August 1, 2012

"Drive-through lanes were backed up and dining rooms were packed at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the nation today..."

"... as hundreds of thousands of people turned out to support the fast food chain after it came under attack when the CEO [Dan Cathy] said he opposes gay marriage."
[S]everal openly gay restaurant workers... said working for the company was difficult in light of the controversy because often times employees say homophobic things to them, thinking the comments are welcome at Chick-fil-A.

An openly gay 24-year-old employee said a man came in and say he supported Cathy's comments then 'continues to say something truly homophobic, like "I'm so glad you don't support the queers, I can eat in peace."'

Another gay employee added: '(It's) constantly having people come up to you and say, "I support your company, because your company hates the gays."'
Hmmm. It's a chicken sandwich, people. America needs to calm down.

ADDED: If you have trouble understanding my position, I spell out 6 principles here.

AND: Quite aside from gay marriage... should a man be named "Cathy"?

234 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 234 of 234
Jay said...

I think we have found AndyR on video!

Note the "tolerant" left in action.

Isn't it funny how these "brave" lefty's always pick on women?

Lem said...

I've never heard of Chick-Fil-A before... until the controversy started about the stupid comments of an obscure CEO.

I used to work with a rabid Yankee fan... every time the Sox beat them I would were something with the Sox logo on it.. he started doing his version after a while.

The gays in charge stumbled this time... as a result of the relatively rapid success they have achieved in the courts.. the may have diluted themselves.

Given the speed with which gay marriage has taken hold, climbed up a cliff face, it has proceeded relatively smoothly.

Marshal said...

"(It's) constantly having people come up to you and say, "I support your company, because your company hates the gays."

See how the left's preaching hatred hurts their adherents? This guy can't tell the difference between hate and believing history shows familes with a parent of each gender work best.

tim in vermont said...

There is a lot of fuel around, and every time the liberals strike a match, it flames up lately. Just not the way they intended.

This whole thing is about anti Obama energy.

B said...

Fen said...

Fen, Andy Capp is capable of reading and understanding Cathy's comments. He can't help filtering through his prejudices and preconceptions so he comes off as stupid and ignorant. He's neither. Andy Capp's an asshole and unable to grasp that he confuses the reaction to that as anti-gay, but he isn't stupid.

Jake,

If you can't apply enough common sense and life experience recognize and call bullshit on nonsense that rings of it, then you self-identify as the successfully targeted ovine it was intended for.

This does not surprise me. You haven't impressed me as being very informed or astute on any subject.

Scott said...

This is a festival of the lame.

jr565 said...

Gays have to recognize that just because you support traditional marriage as it is doesn't necessarily mean you hate gays. I know that's akin to calling for support for the clubbing of baby seals, but it's true. Most people could care less about gays one way or the other but respect the tradition of marriage as it stands, and recognize that traditional marriage was set and defined LOOONG before gays decided to view it as a civil rights issue, and one thought at the time "let's exclude the gays because we hate gays". Hell, until very recently most gays didn't view it as a civil rights issue.
They would argue that marriage was burgoiuse and what the breeders do, but many gays wanted nothing to do with it.

Re second question is things like rights for gays to visit loved ones in a hospital, that are supposedly denied them. If you ask most people, do you support denying gay people the right to visit a loves one in a hospital they'd say, of course. So they are on board with giving gay people the rights deprived them, they just don't want it done on the back of redefining marriage.

Civil unions are the best course (and after all that's what a gay marriage actually is). Just don't force press who aren't down with it to have to minister the event. Don't force YOUR morality down their throats through govt force.

All this chick a fila business, and frankly all of the bullying tactics of gays is really getting tiresome. I don't even know if there's a chick a fila in my area, but I would go there and buy some chicken, not because I hate gays, but because I hate gay activism and in particular govt intrusion.
Not to mention the absolute hypocrisy of that douche sack in Chicago. Until very recently Obama was not for gay marriage, and yet that douche sack worked at his administration and said NOTHING about it. And prior to that he worked for Clinto who passed DOMA and said nothing about THAT! Would clinto even be welcome in Chicago? Of course he would. This then is nothing but democratic posturing and power grabbing, which will completely back fire on them

Peter said...

