Chik fil a

[NM_Shooter]

Well, I guess by my belief in traditional marriage, and the new popular definition, I am a homophobe.  Surprised the hell out of me too.  Seeing as how I have friends / co workers who are gay, and me helping them with home projects and repairs.  I Must be driven by fear I guess. 

I've been a bit irritated by the attack on Chik fil a, so I decided to go in and take a look around yesterday and have a sandwich. 
I usually eat there once every 6 months or so. But I took a hard look at the place yesterday. Easily the cleanest fast food place I have seen in 30 years since I worked in the McDonald's in Mountain Home, AR. There were 4 employees in the parking lot with radios working the 20 cars in line (I was told at high time they average 157 cars an hour), every counter register was staffed, and there were lobby employees walking around and joking with customers, refilling drinks and clearing trays, cleaning tables. All the employees were polite, neately groomed, hustling, and attentive. If you thank any of them, they give you a smile and a "My pleasure" in response.  In spite of a packed lobby, and all the business lined up, I received my order in about 45 seconds.  The food was great.

I see no possible way for Chik fil a to survive without the support of the Chicago Mayor and Roseanne Barr   ;-)

[considerations]

Chik fil a...never even heard of this chain(?) until all the media coverage....what are they and how does one pronounce that?

[rick91351]

Chick Fillet. 

I have not seen any in the northwest but I have never been 'malling' in Seattle or Portland.  That is where they mainly base their stores or was when I was around them.  They wanted to put one in the food court in Boise's Mall and dropped because the requirement they be open seven days a week.  They Chik Fil A chooses to not open on Sundays to observe the Christian Sabbath.

They make a nice chicken sandwich lightly breaded and deep fried, bun is light and airy.  Condiments and spices are very simple yet work good.  There menu is mostly shopping mall sit down simple.

When I was working out of Denver for Amtrak I ate there a few times.  They were all very clean and the employees enjoyed working there and it showed.  However everyone has a 'bad hairday' now and then.     But for the most part great place to hit if you are mall hungry and like a chicken sandwich. 

The owner and founder has always been in hot water over not being open on Sundays or something he says that is based in the Christian Bible.  So this is not the first time he has come under attack nor been in hot water.   

 
   

[muldoon]

I like chick fil a, and my family likes the food too.  We go there 4 or 5 times a year, which basically means it is the most common fast food place we eat at.  The place is always clean, fast and friendly.  I have no objections to their politics or their choices in how they choose to run their business.  They are always packed so it appears that most folks don't care either.

All of that said, I do question where they are coming from with some of the statements.  Take the most controversial one; "We are very much supportive of the family - the biblical definition of the family unit."  Ok, they are supportive of the traditional nuclear family and not supportive of fringe lifestyles.  But why bring the bible into it?  What is the "biblical definition" of the family? 

[Woodsrule]

The current flap here in the Northeast involves the mayor of Boston, "Mumbles" Menino. This moron wrote a letter to the president of Chick Fil A, stating that he did not approve of the political/religious views of the president and stated that he was going to oppose the opening of a Chick Fil A in Boston. Now, I'm not sure about you, but this blatant disregard of free speech rights, the right to conduct commerce and the disgusting attempt to control thought really tees me off. And, the idiot Rahm Ehmanuel echoed the remarks of Mumbles, stating that Chick Fil A's values are not Chicago's values. Really? Exactly what are the official values of Chicago and who the ##!@ does the mayor think that he is anyway? Whether or not you agree with the president of Chick Fil A is irrelevant; we should all be very watchful when mayors try to impose their values on the rest of us. It's simple really - if you don't like the political or religious views of the head of a company, buy elsewhere.

[rick91351]

Does the current runaway murder and crime rate in Chicago's reflect its values?   

[poppy]

muldoon, I like your graphic on the biblical definition of a family.  And for the biblical literalists out there, exactly who did the children of Adam and Eve marry?

I am a traditionalist and believe that marriage is about one man and one woman; however, i also believe that a family can be formed in many different ways and I support same sex couples rights to form a family. 

BTW, I'm also a bible believing Christian.

[NM_Shooter]

Well..... back to the topic at hand.

I'm peeved at the hypocrisy of the left in attacking the leader of a solid company his right to express his opinion. 

Whether he should have said anything or remained quiet, is his decision.  The left has the right to purchase / work there or not.  If they don't like the opinion, too bad.  But attacking this company and attempting to have politicians impact their success is hypocritical and nasty. 

Today is support Chik fil a day.  I am going to avoid the crowd.  I think I will go on friday during the LGBT kiss in event and give my wife a big kiss during lunch instead. 

