Family company targeted for supporting traditional marriage

3 News 27 July 2012
All of a sudden, biting into a fried chicken sandwich has  become a political statement. Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain known for putting faith  ahead of profits by closing on Sundays, is standing firm in its opposition to  gay marriage after touching off a furore earlier this month. Gay rights groups have called for a boycott, the Jim Henson  Co. pulled its Muppet toys from kids’ meals, and politicians in Boston and  Chicago told the chain it is not welcome there. Across the Bible Belt, where most of the 1,600 restaurants  are situated, Christian conservatives have thrown their support behind the  Atlanta-based company, promising to buy chicken sandwiches and waffle fries next  week on “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” The latest skirmish in the nation’s culture wars began when  Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company was  “guilty as charged” for backing “the biblical definition of a family.”
http://www.3news.co.nz/Chick-fil-A-sandwiches-become-a-political-symbol/tabid/417/articleID/262852/Default.aspx

Share

18 comments for “Family company targeted for supporting traditional marriage

  1. David Favel
    26 July 2012 at 5:12 pm

    To be fair, they lied about recalling Muppets toys saying there were quality/danger issues, then Chick fil a employees went on the offensive on facebook using fake accounts to defend their decision.
    I have no problem with this company taking this stance, but if I had access to one of their stores, I would not support a bigoted company.
    Exactly the same as I saw a fruit company using standover tactics on indigenous farmers 30 years ago, and I have never bought that brand again.

  2. Bob
    26 July 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Why are they a “bigoted” company, David?

    Because they have an opinion – just like you have an opinion?

    Are you also bigoted?

  3. David Favel
    26 July 2012 at 8:53 pm

    big·ot·ed/ˈbigətid/
    Adjective:
    Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
    Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.
    ——————————————————
    I don’t believe I am bigoted, but am open to a rebuttal.

  4. Ang
    26 July 2012 at 9:06 pm

    Why the problem, Bob?

    Just as the company has the right to oppose gay marriage; another company has the right to withdraw links to that comapany, and consumers have the right not purchase goods or services from that company (a boycott).

  5. Bob
    26 July 2012 at 10:30 pm

    The problem is that the Councils are trying to ban the company even operating!! Now THAT’S intolerant.

    Very sad that those demanding tolerance are often the most intolerant.

  6. Rhona
    26 July 2012 at 11:37 pm

    But aren’t opponents of homosexual and lesbian marriage doing exactly the same to the Starbucks coffee chain…?

  7. Bob
    26 July 2012 at 11:41 pm

    I haven’t seen any of them try to shut down a business who support same-sex marriage. Have you?

  8. Rhona
    26 July 2012 at 11:45 pm

    Still, is it really any different? The objective of most boycotts is to challenge corporate policies, as with those businesses that traded with South Africa during the apartheid era.

    It isn’t, Bob. In both cases, the objective is to decrease profits in order to change corporate policies.

  9. Bruce
    27 July 2012 at 12:55 am

    Judging from the furore, soon we might have to refuse to buy a hotdog from a southpaw, a lettuce from a colour-blind, or an opinion from an incompetent lawyer. Well, why not? It’s hard to get a lick of sense from most clever people.

  10. Bob
    27 July 2012 at 1:12 am

    A boycott is one thing. A government attempt to close a business because of their views on marriage is completely another thing

    I hope you can understand the difference!

  11. David Favel
    27 July 2012 at 1:36 pm

    The second council letter stated they weren’t welcome in their city. Statement of fact or grandstanding? You choose.
    The first that refused the restaurant is wrong in possibly law and common sense.
    Let them open wherever they want. Then let the public decide if they wish to patronise.

    It must be all uphill once the Muppets are against you.

  12. Rhona
    27 July 2012 at 2:08 pm

    And opponents of homosexual and lesbian marriage wouldn’t do exactly the same thing in the context of Starbucks? I’m sorry, but essentially, boycotts are a neutral technique for influencing corporate policies. They can be used for good conservative ends or otherwise.

  13. 27 July 2012 at 5:56 pm

    “Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.”
    Are you not being ‘intolerent’ David?

  14. 27 July 2012 at 5:57 pm

    The fatal flaw of this post-modern relativist society.

  15. 27 July 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Already addressed earlier Rhona:

    Bob
    27 July 2012 at 1:12 am
    A boycott is one thing. A government attempt to close a business because of their views on marriage is completely another thing

    I hope you can understand the difference!

  16. David Favel
    27 July 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Already addressed earlier Whyman:
    David Favel
    27 July 2012 at 1:36 pm

    The second council letter stated they weren’t welcome in their city. Statement of fact or grandstanding? You choose.
    The first that refused the restaurant is wrong in possibly law and common sense.

  17. 28 July 2012 at 4:10 am
  18. 28 July 2012 at 4:12 am

    “Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.”

    Pretty good definition of the gay marriage lobby after this episode.

Comments are closed.