Chick-fil-A Day!

[BryanP]

As my daughter stated in a rather lengthy facebook post on the topic, we are each entitled to our opinions but it makes no sense at all to boycott a company that's providing jobs to folks given the unemployment rate today.

It makes at least as much sense as people in the Pro-2A community choosing not to do business with companies who prohibit concealed carry or who donate money to anti-2A causes, something I see promoted on firearm forums and blogs every day.

[Perd Hapley]

The boycott is a reasonable, respectable, and sometimes successful tactic of political activism. Economic hardship just makes them that much more meaningful.

That being said, redefining marriage is not a matter of individual rights. Comparisons to 2nd amendment issues are laughable at best, if not downright sinister.

[40 caliber]

I almost wasted a few minutes of my life on this thread. 

Boycott Amazon. Boycott Chik-fil-A. Blah blah blah.

[White Horseradish]

I'm going to Starbucks.

[French G.]

It makes at least as much sense as people in the Pro-2A community choosing not to do business with companies who prohibit concealed carry or who donate money to anti-2A causes, something I see promoted on firearm forums and blogs every day.

It's a little different, we do what we do everyday, consider I limit my travel to anti states, don't buy Kenneth Cole, blah blah, blah. I do not however insert myself into every last scrap of social media and cable news and insinuate that anyone who dares want some tasty chicken is a bigot. I resent the agree with us or else attitude we always get.

[grampster]

OK.  Here's what to do.  Everybody must spend the next whatever it takes to find out the political, religious, secular, sexual, colorful, male, female, blonde, knobby kneed, and every other availible difference of opinion, appearance and every other possible descriptive known to man and beyond, even to spend time trying to think up something else inter alia, and then spend the rest of your lives only supporting those businesses etc ad infinitum that you totally, unequivically agree with 100%, or more.

Otherwise, you are hypocrite.

[roo_ster]

Deriding both Chick-Fil-A and Pollo Loco in one thread demonstrates epic lack of judgment regarding poultry, but rating KFC over either is an unpardonable sin.  Get thee behind me, Tastelesssatan!

=======

The boycott is a reasonable, respectable, and sometimes successful tactic of political activism. Economic hardship just makes them that much more meaningful.

I don't mind the nitwits calling for a boycott.  Just makes it easier to identify them.

That being said, redefining marriage is not a matter of individual rights. Comparisons to 2nd amendment issues are laughable at best, if not downright sinister.

Yep, category error raised to an Olympic sport.

===============

The boycott is amusing given Cathy holds the same view on marriage that BHO held until a few months ago.

[BryanP]

That being said, redefining marriage is not a matter of individual rights.  Comparisons to 2nd amendment issues are laughable at best, if not downright sinister.

I'm sure the state of Virginia would have agreed with you.

I only used 2A as a comparison because of the nature of this forum.  The comparison is Group A boycotting Business B because Business B espouses beliefs that Group A disagrees with.  Is that generic enough?

[MicroBalrog]

The boycott is a reasonable, respectable, and sometimes successful tactic of political activism. Economic hardship just makes them that much more meaningful.

Basically this.

Had CFA been a regular corporation - remember that probably over half of American businesses are likely run by people who oppose the marriage rights of gays - they'd have still received the patronage of even their most outraged current opposition. Even had their owners - as many other American corporate leaders - donated money to the anti-gay cause they'd continue to be under the RADAR. This is the consequence of them becoming public over this issue - which is not unreasonable.

[BryanP]

It's a little different, we do what we do everyday, consider I limit my travel to anti states, don't buy Kenneth Cole, blah blah, blah. I do not however insert myself into every last scrap of social media and cable news and insinuate that anyone who dares want some tasty chicken is a bigot. I resent the agree with us or else attitude we always get.

Fair enough, but youv also have to realize that there are many  people who do the same with this chik fil a mess. They don't post everywhere about it, they just stop going. Also, a boycott isn't nearly as effective if the target doesn't know why you stop going.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm sure the state of Virginia would have agreed with you.