Heck, I might even open carry and bring a bible with me 

[archimedes]

The real issue is that Dan Cathy (the president of Chik-fil-a) is financing the political campaign against the LGBT community.  That's why he has been the center of controversy not because of a simple expression of free speech.  Lots of people speak out about lots of different things and it never causes a fuss.  Mr Cathy is one of the primary financial underwriters of the anti-gay rights movement.   Financing campaigns to impose legal restrictions on gay people.

It is perfectly reasonable for the people who are being affected by the discriminatory laws that he is trying to have implemented to speak up.

The real hypocrisy here is how Mr Cathy and his allies are trying to portray him as the victim.  No one is trying to take away his rights through legislation.   But in fact,  that is exactly what he is trying to do to other people - pass laws that treat a minority of the population differently under the law.

Mr Cathy,  as everyone else,  has the right to free speech,   but he doesn't have the right to freedom from consequences of that free speech.

I'm with Poppy on this,  I see no reason why the government has any right to restrict gay people from forming legal families.  As a matter of fact the US constitution guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.  Not just the people we like.  Or who the majority approve of.

I belong to a church that does not approve of gay marriage,  and probably never will.  But that doesn't give me the right to make my church's position the law for everyone else.   I think that adultery is wrong too,  but it should not be illegal.    I,  and my church,  think that divorce is wrong,  but it should not be illegal.

What's funny to me is how small gov't Conservatives,  who are always claiming gov't interfearance in their lives,  want the gov't to interfear into the most private of personal  relationships and police who is worthy of equal treatment under the law and who isn't.   That is the real hypocrisy.  The Constitution is very unequivocally clear,  everyone gets equal treatment under the law.

I wonder how many people supporting Mr Cathy would care how clean the restaurant was,  or how friendly the employees were,  or how good the food was,  if Mr.  Cathy's pet project was to finance the campaign to implement gun control or repeal the 2nd amendment.   

When you support the campaign financed by Mr Cathy,  you are supporting limiting someone else's freedom.  You can never be sure when that same attempt to limit freedom might be aimed at you.

[poppy]

Well said archimedes.   

[NM_Shooter]

"Financing a campain to put legal restrictions on gay people"

Huh?  Cite your sources please. 

What restrictions is he working to put in place on gay people?  He is personally on a campain to take something away that they a federal right to have?  He is not working to take AWAY the priveledge of marriage, because that is not something that they have.... So what restriction is he PUTTING on them?  You are saying that his is taking something away.  Tell me what it is that they have that he is taking away, and cite your sources. 

There are liberals activing working to impose restrictions on me... where I can carry a gun, whether I have to have insurance.  Trying to make my religion support abortion.  You got any beef with that?

And actually, there are those trying to reduce the rights of Chik fil a through coercive measures if not through legislation.  Exhibit A would be Chicago's Mayor. D.C., Boston, Sanfran Mayors make B,C,D.   Did you miss that fact or conveniently forget about it?

There is no right to marriage.  There is a right to bear arms.  Marriage is a religious ceremony first and foremost.  The government got into it because there was money to be made.  Check your pocket copy of the constitution.  Let me know where the phrase "right to marriage" pops up.  Liberals frequently confuse rights with priveledges.

Did Cathy specifically say that he did not want gay people to form legal families?  I say he did not. If you say he did, then provide that source as well.  It is simply not enough to say that he infers this because his company supports traditional marriage.   

That's like saying that someone believes that Green Bay should not have a football team simply because that person buys Chicago Bears tickets.

The man did not say that he thinks that gays should smoke turds in hell for eternity.  He said that they support traditional marriage. 

The truly funny thing is that Chik fil a is taking this all the way to the bank.  The day of support today was amazing.  I saw their drive through line backed up 200 yards off of their property, and a cop was directing traffic. 

So... Archimedes.... you have some homework.  Poppy, feel free to help.

1)  Cite your reference in which Cathy specifically is campaigning to increase restrictions on gay people.
2)  Let me know where in the constitution marriage is declared as a right.
3)  Bring me another reference in which Cathy specifically indicates that he is against gay marriage or civil union. 

Personally, I don't care.  If the government wants to allow for same sex civil unions, great.  Tax the hell out of them.   

But I do care if elected government officials attempt to place restrictions on the operation of a private company that has broken no laws, based solely on the comments made by their employees in support of their religious beliefs. 

The government needs to mind their own damn business.  And people who endorse or enable this sort of intervention are reprehensible.

 

[muldoon]

Personally, I don't care.  If the government wants to allow for same sex civil unions, great.  Tax the hell out of them.   

Where did that come from?  You think marriage should be taxed?  and that gay marriage should be heavily taxed?  I don't understand the logic behind this one. 

[waggin]

From the not so distant past...

[NM_Shooter]

Where did that come from?  You think marriage should be taxed?  and that gay marriage should be heavily taxed?  I don't understand the logic behind this one.

