Is Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay? And if so, Should You Not Eat There?

 Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit points to a story at Tax Prof Blog about Northeastern University's decision to bar the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A from that fine institution's campus.

Why the exclusion? On the basis of some of its charitable giving, Chick-fil-A is considered to be anti-gay by the gay rights group Equality Matters. Among the groups that raise ire are outfits such as the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA), Focus on the Family, The Family Resource Council, and Exodus International. Certainly some of these groups talk often about pushing back on what they consider "the homosexual agenda" that has continued to spread like chlymidia despite the cancellation of Will & Grace some years ago. Exodus International is a leading "pray away the gay" outfit.

The giving to such groups is done from the privately owned Chick-fil-A's nonprofit WinShape. The head of the chicken outfit writes to the Boston Globe:

Our agenda is simple: to graciously serve great food and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A. This is the reason why we were initially invited to the campus....

I want to assure you that the historical intent of our Foundation and corporate giving have been toward compassion, principally by serving youth and families.... As some have looked back at the public giving records of the WinShape Foundation, they have unfortunately misinterpreted this support as having a political agenda, largely referencing any religious or faith-based giving as “anti-gay.” For example, if you take the example of FCA, and ask us what was the purpose of the giving, it was to support inter-city mentors and chaplains for schools and colleges primarily here metro Atlanta. Those monies have been labeled as “anti-gay” because of the affiliation with a faith-based organization.

Full statement here.

A student at Ohio's Bowling Green State University, which barred Chick-fil-A from its campus over similar concerns, argues 

Saying Chick-fil-A is anti-gay for donating to a religious organization is like saying someone supports domestic violence because they paid to see a Mel Gibson movie.

There's some truth to that: Many Christian groups are going to be at least theologically uncomfortable with homosexuality because such concerns are part and parcel of what they believe. But it's also an oversimplification at the very least in this case since at least some of the groups are reasonably called anti-gay. The student notes that these groups got very little in donations from WinShape, which could be a mitigating factor in any decision.

But here are questions for libertarians on a Friday morning:

1. Do you think Chick-fil-A's giving is in fact "anti-gay?" Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Family Resource Council, Exodus International: These groups do spend a hell of a lot time jawboning about teh gayz and all the evils of the world they represent (whether they call for legal sanctions against full equality under the law for gays and lesbians is a related but separate issue and arguably more important from a libertarian angle).

2. If a restaurant gives money to causes you don't like, does it make sense to stop patronizing it? Earlier this week, I noted that Ben & Jerry's not only dished up what some hyperbolic commentators called "a pint of racism" by including fortune cookie bits in its Jeremy Lin ice cream tribute. Is that - or Ben & Jerry's generous giving to Occupy Wall Street - worth saying goodbye forever to Cherry Garcia (itself a potentially controversial flavor)?

Back when I was in grad school, nobody would buy Domino's pizza because it supposedly refused to include fetuses among its toppings (my classmates wouldn't buy it, but nobody ever turned down free food when offered; I'm pretty sure that even Emma Goldman would have eaten Oysters Rockefeller if she didn't have to pay for them).

Libertarians believe in "disciplining through the market" - in refusing to do business with folks who annoy you or freak your shit as a means of making a statement about issues that go beyond any particular economic exchange. Is the Chick-fil-A ban a modern-day instance of that? Or is it political correctness run amok? How much do we need to know - or should we try to learn - about the vendors in our lives?

And finally: Why am I jonesing for chicken for lunch today and it's not even 10am?

As always, Seinfeld has answers to everything, especially when it comes to the most contentious issues of the day and the proper libertarian approach.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    BFD. Second time I've used that this week. Must be BFD week.

    If they're pouring their money into neo-Nazi groups, then I can see boycotting them. If their charitable giving indirectly results in supporting something you don't like, voice your concerns to corporate and be done with it. Or make a fuss. A boycott every time you're offended is kind of silly.

  • fish||

    Pro Lib

    Your comment offends me! Consider yourself boycotted!

  • ||

    As always, Pro Libertate, Inc. appreciates your thoughts and comments. We'll review your suggestion, weighing its implications to our shareholders and the community, and take the appropriate action.

    Again, thanks for your comments!

  • ||

    Consider your and your corporation othered.