I only used 2A as a comparison because of the nature of this forum.  The comparison is Group A boycotting Business B because Business B espouses beliefs that Group A disagrees with.  Is that generic enough?

I don't think we need to equate dark skin to sexual perversion. Unless you want to be racist and insulting, of course.

[French G.]

Fair enough, but youv also have to realize that there are many  people who do the same with this chik fil a mess. They don't post everywhere about it, they just stop going. Also, a boycott isn't nearly as effective if the target doesn't know why you stop going.

Good for them, I can eat among people who bathe. I don't want to change companies' behavior, I want to not give them money. I'm glad they can act like idiots.

[BryanP]

I don't think we need to equate dark skin to sexual perversion. Unless you want to be racist and insulting, of course.

Ah, so that's your objection to revising marriage laws? People who you consider sexual deviants shouldn't be permitted to marry?

[Ron]

Ah, so that's your objection to revising marriage laws? People who you consider sexual deviants shouldn't be permitted to marry?

Two people of the same sex making a lifelong commitment to each other is not marriage.

Words have meaning.

Marriage is a loaded term that contains literally hundreds if not thousands of years of meaning.

The hijacking of the word and institution in order to confer moral sanction on homosexual relations using the force of law is the epitome of social engineering.

CF put a store in near my work and dropped off a bunch of free sammiches after they opened.

I thought is was a pretty good chicken sandwich, seemed healthier than a Big Mac for sure.

They just aren't that convenient for me and I avoid fast food usually anyway.

[Marnoot]

Two people of the same sex making a lifelong commitment to each other is not marriage.

Words have meaning.

Marriage is a loaded term that contains literally hundreds if not thousands of years of meaning.

The hijacking of the word and institution in order to confer moral sanction on homosexual relations using the force of law is the epitome of social engineering.

This. Even in ancient Greece where homosexual relationships were common, accepted, and often expected, "marriage" was still something that only happened between men and women. In the example of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion there is strong evidence that they carried on a lifelong, committed, homosexual   relationship, but both were married to women.

Even in societies where nobody had any objection to homosexual relationships, and where such relationships were often the norm, marriage was still something that only occurred between men and women. "Homosexual marriage" is a new invention, and is an attempt to change the underpinnings of an ancient institution, not just an attempt to make said institution "available" to a group of people who didn't have access to it before.

[zxcvbob]

The state has no business licensing marriages.  That is the purview of the church.  The state should butt out completely.

However, the state recognizes the value of committed lifelong (yeah, right) adult relationships and grants them some privileges.  There's no reason the state can't offer ANY two adults the same legal status of married folk.  Go ahead and call it a civil union, or a civil covenant, and make it exactly the same thing that heterosexual couple gets if they are "married" by a Justice of the Peace instead of a preacher.

No sex required or implied; let's say you have 2 very elderly sisters or cousins who want to move in together and take care of each other in their old age.  Why can't they form a civil union?

We have a marriage amendment coming up for a vote here in MN this fall.  I'm in favor of it sort of, but I need to read the actual text before I can vote for it.  If it is too far-reaching or in any way punitive I will vote against it.

[AZRedhawk44]

Two people of the same sex making a lifelong commitment to each other is not marriage.

Words have meaning.

Marriage is a loaded term that contains literally hundreds if not thousands of years of meaning.

The hijacking of the word and institution in order to confer moral sanction on homosexual relations using the force of law is the epitome of social engineering.

And the definition of the word comes from the State, where, exactly?


Other than tax benefits and acknowledgement of certain portions of free-association-private contracts...



And all you CFA adherents, I'll go eat at one for lunch tomorrow.  You have this one opportunity to win me over to the alleged tastiness of CFA.  What shall I order, O Scholars Of Breaded Chicken?  Whatever I order, pickles will be held aside.

[makattak]

And the definition of the word comes from the State, where, exactly?


Other than tax benefits and acknowledgement of certain portions of free-association-private contracts...



And all you CFA adherents, I'll go eat at one for lunch tomorrow.  You have this one opportunity to win me over to the alleged tastiness of CFA.  What shall I order, O Scholars Of Breaded Chicken?  Whatever I order, pickles will be held aside.

