing ever to not eat somewhere because the money the guy makes via his private company is used the way he wants it. So long as he isn't funding some violent group, I couldn't care less.

Besides, choosing to eat there means you support their quality of food, not the CEO's views. Jesus.[/quote]

Your argument would be valid. . . except that you don't know the facts - The Company has directly sponsored activities of certain interest/political groups. If it were the CEO's own money, I wouldn't care. I have a problem with the fact that the company itself has donated money to groups like Focus on the Family and the Eagle Forum. THAT is why I don't support CFA.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Nolen

There is enough fast food in Boston to feed the commoners

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
trashed

A scandal about a sandwich? Slow news day I guess...

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
WontPostMuch

[quote=ericsoogyum]The fact that you say whatever I reply is going to be ignorant, means your ignorant for not listening to my argument. Therefore, your argument is completely invalid.[/quote]

Joke

--->Your head

You sure showed him! (not srs)

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
WontPostMuch

Srs, hands down one of the most retarded scandals ever. The guy has every damn right to use the money he rightfully earns to the cause he desires. Does the establishment prohibit gay costumers? No. Do they have gay employees? Yes.

[quote=Saddays]

I do care what a company stands for, and if their CEO believes in discrimination, I have the right and my own personal obligation not to support them. aznseal, if Chik-fil-a directly sponsored "slavery-of-colored-people" campaigns, or directly funded abortion clinics directly, would your opinion change at all?[/quote]

Super dumb arguments. Both of those are like, creating violence towards a certain group. This is just the guy funding some democratic institutions to get his political views represented. It's the dumbest thing ever to not eat somewhere because the money the guy makes via his private company is used the way he wants it. So long as he isn't funding some violent group, I couldn't care less.

Besides, choosing to eat there means you support their quality of food, not the CEO's views. Jesus.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Omegathorion

[quote=Deciduous]nice try
gays haven't tried to persecute, discriminate, or deny rights to people. that's what (some) anti-gay people are doing, so it's much different than just being gay and wanting to be accepted and legally recognized as any other citizen.[/quote]
You don't think it's persecuting or discriminating to say things like...
[quote=Deciduous]well i think it's stupid to be anti-gay in any capacity[/quote]

I think the heat against anti-gay people is a lot stronger than you think.

On topic: I don't really care about the drama, if I want to eat at Chick-fil-A I'll eat there.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
MagicFrappe

[quote=ericsoogyum]Popeye's > Chick Fil A ;D[/quote]

I would like to debate this with you!

Chick Fil A chicken is quite different from the traditional fried chicken of Popeye's.
You see, to say that you like Popeye's chicken is close-minded bigoted. It is filled with grease, and frankly it has quite an unpleasant taste the ruins and oppresses the average American's free thinking taste buds!

Chick Fil A chicken has a fresh, and all-loving taste that everyone in America should love.
If you say otherwise you're ignorant.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
iMerchU

[quote=saddays]If you are suggesting that people who are opposing CFA because of their stance of gay marriage are trying to limit freedom by not supporting CFA, you are highly mistaken. Of course CFA has the right to believe whatever the hell they want, but so does everyone else, and so do I when I state my opinions about CFA because I live in a free country. I am not forcing anyone to change their opinions, but I am not supporting anyone who acts on opinions I disagree with.

Don't play stupid - You KNOW that organizations CFA supports (the Eagle forum and Focus on the Family) have time and time again, run public rallies and campaigns denouncing gay marriage, and if you have actually seen these demonstrations, you would know that the vast majority of the language discussed are derogatory, and slam on not gay marriage, but gay people. If you are not informed, then I suggest you look up information of the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family#Position_on_same-sex_marriage

Nobody is bashing these groups because of what they believe. If these organizations believed in traditional marriage only, that would be perfectly fine. It is what these organizations DO that pisses people off. They publically go in the streets, fund interest groups to prevent gay marriage equality laws, and if you talk to their members, language like the "f" word, and words like "homo" are common place - Clearly, it isn't just their opinion, but their lifestyles, and their discriminatory practices on other PEOPLE, humans that upsets everyone.[/quote]

