Has Chick-Fil-A Essentially BuFu'd Themselves?

I just saw this...

max said:

Sounds like the company has a good plan. I think we should join 'em. Maybe they'll 'like us' on Facebook.

From now on all members must submit a video of themselves in heterosexual 'action', in order to maintain a valid membership, and posting on Sundays will be prohibited.

Click to expand...

Some say that heterosexual "action" is really a form of homosexual activity since it's done with yourself, i.e. someone of the same sex. We can't win.

I just think its ironic that the same company with a foundation of 'People who piss me off cause they try to force their views on everyone' *cough*OrganizedReligion*cough* is being persecuted (by the media) of a party who appears to be doing the same.

Turnabout is fair play... Now about that pr0n (that wasnt produced on a Sunday...)

I couldn't care less about this story. If people have a problem with homosexuality, that is their right and they have just as much right to voice it.

Just like the people pissed off about it (hypocrisy anyone?).

Just an observation, the protest/boycott has been a smashing FAILURE. They've brought more publicity to the company (and the rules haven't changed, no such thing as bad publicity... contrary to liberal opinion). Mel Gibson shocked the world, with his anti-Semite rant. Yet people still go to his movies and he's still filthy rich. Chik-Fil-A turned off some people, its obvious they don't give two shits about and picked up a LOT of customers that agree with their views.

The protest/boycott community, might want to think about that... the longer and harder they try to drag this out. They look petty and vindictive. You don't like what the guy said, that runs the joint. Then STFU and go someplace else. Its what I do.

Slightly Medicated said:

I just saw this...

Click to expand...

Nothing but sour grapes. Ridiculous image and (lack of) logic.

Chik-Fil-A, still got their cut. Those people this picture addresses, weren't protesting those other companies. They were showing support for another. Their mode of travel, who, what, when... doesn't matter. The only thing that does, is where. Chik-Fil-A.

I don't think it will either help or hurt them in the long run. For now they're getting a ton of publicity and most likely loving it. The American people have little room in their memories for more than a few sound bites and what's for dinner later (not quite that bad, but you get the point). As soon as their pundit of choice moves on to the next new thing, so will they. And Chick-Fil-A will still be a multi million dollar company with a dedicated following..

And that's the bottom line.

I think CFA seems to be doing fine. Maybe better than fine. In any case, I find it bizarre that the people protesting CFA seem to impute evil motives to the company just because the company's ownership refuses to have their values dictated to them.

To add a bit of humor to all of this. Pick it up at 1:12:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-august-2-2012-jessica-biel

nysuperscum said:

I think CFA seems to be doing fine. Maybe better than fine. In any case, I find it bizarre that the people protesting CFA seem to impute evil motives to the company just because the company's ownership refuses to have their values dictated to them.

Click to expand...

I'd call using the corporation's money to support groups that spread hatred and intolerance an "evil motive"...

zymos said:

Considering that they have enjoyed record sales in the past day or two due to all the bigots that feel they need to show support, I wouldn't worry too much about their economic health...

Click to expand...

zymos said:

How is that any different than what I said? People buy their crappy food, company hires people and pays taxes.
None of the bad press has done any harm to the company ( and by extension, to any local economy where they are operating), and seems like it has increased sales, at least short term.
So basically they are being rewarded for their close-minded views, not punished.

Click to expand...

I took your comment as if youre talking about Chick Fil A. I was not referring to the company but to the politicians that are letting their personal views get in the way of improving their communities.

Boston mayor wanted to actively block chick fil a from putting restaurants in the city. That is what is irresponsible in this. I live in MA but not in Boston. We dotn have any of these restaurants here. We should welcome them though. They ll give back to the state.

...it's always easy to opine philosophically about bigotry, when someone else is the recipient...

Bahahahahahaha!

I'm sorry. Let me try again.

Bahahahahahaha!

Never mind. Seriously. Lol!

Edit: sorry that response was for, Zy.

caseball2051 said:

I took your comment as if youre talking about Chick Fil A. I was not referring to the company but to the politicians that are letting their personal views get in the way of improving their communities.

Boston mayor wanted to actively block chick fil a from putting restaurants in the city. That is what is irresponsible in this. I live in MA but not in Boston. We dotn have any of these restaurants here. We should welcome them though. They ll give back to the state.

Click to expand...

I know we have at least one chick fil a in a mall in the north shore. Its delicious as hell and I don't care what their opinion is on anything besides making chicken.

well, the controversy is definitely having an impact. I went there with my family on Thursday and twice while biting into my sandwhich I didn't bite all the way through like when the meat is cut with the grain. This has never happened to me with a cfa sandwich. I think the stress is getting to them.

Now I'm pissed at homosexuals for fucking up my sandwich!

darkrom said:

I know we have at least one chick fil a in a mall in the north shore. Its delicious as hell and I don't care what their opinion is on anything besides making chicken.

Click to expand...

oh damn, nice darkrom. didnt realize there were a couple here. thought it was strictly down south. they are delicious and i agree!

down in SEmass we dont have em.

People talk about not caring what Chick-Fil-a supports... just wanting to eat their food. It is not like the money they spent their chicken sandwich on is going to hurt any homosexuals. I want to mention something here. You can read all about it in this article:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...y-shines-light-on-companys-charitable-giving/

Chick-Fil-a supports the WinShape Foundation, a group started by Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy that’s financed almost entirely by Chick-fil-A profit. The winShape Foundation have made about $5 million of donations to anti-gay marriage groups since 2003 in 2010 they donated $1.1 million to organizations that deliver anti-LGBT messages like reparative therapy that seek to ‘free’ people of being gay.” You know that crazy conversion therapy that does more harm then good...

They have also given money to the "Family Research Council" you can read the Wiki on them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council One of the things they want removed is the Hate Crime laws... making it no longer a hate crime to when a person is attacked solely for being gay.

