Holy Cow! Chik-fil-a Backed Down

[Andtototoo]

Love me some of that good Cane's sauce.
I'll believe it a few years from now when he's NOT put his money where his mouth is. To have been soooo vocal then to back down, I'm skeptical. Didn't their base continue to eat there or was that one day the end of that?

I'm skeptical too. It reminds me of when Cracker Barrel supposedly backed down on their anti-gray stance and practices in 1991 when the NY City employee pension system decided to sell their stock. (For more info: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/business/danny-evins-restaurant-founder-and-focus-of-controversy-dies-at-76.html?_r=2 They may have changed their book policies, but in 2000, my cousin worked for them-- in New York state -- and told me that gay and lesbian employees were fired instantly if they made any comments that revealed their sexuality, so the rule was rescinded, but the de facto policies remained. She actually asked her manager about it because she was so shocked at what she was seeing and was told, "The president of this company hates gays and wants them out of here. We do as we're told."

 

[ladypage]

Yeah, they run around snatching people off the streets and forcing them into locked down camps against their will like Nazis...

What some term "hate groups" others who use them view as voluntary treatment. I know people who have gone - voluntarily - because their religious beliefs led them to do so. They have as much right to the services of a pro-heterosexual program as anyone else does to want to be openly and happily gay.

"Tolerance, as long as you agree with our point of view." It works both ways.

Honestly, if a person decides to check themselves into one of those places because they want to, and not because they were pressured in to it or worse, that;s fine. I will stand by that, even if I don't agree with it. But I have friends who were forced into those places when they were younger, and I am NOT ok with that at all. Are you?

 

[chobie]

Ill-guided but still not oppressive unless oppression is only a one-way street. The gay agenda demands that everyone accept their lifestyle. Those who do not are labeled homophobic and widely denounced. Isn't that oppressive?

Umm, no. Because labels don't take away rights from people. If gays are allowed to get married, please can still label them as sinful and denounce their lifestyle just like they do now.

 

[Christopher Robin]

My husband, my wife and I aren't quite sure what to think of all this.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

Ill-guided but still not oppressive unless oppression is only a one-way street. The gay agenda demands that everyone accept their lifestyle. Those who do not are labeled homophobic and widely denounced. Isn't that oppressive?

Hmmm... I'm guessing that you believed that the whites were oppressed during integration? Those who still don't believe in equality are labeled "racists"... that's oppressive?

And men were oppressed with the 19th Ammendment?

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

The gay agenda demands that everyone accept their lifestyle.

False. All gays want is to be able to do the same things everyone else does and not be harassed or treated as second class citizens. They don't give a flip whether anyone accepts the lifestyle or not. On the contrary, the one's demanding everyone accept their idea of an ideal lifestyle, are the ones with an agenda to keep gays as second class citizens.

Really? Have you been in a CFA recently? Of course not because you're boycotting. Every single one I've been to has been just as busy as before you started your "boycott."

Well he either changed his policy because he genuinely has had a change of heart thanks to the boycott, or he's announcing the change because it cost him business, thanks to the boycott. So in any case, the boycott was at least a partial success. Now whether this is a genuine change or the guy will continue to do what he did before but on a lower profile remains to be seen.

 

[FireDancer]

The discussion of equal rights for homosexuals often confuses different topics as it has here. It is not about acceptance or tolerance, it is about equal civil rights in the eyes of the law. (General) you can think homosexuality is wrong, a choice, a sin, or anything else. No on wants to police your thoughts. What you shouldn't be able to do is base someone's civil rights on what you feel is or isn't a sin.

I think adultery is wrong, in some situations I feel abortion is wrong. I do not want adulterers stripped of any of their civil rights and I'm pro-chioce. It isn't what a person thinks that is at the heart of this issue, it is what the government uses as a reason to give one group of American citizens a different set of rights than another group of American citizens. The granting of equal rights to gay Americans does not harm anyone who is not gay. It isn't taking rights away from us and giving it to them. It isn't a zero sum game.

I don't and never cared about what the owner believes in his heart. I choose not to go to CFA because a portion of the profits were actively funding what I consider a hate group.

 

[mnrose]

The discussion of equal rights for homosexuals often confuses different topics as it has here. It is not about acceptance or tolerance, it is about equal civil rights in the eyes of the law. (General) you can think homosexuality is wrong, a choice, a sin, or anything else. No on wants to police your thoughts. What you shouldn't be able to do is base someone's civil rights on what you feel is or isn't a sin.