I'll try respond after class. Calc II. 12:00CST, brb.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
saddays

[quote=iMerchU]@saddays: Is it so horrendous that an organization holds a "traditional" marriage view rather than an "open-minded" view? Before the explosion of LGBT rights in America, what would you call "traditional marriage"? It was probably simply called "marriage". When LGBT rights did come into question, however, certain groups had to "rename" their views because of opposing views. The Quakers and Unitarians can change their views to fit the agendas of other parties, yet that doesn't mean every organization that remains "traditional" has to be seen as vile or unfair. When a group is rising, it will see both support and opposition. The KKK never changed their views, and therefore are not supported by some. Yet if their past agenda is out of the question, they aren't "attacking" minorities. They simply hold a stance of their own that is not looked upon favorably by certain groups. CFA and those it support do not have to change their agenda because they shouldn't have to. In a "free" country, they have their right to choose their stance and uphold it with all who support them.[/quote]

If you are suggesting that people who are opposing CFA because of their stance of gay marriage are trying to limit freedom by not supporting CFA, you are highly mistaken. Of course CFA has the right to believe whatever the hell they want, but so does everyone else, and so do I when I state my opinions about CFA because I live in a free country. I am not forcing anyone to change their opinions, but I am not supporting anyone who acts on opinions I disagree with.

Don't play stupid - You KNOW that organizations CFA supports (the Eagle forum and Focus on the Family) have time and time again, run public rallies and campaigns denouncing gay marriage, and if you have actually seen these demonstrations, you would know that the vast majority of the language discussed are derogatory, and slam on not gay marriage, but gay people. If you are not informed, then I suggest you look up information of the following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Forum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family#Position_on_same-sex_marriage

Nobody is bashing these groups because of what they believe. If these organizations believed in traditional marriage only, that would be perfectly fine. It is what these organizations DO that pisses people off. They publically go in the streets, fund interest groups to prevent gay marriage equality laws, and if you talk to their members, language like the "f" word, and words like "homo" are common place - Clearly, it isn't just their opinion, but their lifestyles, and their discriminatory practices on other PEOPLE, humans that upsets everyone.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
iMerchU

@saddays: Is it so horrendous that an organization holds a "traditional" marriage view rather than an "open-minded" view? Before the explosion of LGBT rights in America, what would you call "traditional marriage"? It was probably simply called "marriage". When LGBT rights did come into question, however, certain groups had to "rename" their views because of opposing views. The Quakers and Unitarians can change their views to fit the agendas of other parties, yet that doesn't mean every organization that remains "traditional" has to be seen as vile or unfair. When a group is rising, it will see both support and opposition. The KKK never changed their views, and therefore are not supported by some. Yet if their past agenda is out of the question, they aren't "attacking" minorities. They simply hold a stance of their own that is not looked upon favorably by certain groups. CFA and those it support do not have to change their agenda because they shouldn't have to. In a "free" country, they have their right to choose their stance and uphold it with all who support them.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
d4rkxStrIfe

I was not aware that not supporting same-sex marriage constitutes as anti-gay.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Orchid

i like bojangles better than chik-fil-a

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
MSLovelyIdiot

Shame on you. You have time to rant about a sandwich on basilmarket, but not come online on in game and say hi.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
iMerchU

@iSpitOnLuk:
The Marriage & Family Legacy Fund focuses more on marriage counseling than anti-gay actions.
They won't help gays, however, there are a surplus of other organizations that probably would turn head over heels to.
If you go through every organization through America, you will surely find thousands that don't support a certain group that you agree with.
There's nothing wrong with a certain organization wanting to uphold its representatives' values.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
sohee

if i lived in boston i would be disappointed because chik fil a is good

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
saddays

[quote=iMerchU]Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000

None of these organizations are "Anti-Gay". People simply assume and perceive that since they are Christian organizations, they [b]must[/b] be anti-gay.
It doesn't work that way. People have to stop assuming this and that because the entire situation is not furthering any cause.[/quote]

