Danno went to Chick-Fil-A

[Karee 4,189]

I don't get the support for the CEO expressing his opinion, but the boycott makes little sense either unless the company was discriminating against gay employees and/or customers.

As to why it doesn't make sense supporting the CEO by eating there - imagine if we were talking about a chain called, Akbar's Chicken, and the CEO, Akbar, openly expressed his opinion that 911 attack was the fault of U.S. presence in the M.E., would people eat at his place to show their support for his opinion, even if it were inflammatory and unpopular?

Or... suppose it was a chain called, Bubba's Chicken and the CEO said the Oklahoma City bombing was the fault of the ATF and its 'jack-booted thugs,' would people support him expressing his opinion by eating at his restaurant on a special day?

CEO's have a right to express their opinions, but people also have a right boycott the company that CEO represents, even if it's in response to his opinion about a controversial topic. Supporting the CEO for giving his opinion though seems misplaced, unproductive and only further divides the country. Those who want to eat there, should eat there, but they don't need make it into a political statement.

So boycotting the place is not making a political statement? Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So boycotting the place is not making a political statement? Seems to me you can't have it both ways.

Of course it is, just like CEO giving his opinion on a controversial topic. It makes no sense to support a CEO for making his opinion public about a controversial subject and treat as if the man should be able to openly express his opinion. Of course he has a right to his views. But traditionally (a once conservative ideal), prominent people (private or public) have understood that once they make their opinion public about a controversial topic, they've just turned it into a political statement. Those supporting the CEO for having an opinion are trying to dismiss it as him merely having an opinion and ignoring the elephant in the closet.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is a good Op/Ed piece published in today's Arizona Republic:

Given all the news coverage and social media onslaught you might actually believe that scenes of people standing in long lines at Chick-fil-A restaurants Wednesday had something to do with tolerance versus intolerance, gay rights versus "traditional values," right versus wrong.

It didn't.

The Chick-fil-A media circus only proved that in America is it possible for citizens to conduct a vast, national argument in which both sides are wrong and both sides are faking it.

It began when the head of the company, Dan Cathy, declared his support for traditional marriage and was condemned by those who disagree.

Then it got out of hand.

It's OK to agree with the head of Chick-fil-A for saying he supports traditional marriage and to patronize his restaurants in order to show your support.

Just as it's OK to disagree with him over the fact that the philanthropic subdivision his company – WinShape – gives millions of dollars to defeat same sex-marriage initiatives and to not patronize his restaurants because of his views. (Or because of your cholesterol. Or because you're a vegetarian.)

But it's idiotic for political figures like the mayors of places like Boston, Chicago and San Francisco to say the company is not welcome in their towns because of the boss's views.

Would they do that for any other business professionals?

Doctors, for example?

Or professional football team owners?

Or players?

Likewise, it's silly for others to say they would ONLY patronize businesses that adhere to their more "traditional" values. Chicken sandwiches don't really test that claim.

When a parent brings a child to an emergency room with a life-threatening condition does he ask about the sexual preference of the treating physician?

Do we ask the political views of the paramedics who respond our calls for help?

If someone were breaking into your house would you tell the 911 operator to only send Christian officers? Or only Republicans? Or Democrats?

For that matter, do you want the best plumber for the job or the one who agrees with you politically?

Do you want the best auto mechanic or the one who shares your views on marriage?

Do you think any of the passengers on the U.S. Airways flight that safely landed in the Hudson River in 2009 cared about religious beliefs or political persuasion of Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger?

Before purchasing any product or service do you require a representative of the business to fill out a questionnaire in order to assure that their religious and political beliefs match yours?

I didn't think so.

We're actually smarter than that. Thank God.

(Unless you don't believe in God, which I may or may not care about, depending on how well you make chicken nuggets.)

http://www.azcentral...JMontini/167822

[SMOKE 1,426]

I don't get the support for the CEO expressing his opinion, but the boycott makes little sense either unless the company was discriminating against gay employees and/or customers.

As to why it doesn't make sense supporting the CEO by eating there - imagine if we were talking about a chain called, Akbar's Chicken, and the CEO, Akbar, openly expressed his opinion that 911 attack was the fault of U.S. presence in the M.E., would people eat at his place to show their support for his opinion, even if it were inflammatory and unpopular?

Or... suppose it was a chain called, Bubba's Chicken and the CEO said the Oklahoma City bombing was the fault of the ATF and its 'jack-booted thugs,' would people support him expressing his opinion by eating at his restaurant on a special day?

CEO's have a right to express their opinions, but people also have a right boycott the company that CEO represents, even if it's in response to his opinion about a controversial topic. Supporting the CEO for giving his opinion though seems misplaced, unproductive and only further divides the country. Those who want to eat there, should eat there, but they don't need make it into a political statement.

inflammatory statements about terrorist acts & mass murder = a guy saying he doesn't support gay marriage. priceless dude.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Did you have the chicken sandwich?

