what's up with the Chick Fil A business?

It's the battle over gay marriage.

I've never set foot in a Chick-Fil-A anyway. Nothing to do with the CEO's politics or religion. I've simply no interest in eating greasy factory-produced chicken giblets dipped in rat feces with a 64-ounce cup of high-fructose corn syrup to wash it down.

The last time I ate in a CFA was about ten years ago. One of the worst chicken sandwiches I've ever had. 60 Minutes did a story on them a few years back, and the biggest thrust of it seemed to be that they were closed on Sundays. Oh, so no observance of the Jewish sabbath?

I haven't followed this latest flap at all, but apparently there was a report came out last month that the CEO gave a bunch of money to the anti-gay side of the Proposition 8 legislation in California. In response, the mayors of Boston, San Francisco and Chicago (Obama's former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) personally blocked permits for new CFA restaurants in their cities. So CFA staged that whatever-it-was day a week or so back.

None of this is exactly a complete picture.

1) Money to Prop 8 was one of the practical effects of Chick-fil-A's policies. But what they actually did was give an average of $2 million a year (at least $5 million now total) to groups like Exodus International, the American Family Association, and the Family Research Council, all of which are devoted to terrorizing homosexuals in many more ways than Prop 8.

2) This was publicly-available knowledge for years, but folks tended to willfully ignore it. Then the CEO, Dan Cathy, did an interview about it where he came off like kind of a dick, and it became a lot harder to ignore. This prompted some boycotts.

3) No Mayors blocked any permits. In the publicity of the boycotts, they did some public pandering, which they later backpedaled like crazy. So far, only one Chicago alderman has actually withdrawn a permit from Chick-fil-A.

4) This didn't stop idiots from screaming about how Christians and corporations are the real victims of discrimination in America. So to protest, they gathered together for a Fat Bigot Pride Parade on August 1st. Appropriately enough, the celebration took the form of cramming your face full of fried meat until breathing gets difficult.

5) The Fat Bigot Pride Parade was organized by Mike Huckabee, whose stated goal was to "affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse."

No word yet on whether Huckabee will be asking America to affirm and support a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, or if they will respond in same the vast, teeming numbers. But don't hold your fuckin' breath.

6) This last bit is just rumor, but general word is that Chick-fil-A (as a company, no idea about the CEO) wasn't thrilled with the Fat Bigot Pride Parade. It was good for one day's sales, but it makes a nasty long-term image for a company that's already taken a bad knock in public opinion.

Something about organized boycotts always bothers me a little.

If you don't like how a company does things -- whether it's serving unhealthy food to poor people or donating millions of dollars to political causes you oppose -- by all means, don't give it your money. Go elsewhere.

When large groups of people try to organize mass boycotts, however, it often smacks of "group-think," which is to say, no thinking at all. So you don't like Chick-Fil-A because of the gay marriage thing? OK. But what if your local franchise is owned by someone with no strong opinion on gay marriage? Also, do you shop at Wal-Mart, which busts unions and imports an endless river of cheap plastic crap from China? Are you buying gas at BP again already? Do you buy your electricity from coal-fired power plants, which pollute the air and depend on coal retrieved through mountaintop-removal which blah blah blah blah.

That's kinda what a boycott is, isn't it?



Who cares? You don't owe Chick-fil-A your business, so you're not doing anything immoral by withholding your money from a guy with no opinion. And as a happy side-benefit, you're preventing your money from finding its way to hate groups when it reaches the guy who does have a strong opinion.



This is a false choice. Not being able to address every problem doesn't mean you shouldn't address one that's right in front of you. And it's also a bad comparison... people frequently have no immediate choice about where their electricity comes from; they have every last ounce of control over whether they stick a chicken sandwich down their gullet.

It is.

I've no problem with people individually spending their money where they choose.

I'm less comfortable when -- to quote from a Chicago newspaper -- Mayor Rahm Emanuel suggested that he was prepared to join Alderman Joe Moreno in blocking Chick-fil-A from opening its first free-standing Chicago store in Logan Square. Both men cited Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s public opposition to gay marriage.

Whether you agree with the CEO of this chicken chain or you think he's a self-righteous jerk, neither he nor his company has done anything illegal. For government officials to talk of blocking permits because of the CEO's political views -- well, I thought we had a First Amendment to prevent that sort of thing. This sort of reaction is one reason why group-think -- or dog-piling, as we say on the Interwub -- worries me.