Incorrect. Many of these organizations have held "traditional marriage only" campaigns, seminars, and other events repeatedly. The only reason to hold a "traditional marriage only" event is because you feel that another form of marriage is wrong. Therefore, yes, their events are a direct attack on gay marriage. Nobody is bashing these organizations because they are "Christians". The Quakers, and the Unitarians are christians, yet they are readily accepted by gay/liberal minded people because they don't repeatedly go out and say that gay marriage is wrong, and that gay people are sinners. People are bashing these organizations because they have repeatedly hosted events that continue hatred against homosexuals.

[quote=MagicFrappe]
saddays I'm slightly confused. Is it him that just supports it, or is it the entire company?[/quote]

Both the CEO personally, and the company have directly sponsored pro-traditional marriage only events, and organizations that explicitely denounce gay marriage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A#Religious_and_political_views

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
aznseal

[quote=iSpitOnLuk]He gives money to [b]anti[/b]-gay groups.

If I supported anti-Black/Asian/Latino/White groups then that would mean I hated them, would it not?[/quote]

I'm well aware of the companies he donated to. Accusing someone of being "anti-gay" is a serious accusation. You have to realize that having a traditional view on marriage does not equate to being anti gay. I have a traditional view on marriage and I have nothing against gay people. He donated to Christian companies. Should we also boycott anyone who supports Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, World Vision, etc because they donate to Christian companies?

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
MagicFrappe

@saddays I'm slightly confused. Is it him that just supports it, or is it the entire company?

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
iMerchU

[quote=iSpitOnLuk]He donates to anti-gay groups.

That's an indirect attack.[/quote]

Marriage & Family Legacy Fund: $994,199
Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
National Christian Foundation: $240,000

None of these organizations are "Anti-Gay". People simply assume and perceive that since they are Christian organizations, they [b]must[/b] be anti-gay.
It doesn't work that way. People have to stop assuming this and that because the entire situation is not furthering any cause.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
saddays

[quote=aznseal]@saddays: The Chick fil a president said "While my family and I believe in the Biblical definition of marriage, we love and respect anyone who disagrees". The money he donated is solely for his personal opinion. It doesn't affect who/how he treats his customers.

Read what one of the managers wrote.

Recently, CFA president, Dan Cathy (son of founder, Truett Cathy) expressed his opinion on marriage (specifically, his partiality to "traditional marriage&quot durring an interview.

This sparked a lot of debate, and many headlines read: "Chick-fil-A is anti-gay".

I own a Chick-fil-A franchise, so I took this very personally. I have many gay friends through my barbershop hobby that I love dearly, and consider to be my "brothers in harmony". I am not "anti-gay". Also, no one who I would ever hire to work for me, is anti-gay.. So, how and why did I get lumped into this?

It reminds me of how Americans are treated in other countries: When people judge us by the personal beliefs of our president (George W/Obama) - many of which beliefs, we don't even agree with!

As open-minded American's, we would not judge Italy as a whole, based on the personal beliefs of it's Prime Minister, so why would we judge Chick-fil-A as a whole, for a personal belief from it's president? Think about your boss.. Would you be comfortable if you were judged on what he believed, and everywhere he spent his money?

I work my heart out, to make sure every team member makes amazing food, and gives amazing service to every guest. No one has the time to discriminate, they are too busy trying to live up to the expectations that I have set. It kills me to think that anyone would consider us to be anti-gay, based on the personal belief of one person. I hope you get where I'm headed. My restaurant does not operate with any "agenda". In fact, no Chick-fil-A does.

I know that some might think.. "Even if you are well meaning, the money still goes to anti-gay causes, so I'll still boycott". Let me address this.