I know you can't resist posting countless pictures from your new favorite website, but I have to ask ... who is mad? People are choosing to eat there or choosing not to eat there. Someone eating chicken isn't enough to upset me, personally.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

inflammatory statements about terrorist acts & mass murder = a guy saying he doesn't support gay marriage. priceless dude.

Right. So supporting the CEO for openly expressing his opinion really depends on what that opinion is, which is political activism vs. merely supporting the man for giving his opinion.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Right. So supporting the CEO for openly expressing his opinion really depends on what that opinion is, which is political activism vs. merely supporting the man for giving his opinion.

call it what you want. using a scenario equating inflammatory statements about terrorist acts & mass murder to a man saying he doesn't support same sex marriage is absolutely pathetic.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

call it what you want. using a scenario equating inflammatory statements about terrorist acts & mass murder to a man saying he doesn't support same sex marriage is absolutely pathetic.

Your comprehension skills are winning. If people are supporting him for expressing his opinion, then it wouldn't matter what that opinion is, according to their argument (freedom). That is, unless it were an unpopular opinion, then the subject seems to matter - so really, this is political activism in spite of those arguing that they're supporting the CEO's right to openly express his opinion and not what his opinion is.

Edited August 1, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[B_J 2,752]

I support Chick-fil-A because I know a little about the company having worked there when I was younger.

I also support the right of those who plan to protest on August 3. Free speech works both ways.

What I do not support is elected officials - the mayor of Chicago and the mayor of Boston - using their positions to decide where Chick-fil-A can open restaurants. By the way, even the ACLU has come out supporting Chick-fil-A in this.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713

By the way, all Dan Cathy did was state the same position that Barack Obama had until a few months ago. Why was there no outrage then?

[Danno 1,228]

By the way, all Dan Cathy did was state the same position that Barack Obama had until a few months ago. Why was there no outrage then?

Thats one question that will never be answered.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Its Free something......Freedom

That's weird. I didn't know I could make a statement about my freedom by supporting a corporation.

... and no one else!

LOL

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

To be fair, the CEO of Chick-Fil-A expressing his personal religious views does not equal actual discrimination. If you think it does, explain how.

But he didn't express just his own personal religious views. He said "we" and referred to the Company supporting family values - the biblical definition of the family unit.

[Danno 1,228]

But he didn't express just his own personal religious views. He said "we" and referred to the Company supporting family values - the biblical definition of the family unit.

So what if he did.... you're saying unless the guy supports something illegal and unpopular he is near a criminal.

SHould he also support every other combination of peoples who want to be legally married or should he only support the ones you do?

[B_J 2,752]

But he didn't express just his own personal religious views. He said "we" and referred to the Company supporting family values - the biblical definition of the family unit.

But he/they still haven't discriminated against anybody. All he did was state his/their opinion. And because of that, it's okay for elected officials to declare that he can't open restaurants in Chicago or Boston?

And again, why was it not an issue when Barack Obama held the same opinion as Dan Cathy?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I support Chick-fil-A because I know a little about the company having worked there when I was younger.

I also support the right of those who plan to protest on August 3. Free speech works both ways.

What I do not support is elected officials - the mayor of Chicago and the mayor of Boston - using their positions to decide where Chick-fil-A can open restaurants. By the way, even the ACLU has come out supporting Chick-fil-A in this.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/chick-fil-a-gay-marriage-chicago/2012/07/26/id/446713

By the way, all Dan Cathy did was state the same position that Barack Obama had until a few months ago. Why was there no outrage then?

I don't understand why anyone would take what those government officials said seriously. It ought to be common sense that a Mayor is not a King and that he's got to answer to a city council, a planning commission, etc. They didn't "decide" anything. They just opened their mouths and ####### rolled out.

Like Dan Cathy.

Thats one question that will never be answered.

LOL.

Unless you are on Mars, you knew the President was a supporter of gay marriage before he announced it. The same way you knew Chik-Fil-A were anti-gay before Dan Cathy spoke to the Baptist Press.

So what if he did.... you're saying unless the guy supports something illegal and unpopular he is near a criminal.

SHould he also support every other combination of peoples who want to be legally married or should he only support the ones you do?

Holy Reading Comprehension, Batman!

Do you see the word "criminal" anywhere in my post?

But he/they still haven't discriminated against anybody. All he did was state his/their opinion. And because of that, it's okay for elected officials to declare that he can't open restaurants in Chicago or Boston?

And again, why was it not an issue when Barack Obama held the same opinion as Dan Cathy?

Answered both already, I believe.