  • ||

    Say hello to my little lawyer.

  • ||

    That is a microagression!!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    And, sad to say, it appears that microaggressions.com is down right now. How am I supposed to get my daily dose of Manufactured Outrage Hilariousness?

  • ||

    And what about the victims RBM? What about them? Where are they supposed to go to for support now?

  • Why is food under lock'n'key?||

    “You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work?

    “What these founders of our culture fundamentally invented for us was the notion of work. They developed a hard way to live—the hardest way to live ever found on this planet. Their revolution wasn’t about food, it was about power. That’s still what it’s all about.”

    ~Daniel Quinn

  • Fat Indian||

    Three more Twinkies, losers. I scarfed down three more while C&P'ing that little bit there. Twinkies I liberated from the hands of the oppressors!

  • Why is food under lock'n'key?||

    Can you answer the question?

  • ||

    To keep fat asses like you Rather from eating it all.

  • fish||

    Can you answer the question?

    Duh! To keep your chubby paws off of it!

  • Privation Property = Lord Over||

    ...Other People.

    Power over other people.

    The power to starve them if they don't work in the elite's offices and factories and armed forces.

    That's what agricultural city-Statism (civilization) is all about.

  • Fat Indian||

    C'mon Jason! Sing with me!

    You put the Ding Dong in!

    You take the Ding Dong out!

    You put the Ding Dong in!

    And you shake it all about,

    You do the agricultural city-Statism (civilization) pokey and you turn yourself around.

    That what it's all about.

    Repeat with the following items!

    2) Twinkie
    3) Twizzler
    4) Frosted Flakes
    5) Headcheese
    6) Pork Loin
    7) Gwynneth Paltrows head

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    OK, I still strongly advocate not talking to it, but this was pretty good. #7 is my fave.

  • Why is food under lock & key?||

    Can you tell me?

  • Why White Imbeciles Fling Shit||

    "You know when White Imbeciles are startled and exited - they start to fling their shit like hippos," so says Dr. Kimberly Clark after a study of White Imbeciles in the wild.

    Since it has been known through empirical studies that White Imbeciles are animals, their behavior in the wild has been the subject of intense study by several researchers, including Dr. Clark.

    "What we found is that White Imbeciles engage in very repetitive behavior, clearly a manifestation of instinct and not much else, but the most fascinating aspect of this behavior is their flinging of shit everywhere."

    "Studying White Imbeciles In The Wild,"
    Dr. Kimberly Clark
    University of Clark County Press
    1972

  • Reverend Cleophus James||

    Indian? Do you see the light? Do you see it?

    We're puttin the band back together? The primitive tribal band!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: White Imbecile,

    Why is food under lock & key?


    So White Imbeciles cannot get to it and poop all over it. I also have it in hermetically-sealed containers for that very reason, otherwise it would be very unsanitary to let it near the White Imbeciles.

  • Why White Imbeciles Fling Shit||

    "You know when White Imbeciles are startled and exited - they start to fling their shit like hippos," so says Dr. Kimberly Clark after a study of White Imbeciles in the wild.

    Since it has been known through empirical studies that White Imbeciles are animals, their behavior in the wild has been the subject of intense study by several researchers, including Dr. Clark.

    "What we found is that White Imbeciles engage in very repetitive behavior, clearly a manifestation of instinct and not much else, but the most fascinating aspect of this behavior is their flinging of shit everywhere."

    "Studying White Imbeciles In The Wild,"
    Dr. Kimberly Clark
    University of Clark County Press
    1972

  • Paleo||

    Considering why hippos do that, I gather you are referring to claiming territory. In any case civilization beats the 15+% homicide rate in primitive societies.

  • Mike M.||

    No, but my question is why is it never the Rectals who die of a heart attack at 43?

  • Not Stressed with Hatred||

    Plus, it's healthy to be lazy.

    Remember, WORK KILLS.

    Idle Theory
    The Idle Theory of evolution, human life, technology, trade, money, ethics, law, and religion, proposes that life does the least work it can.
    http://idletheory.info/

  • Hugo Longbone||

    So THAT's what Dokken was talking about!

  • Deregulate Gambol Lockdown!||

    "Unchain the Night!"

    "The Hunter!"