Get a number 1 with a sweet tea. If you care for coleslaw, they make very good coleslaw as well. (A little sweet.)

Number 1 is just a basic chicken sandwich. Try the chick-fil-a sauce with it. (Mayo or BBQ or mustard or even, ewww, ketchup is available if you prefer.)

[makattak]

The state has no business licensing marriages.  That is the purview of the church.  The state should butt out completely.

However, the state recognizes the value of committed lifelong (yeah, right) adult relationships and grants them some privileges.  There's no reason the state can't offer ANY two adults the same legal status of married folk.  Go ahead and call it a civil union, or a civil covenant, and make it exactly the same thing that heterosexual couple gets if they are "married" by a Justice of the Peace instead of a preacher.

No sex required or implied; let's say you have 2 very elderly sisters or cousins who want to move in together and take care of each other in their old age.  Why can't they form a civil union?

We have a marriage amendment coming up for a vote here in MN this fall.  I'm in favor of it sort of, but I need to read the actual text before I can vote for it.  If it is too far-reaching or in any way punitive I will vote against it.

I bolded the more important part. There may very well be reasons the state does not provide random pairings of adults special benefits but DOES provide special benefits to heterosexual pairings.

I wonder what specific benefit to a society a heterosexual couple may provide that other random pairings of adults cannot...

[Harold Tuttle]

Chick-fil-a is closed on Sundays and allows girl scouts to use their space for saturday meetings

OMG!

[MechAg94]

I have no problem with Govt getting out of the marriage business.  I really don't think that will stop the homosexual political activists though.  They want gay marriage to legitimize themselves by law and they can't do that if govt stops defining or licensing marriage. 

The other side of this is Chick-fil-a is known to be a rather conservative company and makes a good target for the left.

[MrsSmith]

I have no problem with Govt getting out of the marriage business.  I really don't think that will stop the homosexual political activists though.  They want gay marriage to legitimize themselves by law and they can't do that if govt stops defining or licensing marriage. 

The other side of this is Chick-fil-a is known to be a rather conservative company and makes a good target for the left.

To flesh out this statement, they want gay marriage so they can:
- Be admitted to the room and speak with the doctor when one of the pair is hospitalized
- Qualify for family health insurance
- Handle billing issues and related type things (like having your wife call about the $270 bill you got from your last doc visit that the insurance company kicked back)
- Any other situation or instance in which a husband/wife would have difficulties without the piece of paper

I think a civil bond, as zxcvbob suggested, would be a good idea. Not just for gay couples, but parent/adult child, older siblings or close friends, any two folks who need to be able to participate in each other's lives, for whatever reason.

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, so that's your objection to revising marriage laws? People who you consider sexual deviants shouldn't be permitted to marry?

Clearly, my objection is that you've compared skin color to abomination. Why would you say something so calculated to offend the targets of antimiscegenation laws?

[Fly320s]

MrsSmith,

That is available now via a power-of-attorney.

[Nick1911]

I like their food, but all the yelling from supporters and detractors is getting annoying.

It's his company, he has a right to run it how he chooses within the legal guidelines we've established in this country.

It's his money, he can spend it or donate it to whatever cause he chooses.

He can stand there and say whatever he wants about what he thinks of gays, marriage and what not.

People who don't want to support his views have every right to boycott his business.  They also have every right to convince others to boycott his business.

People who agree with him (or just don't care either way) have every right to continue eating there and to try and convince their friends to go there.

Eventually if enough people side with the boycott side they'll either go out of business or change their business model. If not, then not. Everything past that point is just monkeys screeching.

Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Well said.  The market will handle this.

Personally, I support civil unions between homosexual couples that entitle them to the same legal benifits as marriage does.  I do not believe that it is right for the government to discriminate - didn't we get past this in the civil rights movement?  I also don't believe that the government should force or coerce any theological instution into preforming same sex marriage\civil union.  A pastor should not be forced to marry homosexual couples.  But, the county clerk should.

And no, I don't generally eat at chic-fil-a; I don't care for the food.  It's bland and overpriced.