Andy R. said, "I think Chick-fil-A is going to regret making itself the corporate mascot of anti-gay bigotry."

BUT the so-called "anti-gay bigotry" seems to consist of an interview of Dan Cathy in the Baptist Press. In which he says he supports the biblical view of marriage and family.

The words "gay" or "homosexual" do not appear in the interview. There is no criticism of gays there. It is a positive support for a traditional viewpoint on marriage and family- not a negative view of gays- that is expressed there.

It is gay activists who are trying to define this as "anti-gay bigotry." There message seems to be, "You can't say that." Even in a newsletter published by a socially conservative Christian denomination, apparently.

The bottom line is that gay activists, by trying to marginalize this socially conservative PoV, are marginalizing themselves.

it's not just that millions of Americans agree with this socially conservative PoV, it's that Americans mostly respect freedom of conscience. And some gay activists seem determined to deny that freedom to those they disagree with.

At the least, it is surely not Dan Cathy or Chick-Fil-A who is the agsressor here. What would anyone expect to read in teh Baptist Press anyway, if not socially conservative viewpoints?

Marshal said...

"Peter said...It is a positive support for a traditional viewpoint on marriage and family- not a negative view of gays- that is expressed there.
It is gay activists who are trying to define this as "anti-gay bigotry." There message seems to be, "You can't say that.""

The message is "either you're for us or you're against us". I remember the good old days when the left preached that even when people kill others such an attitude is dangerous and wrong.

Maybe we're supposed to conclude that since that principle only related to killing people we should apply a higher standard of support to the critical issue of cheering on gay bullying.

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

Sorry to be late to the party, but me & the Mrs just got back from taking some nieces to the beach.

If you want to see what a really gay unfriendly franchise looks like, take a gander at this.

This occurred in Baltimore in April of 2011. One of the McD's employees tries to do the right thing. The rest are useless.

The perps got 5 years, which isn't enough, but it's something.

PS: the video is very unpleasant to watch, and should be considered NSFW.

X said...

Quite aside from gay marriage... should a man be named "Cathy"?


should a man be named Althouse-Cohen?

The Converses said...

A man should no more be named Cathy than a woman should be named AlliSON or MadiSON.

chickelit said...

In a sense, this whole mess we're in started because a woman was named Stanley.

EMD said...

Maybe so, but the name creeps me out. Are you sure they aren't secretly arranging for the government to give special favors to those who dabble in, e.g., dressage?


Beware the Hobby Lobby!

Andy R. said...

Please point to the "inflamatory" comments:

“we’re 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 that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.” -Dan Cathy

Again, I didn't choose to boycott Chick-fil-A because of their attitudes or opinions about gay marriage. People who have just discovered this issue in the last month should probably read up on the history of Chick-fil-A and their anti-gay activism before they decide to weigh in.

Seeing Red said...

I don't think this is just about Chick-Fil-A. Cardinal George issued a statement.

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the 'values' that must be held by citizens of Chicago," George wrote on the Archdiocese of Chicago's blog Sunday. "I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city?"


Apply that to Obamacare.

Titus said...

This is not my schtick.

I don't speak with anyone in public and have never been to one of these restaurants.

Aren't they like predominately in the South?

I don't think I have never seen one up here.

Revenant said...

“we’re 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 that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.” -Dan Cathy

I wonder what sort of weird social bubble you have to live in to think that sounds inflammatory?

Bill said...

Jesus Fucking Christ. Who gives a shit? I mean, really. Who the hell cares?

You shouldn't eat at Chick-Fil-A because their food is awful, not because of how the owner feels about gay marriage. It's like these people that think In-N-Out is God's gift to man. Reality check: The burgers suck. The fries are solid.

Chick-Fil-A has bad food. Period. The fact that the owner doesn't support gay marriage has no effect on my decision to not eat there (it doesn't help, but I don't care).

Whatever. Seriously.

furious_a said...

Mmmm, Chicagoans giving the finger to #ChicagoValues...

..tastes like Chicken!

Featherless Biped said...

The sad thing from the pro SSM POV is that some people will say all pro-SSM people approve of bullying and/or care nothing for the First Amendment.

It's like the hit the pro-lifers take when there is violence at a pray-in at an abortion clinic.

purplepenquin said...

I don't believe the stories of customers saying homophobic things.