  • Almanian||

    "Dokken! Rhymes with 'Rockin''."

    lulz

  • Why White Imbeciles Fling Shit||

    "You know when White Imbeciles are startled and exited - they start to fling their shit like hippos," so says Dr. Kimberly Clark after a study of White Imbeciles in the wild.

    Since it has been known through empirical studies that White Imbeciles are animals, their behavior in the wild has been the subject of intense study by several researchers, including Dr. Clark.

    "What we found is that White Imbeciles engage in very repetitive behavior, clearly a manifestation of instinct and not much else, but the most fascinating aspect of this behavior is their flinging of shit everywhere."

    "Studying White Imbeciles In The Wild,"
    Dr. Kimberly Clark
    University of Clark County Press
    1972

  • ||

    If the food wasn't under lock and key, then it would be free for the taking. And people would take it, or they would generate more people to take it, until the freely available food was all gone. Then, locks and keys -- and guns and clubs! -- would be necessary to retain food necessary for survival against the aggression of those who didn't have enough. So, in an attempt to promote survival and foster peace, some take it upon themselves to invent agriculture and cultivate food. To do this, they must invest time, brainpower, talent, and plenty of hard labor to produce food. Having done this, why shouldn't they keep that food under lock and key, storing it against disaster and famine, and trading it with others who didn't or couldn't produce food, for goods and services that the others could provide?

    (continued in reply msg)

  • ||

    (continued from above...)

    What is so nefarious about agriculture and why should agriculturally (or technologically) produced food be free? How is that fair to the producers, who literally gave up significant portions of their lives (and sometimes, also, health) to facilitate the production?

    If some great benefactor could covertly find a way to ensure endless supplies of automatically generated food, that would be one thing. But as long as human labor, ingenuity, and time are necessary to produce, distribute, and prepare food that is safe and nutritious to consume, food can never be "free" unless the humans in the food chain are either uncompensated volunteers or, to some extent, slaves.

  • ||

    It's important to say that the 900 character limit to comments seems very unfortunately chosen -- Reason, if you are going to limit comments, the ones you need to limit are the endless streams of pseudo-porn, abusive invective, bot-spam, and other blights that litter these threads. Those messagesm as well as many a flip dismissal or marginalizing comment, are SHORT! A reasoned essay, even a brief one, is very likely to exceed 900 characters. Are you signaling that you wish to host only thoughtLESS commentary?

  • ||

    "A reasoned essay, even a brief one, is very likely to exceed 900 characters. Are you signaling that you wish to host only thoughtLESS commentary?"

    The owners get to set the rules. It's the comment section of a blog post. Blogs are easy to set up, if you're writing 900 word essays for a blog comment, maybe you ought to just start a blog. You'll get a sprain if you try to impress yourself too much.

  • ||

    Anyway, while I don't think it's all that "important to say that the 900 character limit to comments seems very unfortunately chosen, I did like your pointing out the common sense answer to Daniel Quinn's adolescent, and wrong, conclusion about agriculture, whoever the hell Daniel Quinn is:

    “What these founders of our culture fundamentally invented for us was the notion of work. They developed a hard way to live—the hardest way to live ever found on this planet. Their revolution wasn’t about food, it was about power. That’s still what it’s all about.”

  • ||

    Sheesh, "power" he says. That guy needs to grow up, that sort of thing never sounds impressive after grades have been given out for a freshman year sociology class. Clearly, it never occurred to this boyo that chasing after food that sometimes might chase one back was much less attractive a proposition than figuring out ways to produce, gather and keep resources in places where is is easier to do so.

  • ||

    Aw, crap, now I'm doing it.

  • burnt||

    I'm pretty sure the commanche would have done some horrible shit to you if you took their food.

  • ||

    Because it's not yours. Grow your own, loser.

  • cynical||

    "If they're pouring their money into neo-Nazi groups, then I can see boycotting them. "

    Sure, boycott. But a public university banning them from campus based on their political views would be a 1A issue.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I don't think any gay people, or metrosexuals, eat their mediocre food anyway. Though they do eat Cosi which is no better.

  • Jackalope||

    You shut your whore mouth.