Used to be a tax hit if you were married.  Apparently it is now a wash. 

"The new standard deduction is $11,900 for married couples filing a joint return, up $300, $5,950 for singles and married individuals filing separately, up $150, and $8,700 for heads of household, up $200. Nearly two out of three taxpayers take the standard deduction, rather than itemizing deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes."

[peternap]

This is another of those subjects that I have deep feelings about. They'll stay private for the most part because even though I'm famous for appearing to be the ugly American, I'm not.

1. If two men or women want to have a relationship and marry to receive MOST of the legal benefits everyone else enjoys, it ain't my business. That stops at adopting children and no, I'm not going to debate it. My opinion on that won't change.

2. I don't see same sex marriage as a sin. Again, it ain't my business and considering some of the shenanigans I've pulled in my life, I'm in no position to throw the first stone over sinning.

The other side of the coin.

3. He has a perfect right to say what he pleases, contribute money as he pleases, run his business as he sees fit and support whatever laws he wants.

4. The Government is WAY OUT OF LINE, trying to silence those rights...period.

I spent the day videoing several Chic's today and considering the crowds, all day, at times hundreds of people in line, I'd say the majority of people feel the same way about Government meddling I do.

[Squirl]

I believe the owner of chick fil a has the full right under the to express his freedom of speech.  In today's world money = speech.  Almost every article on both sides states that he has been openly funding political candidates and campaigns to define marriage exclusively between men and women under the law.  People have the full right to express their speech, and since money = speech, withholding their money in protest is also their right.  I don't agree with politicians looking to limit his business based upon that.  If they believe he violated the law and discriminated against employees or customers based on those views, they should investigate and/or prosecute for that.

What restrictions is he working to put in place on gay people?  He is personally on a campain to take something away that they a federal right to have?  He is not working to take AWAY the priveledge of marriage, because that is not something that they have.... So what restriction is he PUTTING on them?  You are saying that his is taking something away.  Tell me what it is that they have that he is taking away, and cite your sources. 

Let me start by saying the government and laws should in no way be involved in defining marriage based on religion, or should be involved in marriages at all.  At this point same-sex marriage is recognized by the majority of my religion, Judaism.  My synagogue provides same sex marriages. The problem comes when the laws in our country provide benefits to opposite sex marriages, and not same sex marriages, such as parental rights, adoption rights, social security benefits, marital privilege, and over 1000 laws in our country.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

The Federal Government does not grant civil rights.  Civil rights are inalienable. They are outlined in the Constitution as a protection from government to pass laws limiting them.

For about 80 years these initial inalienable rights only applied to white men who owned land.  Then the nation had this little conflict, and after it the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed which spelled out:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;  nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

That clause specifically protected state and federal governments from denying the rights that it gives to one group from another, giving them "equal protection of the laws."

The drafters intended this to be for race.  That was way too radical of a change for people with an entrenched ideas of what the traditional social structure was.  So they created a "separate but equal" caveat. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

The thought that people should be treated equally under the law based on gender was not even close to considered.  That would have to wait.  The idea that women even had the inalienable right to vote would take another 52 years, let alone that both genders were guaranteed "equal protection of the laws"

Fast forward to the 1950s and 1960s and "separate but equal" no longer flew as a correct interpretation of the fourteenth amendment.  Equal means EQUAL. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and in terms of equal protection for race and marriage Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).  Since then interpretations of the fourteenth amendment have started to apply that the law discriminate on the basis of gender either.  Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).  Admittedly there are some cases that discriminate on the basis of gender but the progression in case law is that people are granted "equal protection of the laws" regardless of their gender.


Now we have a whole set of legal rights in this country, as mentioned above, that are granted to married couples as long as they are the opposite genders.  All of the married couples of the same sex under my religion should have all the equal protections of the law as an inalienable right and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

[Tickhill]

At the Tupelo, MS Chik-fil-a, it was packed with the drive thru completely circling the building and every parking space filled, Kroger parking lot full, Pizza Hut parking lot full! Saw 1 protester and there was a Chik-fil-a employee holding an umbrella over the protester because it was raining, at one time the manager sent cups of ice water out to the few straggling protesters during the day. Chik-fil-a has always been a class act.
It's all about tolerance until it goes against the grain.

[Woodsrule]

Well said Shooter; I agree with all of your points. And, I want to weigh in on Mayor Menino from Boston (close to me).  He was one of the first to fire a shot against Chick Fil A - he sent a hateful letter to the president of that company, essentially informing him that Chick Fil A was not welcome in Boston because of their political/religious/personal views on homosexual marriage. If anyone thinks that Menino was correct in this, please weigh in. This type of thuggish behavior by Menino is not the first he's engaged in, but I don't think that he thought this one through to the conclusion. I think that he and his ilk are just now coming to the conclusion that folks are fed up with elected officials believing they are the Almighty and what they think is more important than law, common sense and the will of the people. I'm heartened by folks' response to this issue. Again, well done Shooter.