You're saying that all these tweets are fakes?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-least-subtle-tweets-from-chick-fil-a-appreciat

Michael Haz said...

I had lunch at a Chick FilA for the first time ever today. The spicy chicken sandwich was pretty good for a fast-food place, as were the waffle fries.

The line wasn't very long - maybe fifty people - and the courteous staff was working very hard. One of them came around tot he table where I was seated and asked whether she should refill my drink, get me anything else, offer a free cookie, etc. Very thoughtful and polite.

I think this demonization of a business by the SSM proponents has backfired and has probably set back the cause a little bit.

What I don't understand is why the SSMers didn't do something more positive. For example, why not identify the restaurants whose owners support SSM and rally people to spend their money at those places? Everyone wins, no?

I am perplexed about SSM in Wisconsin. Here's why: Twenty years ago I attended the wedding of and reception for two gay friends. It was held in their back yard in Waukesha County. A minister officiated. They are married.

Three years ago I attended the church wedding in Milwaukee of a co-worker and her girlfriend. A minister presided. They are married.

At the beginning of this summer I attended in Milwaukee the wedding and reception of another co-worker and her girl friend. A minister officiated. They are married.

It sure looks like (to me) that gays and lesbians who want to marry their partners in Wisconsin are able to do so.

What's the big dealio with the protests, whining and angry words?

Revenant said...

You're saying that all these tweets are fakes?

No, I think you've conclusively proven that approximately one out of every one hundred thousand Chick-fil-A customers is a homophobe. :)

Fen said...

Please point to the "inflamatory" comments:

Andy: we’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation when -

1) thats not inflamatory

2) its not even from the article

3) source it, because its not like you have a credible rep here

Ekansh said...

Nice Blogs...
If You have a problem in your computer/laptopDell Supportor if you want to take suggestions for your laptop/computer or any kind of software support then call onspotsupport
HP Support

Ekansh said...

Are you struggling with slow computers problem, and you are silent on the issue by taking it as usual in old computers?call We24SupportDon't take it normally as your old or new computer both can be optimized and you can get slow computer solutions.
Contact us-we24supoport

Robert Cook said...

"The gays in charge stumbled this time...."

????

Who might they be? Are they a sort of like the Masons, but for gays? Do they call all the shots for activities pertaining to gay people?

Robert Cook said...

"Gays have to recognize that just because you support traditional marriage as it is doesn't necessarily mean you hate gays."

What does this mean, to "support traditional marriage as it is?" Isn't this just a way of saying one "opposes allowing gays to marry?"

Why and how does allowing gays to marry harm "traditional marriage?" Do gays marrying discourage non-gays from marrying? Do gay marriages cause straight marriages to end?

Robert Cook said...

"'we’re 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 that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about.' -Dan Cathy

"I wonder what sort of weird social bubble you have to live in to think that sounds inflammatory?"


The social bubble that comprises "rational people."

This sounds not only inflammatory but, simply, nutty.

Fen said...

Cook: What does this mean, to "support traditional marriage as it is?" Isn't this just a way of saying one "opposes allowing gays to marry"

Using your logic, to "support gay marriage", isn't this just a way of saying one "opposes allowing straights to marry"

Come to think of it, I can't recall every hearing a gay activist express support for heteros. That must mean they hate us, right?

Robert Cook said...

"Using your logic, to 'support gay marriage,' isn't this just a way of saying one 'opposes allowing straights to marry'"

No.

"Come to think of it, I can't recall every hearing a gay activist express support for heteros. That must mean they hate us, right?"

No.

Sophistry is no substitute for sound argument.

Robert Cook said...

"Re second question is things like rights for gays to visit loved ones in a hospital, that are supposedly denied them. If you ask most people, do you support denying gay people the right to visit a loves one in a hospital they'd say, of course."

How do you they would? Where's your data supporting your assertion?

Actually, I agree with you that, if asked, most people would say they agree gays should have a right to visit loved ones in a hospital.

However, this has no bearing on whether gays can visit loved ones--their partners--in a hospital if the family of the sick person objects to the relationship and bars the well gay parnter from being able to visit the sick partner, (in cases where the sick partner is not conscious or otherwise able to allow his or her partner in).

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 234 of 234   Newer› Newest»