I'm pretty loathe to defend Rahm Emanuel. I honestly consider him a walking force of cancer on the Democratic party.

However.

Within one day of Emanuel's statement, his press secretary released this follow-up:

The Mayor simply said that Chick-fil-a's CEO does not share Chicago's values. He did not say that he would block or play any role in the company opening a new restaurant here. If they meet all the usual requirements, then they can open their restaurant, but he does not believe the CEO's values are reflective of our city.

Again: the Mayors didn't block permits. They pandered, then backpedaled. And this would hardly be the first time in Emanuel's career where he pandered to an ideal, then kowtowed to money. Hell, it would hardly be the thousandth.

They were correct to back-pedal.

But see -- that's the sort of heated rhetoric that often emerges from the sudden passion of a group-think. And the idea of any government officials going after a business because they don't like the political views of the CEO -- even if they say "Just kidding!" later -- that's abhorrent. Would the Left be so quick to dismiss the threat if a Republican president had threatened the FCC license of a television station that politically displeased him?

I think you know my political sympathies, Ceci, and I think you know they're fairly closely aligned with yours.

But being a longtime holder of minority opinions, I feel obliged to respect the rights of other people when they're getting deluged with abuse and threats.

The chicken king chose to alienate customers who support gay marriage. OK. That's on him. (Though I have to wonder how many progressive Americans were shoving that crap down their throats in the first place, to say nothing of their kids' throats.) But I prefer to see people stop somewhere short of mob action. Some of the Chick-Fil-A rhetoric was making me a little uncomfortable.

There's a television station that would politically displease a Republican president?

Kidding, kidding.

I get your principle here, but I think it's overblown. I think what we have here is a real assault on individual rights (Chick-fil-A corporate donations to hate groups) vs. imaginary assaults on corporate rights (Mayors pandering then not doing anything).

And what got people really riled into a day of mass action? The latter.

That makes me uncomfortable.

(Also, while I agree with the principle, "defend the persecuted minority even when you disagree with them," I take some issue with the idea that Christian CEOs are a persecuted group. I think Dan Cathy might just enjoy some small measure of power in our culture... the number of former candidates for President who came to his defense is one big red flag that he's not exactly helpless.)

I absolutely agree that Christians are not a persecuted minority in the United States, however much some of them relish the martyr image.

Neither, for that matter, are corporate CEOs.

I don't feel badly for the chicken king. And honestly, he's probably having the time of his life right now. The franchise owners who wish the CEO would shut the hell up and let them peddle their greasy fried rat-turds in peace, not so much.

I think it's funny how people are saying it's a free speech issue. No one is saying Dan Cathy shouldn't have the right to voice his opinion. But don't expect people to support you if you make bigoted statements. Just because you're claiming it's part of your religion to be a bigot doesn't mean it's right. What about using religion to justify segregation?

As for the boycott of Chick Fil A based on one what the President and COO said, the issue is that he's trying to associate his view with that of his company.

Rahm Emmanuel got mentioned. I dont' know why he's making a stand against Chick Fil A, but inviting Louis Farrakhan and the NOI to Chicago considering the statements Farrakhan has made about gays.

In several cities, including Chicago and Louisville, government officials made noises about punishing Chick-Fil-A by denying it necessary permits or removing it from public property. They did so because they disagreed with the political acts of the CEO.

That's what made it a free speech issue and that's why Rahm Emmanuel got mentioned.

You want to stage a national kiss-in at the restaurants? Great. But don't sic the government on businesses solely because you don't agree with their politics. That's wrong, and it can work both ways.

I stand corrected. I thought that the Chick Fil A appreciation day was initially in response to the boycotts and not what Menino and others did and said.

Well, I was speaking of my own concerns.

I don't know what prompted the "appreciation day." The Rev. Mike Huckleberry -- former governor of Arkansas and a big, big, big fan of fast food -- organized that. It may well have been a response to the boycotts.

Here's the press release.

Apparently it was a response to homophobia being described as homophobic.

I'm sure as heck not going to defend Huckleberry.

Politics aside, it wasn't that many years ago the obese Republican presidential candidate lost weight and lectured other Americans -- correctly -- that they need to eat healthier.

Dude literally wrote a book called “Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.”

Now he wants everyone to eat fast-food fried chicken and waffle fries and Cokes.