Founder, Truett Cathy has built foster homes, and adopted over 100 children. He's given millions in scholarships to Chick-fil-A team members, and millions to universities through sponsoring the Chick-fil-A bowl. He is a passionate philanthropist that loves children and families, and donates to others that share his passion for children and families. Some of the organizations he donates to... Spend their money on *many* different things (even a fraction on political issues). But to tie Truett to somehow having an anti-gay agenda is a stretch, at best. To tie his employees and his company to being anti-gay? That's just complete libel and slander.

You should know, that when you go to my store, a percentage WILL go to one of Truett's 'partner' organizations. How much? Less than half of a cent from your meal. A small fraction of that 1/2 cent might possibly go towards a religious, political cause. However, it equally might go to building a swing set or park bench for orphaned children.

Therein lies the problem with worrying over a fraction of a 1/2 cent. To be honest, if you start counting where every 1/2 cent goes from every transaction you make, you can find a 1/2 cent reason to boycott anyone. You can also find a 1/2 cent reason to love any brand. It just becomes so insignifigant at that level.

So as long as you are looking for somewhere to spend your $10 for lunch, here are some *signfiigant* things to consider when choosing.

1) Serving healthy food VS. poisoning an already obese and unhealthy generation

2) Recycling, conserving, and redeveloping VS. being wasteful, irresponsible, and killing the earth

3) Contributing to local schools and community VS. squandering, to buy another beach house

The list goes on...

Your decision on where to spend your $10 may not lead you to Chick-fil-A, and I'm fine with that! But at least you will be making a decision based on facts, and tangible issues that shape the health of our obese nation and sustainability of our Earth - rather than a decision based on 'avoiding a restaurant', over fraction of a 1/2 cent, that you would never be able to actually track.

Please let me know your thoughts! You are likely reading this, because we are friends, and I want it to stay that way. Please don't continue the slander without giving me a chance to explain the truth to you. I am confident that if you spent one day around me at my store, you would find 100 reasons to LOVE Chick-fil-A that would far overshadow the fraction of the 1/2 cent that you might be worried about. But lets talk about it first.

Thank you for your time, it means a lot to me that you took the time to make it through the whole letter.

Thanks for being a friend :-)

Shawn York
Owner/Operator
Chick-fil-A at the Crossings[/quote]

You completely avoided my question. I asked you "if Chik-fil-a directly sponsored "slavery-of-colored-people" campaigns, or directly funded abortion clinics directly, would your opinion change at all?"

Instead, you give me this bleed-heart plea from a chik-fil-a manager. Chik-fil-a may donate to charities, their employees adoption children, or even curing cancer for all I care, but in the end, Chik-fil-a has sponsored many anti-gay events, and has publically stated many times that they do not support gay marriage. THAT is a problem I take issue with. I am not blaming their employees. I am not blaming their managers. Unfortunately, the head of the company supports policies I do not, and his actions directly affect the actions of his company, therefore, I will not support it. And what about you? Like I said, if Chik-fil-a sponsored pro-colored-slavery campaigns, or directly funded abortion clinics, would you still support them? If the CEO was a KKK member, or he was the president of the communist party, would you still support his company?

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
MagicFrappe

[quote=metaghost4]He and his company, or he and his wallet?[/quote]

That is a good question... Isn't it just his personal opinion, not behalf on the entire company? o.o

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
aznseal

@iSpitOnLuk:
@Aumi:

It is a differing opinion. There is nothing hateful about Chick-Fil-A donating to groups that support "traditional marriage". Supporting one side does not automatically mean hate for the other. I support the Chicago Bulls head above shoulders when compared to other NBA teams. Does that mean I automatically hate the Suns? I'm a Christian. I believe that gays should have the right to marry like everyone else. Do I support gay marriage? That's another issue. Supporting the right to civil liberty and actually supporting something is different.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
MagicFrappe

[quote=AustinatorV2]i live in canada and i've never heard of this restaurant fast food whatever it is until now. i don't really buy fast food because the cost to make your own sandwhich is way less [/quote]

I'm not really a fan of fast food either, but they have really good chicken. <3
If you ever come to the states you need to eat at one.

Reply July 26, 2012 - edited
Load more comments