  • Con MD||

    Who are the fascists here? Who are the most intolerant? Which group closes down private adoption agencies (instead of merely forming their own)? Who mandates teaching of their group in a positive light in California schools without an opt-out for parents?

    Hint: It is not the Christians.

  • hlfk||

    Oh boy. You do know that homosexuals do not have full equal rights under the law, and indeed in many countries around the world are executed merely for being gay, right? I am against govt run education in general, myself, of course, but why on earth do you want your children to only learn negative, untrue things about a group of fellow human beings? Isn't it a good thing for them to learn about other people- particularly as some of those children may be gay themselves? BTW, some gay people are Christians, we are not your enemies, we just want to be treated like everyone else, is that so hard? Being a Christian doesn't mean you get to treat people poorly.

  • hlfk||

    Why? I am not interested in giving my money to people who want to use it to cause me harm. Isn't that sensible, self-preservation even?

  • DanD||

    It's pretty amazing how much mileage Chick-fil-A has gotten out of those cows. I'm 29 years old and I can't remember when they didn't have the "eat mor chikin" schtick going on. Those bovines are easily going to outlive Ronald McD.

    PS: Ben & Jerry's sucks.

  • ||

    Those bovines are easily going to outlive Ronald McD.

    Unsurprising, given the comparative life spans of clowns and cows.

  • Apogee||

    That's a study I'd read!

  • KentAtwater||

    If Chick-Fil-A is not anti-homosexual, I will continue to eat there.

    If Chick-Fil-A is anti-homosexual, I will continue to eat there.

    They make good food, and I've never had service at a fast food restaurant as good or as courteous as the service at Chick-Fil-A.

  • Ice Nine ||

    And you can securely pick up your napkin when you drop it.

  • KentAtwater||

    Nah. Just get another one from the dispenser. Another dead tree, and you littered. A twofer! Conservatives don't give a damn about the environment, after all, right?

  • Almanian McMahon||

    Hiyoooo!

  • Bruce Majors||

    But the special sauce is not as special.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    NOW THAT IS AN OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT, Chik-Fil-a SUCKS!

  • Rob||

    Chik-Fil-a SUCKS!

    I Have to agree with that. I only went there once when I was in Charleston, SC. Worst food ever.

  • ||

    Then the Charleston, SC Chik-Fil-A is an outlier. Best fast food in the country and I've been to a lot of them in a lot of different places. It's not really close.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Checkers and Pollo Loco are better. If you don't have a cheese burger or red beans and rice you're a joke.

  • ||

    Very nice of you to say that. Daughter was an order taker and now boy works out front wiping tables. I could care less about their religious beliefs, they sign paychecks.

  • Playa Manhattan||

    Agreed. Very competent employees. Only place that even comes close is In N Out Burger, which is also a supposedly right wing christian restaurant...

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    In N Out is a privately held corporation. The family that owns it is indeed Christian. I think the "right wing" aspect you mentioned in your comment is projected on them by liberals who can't handle Christianity mixed with a successful enterprise. Great employees and customer experience.

  • Bruce Majors||

    If they named it In and Out it has to be good.

  • hlfk||

    A lot of people sign paychecks. I wouldn't take a paycheck from someone who was using the products of my labor to convince other people I was not worthy of respect because of my nature, who I love.

  • Anti-fagscist||

    If Chick-Fil-A is anti-fagscist, I'm definitely going to eat there a lot more often.

  • hlfk||

    I fail to see how opposing theocratic ideals in support of equal rights for everyone under the law, and opposing laws that seek to imprison and execute innocent people around the world on the basis of their love lives, is facist.

  • sarcasmic||

    In high school I did brief stint at Chick-fil-A.
    Everyone there was so uber Christian preachy that after just two days I quit.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Let me rephrase that, you boycotted working there.

  • Guest Commentator||

    If getting fired means boycotted, yes.

  • fish||

    Does this mean I can Fire Pro Lib for his earlier insensitive comment?

  • ||

    You don't own me, bitch.

  • fish||

    But Pro Lib I'm all fired up with righteous indignation....right now!

  • ||

    I believe they're mostly franchises, so that probably varies. Though there is some overt Christianity in the chain as a whole, of course.

  • SIV||

    I eat at Chick-Fil-A fairly often in many different states. The high level of service, courtesy and politeness pervades every restaurant in the chain.