I think adultery is wrong, in some situations I feel abortion is wrong. I do not want adulterers stripped of any of their civil rights and I'm pro-chioce. It isn't what a person thinks that is at the heart of this issue, it is what the government uses as a reason to give one group of American citizens a different set of rights than another group of American citizens. The granting of equal rights to gay Americans does not harm anyone who is not gay. It isn't taking rights away from us and giving it to them. It isn't a zero sum game.

Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

Just to give another example, I think smoking is wrong (and arguably it even hurts me, the non-smoker). Would it be right for me to start a campaign to deny smokers equal protection under the law? Should we have a constitutional ban on smoking? What about obesity? That's also not good. How about a constitutional ban on that?

While today it may seem "safe" for people to say "no to gay marriage" and be ok with people taking "popularity" votes on their civil rights since it isn't "them" that people are going after, tomorrow it could well be YOUR rights people want to vote on. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that we are putting any groups civil rights to a vote.

 

[Christine]

Just substitute the word "gay" for "black" or "women" or "disabled" and ask the same question: Should "XXXXX" be allowed to have civil unions? When you phrase it that way, you can clearly see that this is a civil rights issue. I don't boycott Chick-Fil-A because I am much to selfish and self-centered to do so, however, it is clear to me that by them sending money to groups that try to impede another person's civil rights that they have a discriminatory agenda.

 

[Praying Colonel]

Last time this topic came up, I craved a #1 combo with a diet lemonade for 3 days. Now I want another one. Curse you, DISers!

 

[JessicaR]

I guess their one day they had full of supporters was not enough to cover all the people who boycotted every other day.

Yup.

 

[JessicaR]

Why the 180 degree change then?

That is easy: loss of profits.

Exactly.

 

[happygirl]

I hope they don't reserves themselves. It will make them look bad to a lot of people.

 

[KimR]

I hope they don't reserves themselves. It will make them look bad to a lot of people.

What? The funny thing is I have no idea what this means, but yet somehow I'm fairly certain I disagree.

 

[RainbowBrite]

Sorry to hear this.

yes, so terribly sorry to hear they won't be giving money to groups that deny certain people their rights

 

[ugadog99]

The discussion of equal rights for homosexuals often confuses different topics as it has here. It is not about acceptance or tolerance, it is about equal civil rights in the eyes of the law. (General) you can think homosexuality is wrong, a choice, a sin, or anything else. No on wants to police your thoughts. What you shouldn't be able to do is base someone's civil rights on what you feel is or isn't a sin.

I think adultery is wrong, in some situations I feel abortion is wrong. I do not want adulterers stripped of any of their civil rights and I'm pro-chioce. It isn't what a person thinks that is at the heart of this issue, it is what the government uses as a reason to give one group of American citizens a different set of rights than another group of American citizens. The granting of equal rights to gay Americans does not harm anyone who is not gay. It isn't taking rights away from us and giving it to them. It isn't a zero sum game.

I don't and never cared about what the owner believes in his heart. I choose not to go to CFA because a portion of the profits were actively funding what I consider a hate group.

Dang firedancer, I remember the days I used to disagree with you about pretty much everything. Now, it's just the opposite. GREAT post!!

 

[ugadog99]

...and one more thing, what exactly is the "gay agenda?" Never have understood that one!

 

[akhenaten]

Well he either changed his policy because he genuinely has had a change of heart thanks to the boycott, or he's announcing the change because it cost him business, thanks to the boycott. So in any case, the boycott was at least a partial success.

exactly!!

 

[momto2girls]

i dont think so. All the restaurants that I know of were never any less crowded. I think they are just been rethinking how and where they give.

Same situation here. I haven't eaten at Chick-Fil-A since the boycott (I don't have strong feelings about the "issue" at all and I occasionally like a chicken sandwich and waffle fries), but the only reason is because the few times I've been at the mall, the lines at Chick-Fil-A were crazy long!! I'm just not patient enough to wait in those lines.

 

[ilovemk76]

Last time this topic came up, I craved a #1 combo with a diet lemonade for 3 days. Now I want another one. Curse you, DISers!

What is a #1? I have only been in a CFA twice in 2012 and who knows when before 2012.

Is their lemonade tart?