Well, in a sense, I guess that sort of diet will bring you closer to Jesus. You'll be dead soon, anyway.

"if Christians affirm traditional values, we're considered homophobic, fundamentalists, hate-mongers, and intolerant."
^From Mike Huckabee.

It doesn't really matter how many people draw comparisons to the fight for Civil Rights and Marriage Equality or gay rights in general. The people against equal rights for gays argue that it's different because people of color are born that way, but being gay is a learned behavior that can be corrected.

Which is why you have some Republican politicians citing people who used to be gay but became straight again. It's possible the people they mention were either just experimenting, are bi-sexual, or really are gay and just repressing their true sexual orientation due to religious and societal pressure.

Interestingly, Bill O'Reilly said, "Traditional forces won," in regards to Chick Fil A's Appreciation Day being a success instead of citing it as a freedom of speech victory.

This always strikes me as an offensive suggestion (and I realize that you, Gerald, are not making it, you're simply discussing it).

"Gays ain't the same thing as blacks, see, 'cause blacks, they can't help that they're black, but gays don't have to be gay if they don't want to be."

Aside from the fact that science suggests sexual orientation is something we're born with, so the suggestion is incorrect, can anyone see how it's also a tad racist?

Of course. "Can't help being Black," suggests the color of your skin is a bad thing, but it also implies that if you could somehow hide your ethnicity then you'd be okay.

Which is kind of funny when you consider that the head of Exodus International (one of the ex-gay groups Chick-fil-A donates their money to) recently acknowledged that it's impossible for gay people to become straight... that what "ex-gays" do is repress desires that nonetheless stay with them their entire lives. (Exactly how gay people have been describing "ex-gays" for decades.)

That's the current head, mind you. The founder and original head of Exodus International left the group three years after its formation.

To marry his boyfriend.

People against gays would then say, "see, he's gay but he's not acting on it!" Not the founder of that Exodus organization, but the ones that admit they're gay but just suppress it to fit in with their religious peers.

I would think that would be incredibly unhealthy. Like telling a heterosexual to live a life of celibacy and to not ever date the opposite sex.

Thanks for filling it in for us.

I think it's worth pointing out that Dan Cathy's money didn't just go to opposing gay marriage in the US. It also opposed efforts to cut down on anti-gay bullying, and opposed efforts to help gay youth at risk of suicide. It also supported efforts to make homosexuality illegal overseas, like in Uganda and other nations. Those were efforts to find gays and kill them. So all this talk about tolerating Dan Cathy's religious views is misplaced. He's not just exercising his first amendment rights. He's actively trying to ruin people's lives.

I think keeping money out of the hands of that enterprise is a worthwhile goal.

I can see Lawson's point that using government coercion against Chick-Fil-A may be overreaching, but I'm grateful to those politicians who clearly stated that their values were opposed to Chick-Fil-A's hateful agenda.

I just don't understand how the pundits on the right can argue someone exercising their freedom of speech to disagree with them is somehow infringing on their freedom of speech.

Yes, exactly!

Charlize Theron said that she doesn't agree with homophobia or discrimination of any kind and that she supports the basic civil rights of all Americans, in response to the ruling agianst gay marriage.

Bill O'Reilly responsed with, "Does that include the rights of Americans who sincerely oppose gay marriage NOT to be called homophobes??"

Yeah, I'd like to see how O'Reilly would explain how it's freedom of expression to call for a boycott of France, or the Dixie Chicks, but criticizing Chick-Fil-A is infringing on their rights.

I don't know about Bill O'Reilly but I suppose people who defend Chick Fil A but criticize The Dixie Chicks would argue that calling the latter "traitors" or "unpatriotic" would be accurate, whereas there's nothing bigoted about not wanting to give a certain group special rights over everyone else.

But by that logic wouldn't minorities, Blacks in particular, have received "special rights" when Anti-Miscegenation Laws were repealed, and later the Civil Rights Act was passed. Does that mean they wouldn't have supported the Civil Rights Act or the right to marry outside your race?

Apparently a PROponent of gay rights went gunning for Dan Cathy this morning in Washington DC. The guy is a dumbass, no question, but it's gonna be an ugly thing when those "Second Amendment solutions" start backfiring on the neocons. The Tea-tards want every contest of ideas to be a shooting match. Keep it up, jerks, and you may get your wish.