[mgramann]

The real issue is that Dan Cathy (the president of Chik-fil-a) is financing the political campaign against the LGBT community.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I figured I might try to add a little insight to this.  As others have said, political speech, and investment for that matter, is one of the most protected things in our constitution.

Let's turn this around for a moment.  Let's say a business owner has strong beliefs in universal health care, or is a big supporter of the Brady campaign.  If they speak out about it, or are a huge donor to these causes, and they happen to live in a city/state controlled by conservatives, would it be right for the local politicians to deny them the ability to do business there?  Absolutely not.

Whether you agree with his opinion or not, the owner of Chik-fil-a has the right to speak freely about and financially support that opinion.

[archimedes]

Squirl has pretty much already covered what I had to say,  but I will add;

NMShooter,
Before I take a position on an issue I try and become informed about both sides of the issue to fully understand it.  Apparently you don't do the same or else you wouldn't need to ask a questions like this;

"Financing a campain to put legal restrictions on gay people"

Huh?  Cite your sources please. 

What restrictions is he working to put in place on gay people?   

If you're too poorly informed to know the answers to these questions then it just proves that you have set your opinion in stone without the slightest interest in making an informed decision.

So... Archimedes.... you have some homework.  Poppy, feel free to help.

1)  Cite your reference in which Cathy specifically is campaigning to increase restrictions on gay people.
2)  Let me know where in the constitution marriage is declared as a right.
3)  Bring me another reference in which Cathy specifically indicates that he is against gay marriage or civil union. 

The aswers to these questions are all over the internet as it relates to this story.  Even  a person with a passing interest in haviing a balanced perspective should know the answers to these questions.  And some of them have been answered already for you above.

I never said marriage was a right guaranteed by the Constitution,  the Supreme Court already did that in Loving vs VA.  What I said (as Squirl points out above) is that the 14th Amendment guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law.  You're arguing that everyone should  not be treated equally under the law.  I think your position is a very difficult position to defend morally,  ethically,  and legally.

Mr Cathy has every right to express his opinion,  and others have a right to disagree and even condemn him for his opinion if they see fit.  Freedom of speech flows both ways.   And again freedom of speech does not give you freedom from consequences.  Some want to penalize his business for his views others want to patronize his business for his views,  that's the way it goes.   

The gov't has no right to penalize him for his speech (so long as he obeys employment non-discrimination laws),  and will not (regardless of some politician blowing smoke).   It the gov't does,   then he will win a very hefty lawsuit using the same constitutional protections that he is trying to restrict for gay people.   Kinda ironic,  huh?

[Tickhill]

While we are at it, does anyone know what White Castle's stand on school vouchers is?

[peternap]

Let's turn this around for a moment.  Let's say a business owner has strong beliefs in universal health care, or is a big supporter of the Brady campaign.  If they speak out about it, or are a huge donor to these causes, and they happen to live in a city/state controlled by conservatives, would it be right for the local politicians to deny them the ability to do business there?  Absolutely not.

No, it would not and I'd be just as angry about it.

Boycott by the customers is another thing and perfectly acceptable but the Government has no such right.

[archimedes]

Boycott by the customers is another thing and perfectly acceptable but the Government has no such right.

I agree.  And I think everyone in this thread,  so far,  agrees with that.

[NM_Shooter]

Archimedes, Heck, pick just one of those points... particularly where you claim Cathy is working TO IMPOSE restrictions on gays.

Show me one example of this that specifically calls out what he is doing and how that specifically IMPOSES on a gay. 

You can't because there are no references. 

Cathy has every right (right, not priveledge) to say whatever he wants as long as it is not treasonous (sp?) or in provocation of riot.  Some would argue that he can say whatever he wants, period. 

It is fine for those to protest against him too.  Folks should hold others accountable and "vote with their wallet".  I do the same.

What is not fine is for our politicians to declare that he can not come into their communities to build a new business. 

Just as bad, is for members of the opposition to openly celebrate the untimely death of their PR executive. 

Odd, considering the opposition likes to toss around words like "haters" and promote themselves as the tolerant crowd. 

How intolerant they really are.

[Woodsrule]

Shooter,

Once again you are right on point. I'm not your personal cheerleader, but I agree with your points. It is important to separate words; there is no IMPOSING going on here, except for politicians attempting to transfer their personal beliefs into public policy. Both Menino and Ehmanuel tried to do this, but now are walking away from their earlier, ignorant rants. And, the owner of Chick Fil A is not "restricting" anything, unlike the politicians who bloviated about "Chicago" values. That statement made me laugh out loud! Chicage values - that's a good one - a real knee-slapper