Then during the appreciation day poeple day saying they are supporting free speech... it is not like their money is going go to towards hate groups. Well Dan Cathy, said that the company’s sales exceeded $30 million during Wednesday’s “appreciation day,” “almost twice his previous high.” “They are going do take a lot of the excess profits they got on that day and contribute it to the charitable organizations they support in even bigger numbers,”

So every one of my friends who says they don't hate me and want me to get married... but still went to show their support for "free speech" basically contributed to the fight to keep me from having equal rights.

Really, I kind of don't care about the whole gay marriage argument. I know they are on the loosing side. What bothers me most about all of this is poeple trying to bring freedom of speech into this. If we want to support freedom of speech we should really support it. That means you should defend the pedophile who wants to stand on the side walk and tell everyone the benefit that you can get from of having a sexual relationship with a 3 year old. That means you need to defend the Racists right to stand on the sidewalk with a megaphone and talk about the evil of being black in front of an African American family's house. We should be supporting ALL free speech then... not just the kind of free speech that sides with your beliefs.

My comments in bold.

Slightly Medicated said:

One of the things they want removed is the Hate Crime laws... making it no longer a hate crime to when a person is attacked solely for being gay.
I wouldn't support that.

Really, I kind of don't care about the whole gay marriage argument. I know they are on the loosing side. What bothers me most about all of this is poeple trying to bring freedom of speech into this. If we want to support freedom of speech we should really support it. That means you should defend the pedophile who wants to stand on the side walk and tell everyone the benefit that you can get from of having a sexual relationship with a 3 year old.
I would support his right to air his view point.

That means you need to defend the Racists right to stand on the sidewalk with a megaphone and talk about the evil of being black in front of an African American family's house.
I would support his right to air his view point as well. The megaphone, however, might need to go.

We should be supporting ALL free speech then... not just the kind of free speech that sides with your beliefs.
Amen!

Click to expand...

stickstones said:

My comments in bold.

Click to expand...

Then you are more evolved then most.

I should admit... I agree with you on everything you replied to in my previous response.

I remember in college we were having a discussion about things. Where you would ask a question and then you would go to one side of the room or the other depending on how you fell within that statement. A question was asked "Should the KKK be allowed to gather on campus to have non violent discussions about their views on race relations?" Literally me and one other person were on the yes side.

As much as I disagree with their views I support their right to voice them. Now when I change my stance is when someone starts to try and force others to live within their views of acceptable. Basically I just want to be left the hell alone... and I will do the same to you.

I waffle on the hate crime rules... sometimes I feel like it is not needed... others times I do. Particularly when it is clear that a group of poeple were just going out gay bashing.

I have a problem with people who are hypocritical about choosing to like free speech only when it sides with their views.

I judge chick fil a solely on their product and service, both of which are amazing. (especially when vaped) why anyone should judge them for any other reason is beyond me. The only thing that pisses me off bout their beliefs, is almost everytime i think i want some chick fil a, its sunday.

(

Now when I change my stance is when someone starts to try and force others to live within their views of acceptable.

Click to expand...

And this is where a lot of religious people/organizations cross the line. Those who advocate prayer in public schools are disregarding other religions and those who aren't religious or haven't decided for themselves yet. The U.S. isn't a Christian nation. That's just the #1 religion. The country was founded to a large extent by those seeking freedom to practice their own version of Christianity, but a lot of them ended up being intolerant as well. It seems to be a popular human attribute, on the negative end. IMO trying to legislate morality is wrong. IMO what two (or more) people do as consenting adults, when no one else is harmed, is nobody else's business.

And on the gay question, saying that allowing gay people full rights would be encouraging/recruiting young people into the 'gay lifestyle' is ridiculous. Anyone who thinks 'gayness' can be cured or reformed is mistaken IMO. What keeps this fallacy alive I think, is that people forget (or refuse to acknowledge) that it's not just an 'either or', straight or gay situation. You can be at either end of the spectrum, or anywhere in between. And in the same respect being bisexual doesn't necessarily mean you're equally at ease with either sex. So certainly some people who may have considered themselves gay at some point can be happy with the opposite sex, and vice versa. I work with a guy who is happily gay, yet he was married to a woman for 9 years. Many women end up deciding they're gay after years of marriage and having raised kids to adulthood.

Personally I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but since 'marriage' is such a hot topic term, if I were gay I think I'd probably be satisfied with a civil union that gave me the same legal rights. Changing a cultural bias isn't done overnight. And as for marriage as a legal union, it's interesting that a marriage license wasn't required in the US until after the Civil War, and in the 20's the license laws were used to promote racism. Back then if you were white, you had to be intending getting hitched to someone with same skin color. Otherwise, you may as well as have been trying to marry someone of the same sex.

almost everytime i think i want some chick fil a, its sunday.

Click to expand...

Same here. Maybe it's the deal where you don't really want something until someone says you can't have it.

It all boils down to this. Which is more appetizing?

This:




or.............this:

Well, when you put it that way...I'm no longer in the mood for chicken!

Is there a video that goes with that photo? Just asking.

rayski said:

Is there a video that goes with that photo? Just asking.

Click to expand...

Public forum . . . easy does it.

max said:

And as for marriage as a legal union, it's interesting that a marriage license wasn't required in the US until after the Civil War, and in the 20's the license laws were used to promote racism. Back then if you were white, you had to be intending getting hitched to someone with same skin color. Otherwise, you may as well as have been trying to marry someone of the same sex.

Click to expand...

Isn't that an interesting fact? I learned that from Michael Badnarik a while back in his constitution class. Gun control started this way as well. Don't want any newly freed slaves able to purchase firearms, they might still be a little bit angry

Men.....