    I've consciously patronized them more ever since the intolerant bigots called for a boycott

  • KentAtwater||

    "I've consciously patronized them more ever since the intolerant bigots called for a boycott"

    Same here. Great lemonade!

  • SIV||

    I work out of town and stay in a lot of hotels so I often get an unsweet tea with lemon from CFA to go with takeout from another (non-fast food) restaurant.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Made with Holy Water. A priest dips his finger in it.

  • ||

    Yikes! Dont you know where that finger has been?

  • ||

    Umm, that wasn't his finger...

  • ||

    Even the diet lemonade is great lemonade....

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I have been to one food court style Chick Fil A run by a food service company. It was kind of nasty.

  • ||

    Thats why you're obese, SIV

  • sarcasmic||

    They give out Christian literature and everything.

    I couldn't stand working there. It was like being at church.

    That said, their food isn't bad and I would eat there if they had a shop around here.

  • Bruce Majors||

    It's nice to have a place mat.

  • maia||

    sarcasm,

    i worked at a chick-fil-a through out my high school years and had a very different experience. the owner of the franchise i worked at wasn't a christian, and didn't push any values other than fast and good customer service, as well as keeping the store clean. no religion pushing there. i think that moral/religious focus probably varies depending on each owner.

  • ||

    "They give out Christian literature and everything."

    You poor sad victim. It's a miracle you came out of that trauma in one piece.

    Ha ha, just kidding, I'm sitting here laughing, trying to picture someone like you living during the Great Depression. There might be a reason to take you seriously as a grown up, but that statement ain't it.

  • wareagle ||

    Though there is some overt Christianity in the chain as a whole, of course.
    --------------------

    seeing as how all stores are closed on Sunday, you think?

  • ||

    That's one. There are others.

  • ||

    So why is it that the time I most want a Chick-Fil-A is Sunday? Does that seem right to you?

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I took a bath in the sink at Burger King once.

  • Bruce Majors||

    The infamous casting tub.

  • ChrisO||

    It's your money. Spend it how you like.

    Personally, I don't think Chick-fil-A's food is anything special. The one near my office is always crowded, though.

    The same thing happens on the right when a movie star makes some asinine left-wing statement. All this talk of boycotts and such. I'm guessing that Chick-fil-A is not scared of losing the OWSer crowd.

  • Bee Tagger||

    Personally, I don't think Chick-fil-A's food is anything special.

    When put in the context of fast-food, I think it's elevated to something special.

  • ||

    Those chicken sandwiches on the biscuit?

    http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Foo.....en-Biscuit

    Those are awesome.

    That's the thing I don't think gay rights people are accounting for in this. If people have to give up food they like in order to support gay rights causes? Then that doesn't just hurt the brand of the restaurant they're protesting; that hurts the brand of gay rights causes.

  • ||

    Eh, they're okay, but not as good as Bojangles if you want a chicken sandwich on a biscuit.

  • Bruce Majors||

    When I first started working as a realtor there was this teeny blonde pixie of a gay mortgage broker who was always coming around our office trying to get people to refer business to him. I never made referrals to him just because I was afraid people would worry I was only sending them to him because he was a gay, or even worse, because we were a couple.

    Then I had someone who wanted to buy a mansion for $385,000 back in the early 90s when thatbwas real money, a big 4 or 5 story Logan Circle Victorian. 12 lenders in a row turned the buyer down because he had just started his own company, taking all his bosses clients withbhim, and already making more money and having 30% to put down. But he didn't even have a year of self employed tax returns yet.

    The fey pixie did the loan no one else could do, and for th next 12 years I gave him first crack at everything.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    And finally: Why am I jonesing for chicken for lunch today and it's not even 10am?

    Go get those awesome Breakfast Chicken Biscuits Chick-Fil-A has. SO GOOD.

  • ||

    I didn't see your post, but those chicken biscuits are the shiznit.

  • ||

    What's 'chlymidia'?

  • BoscoH||

    It's like if Clyde Drexler were Chad Ochocinco and created his own news outlet like Chad did (OCNN sponsored by Motorola), Drexler's would be called "clymedia".

  • ||

    What's 'chlymidia'?

    It's something you get from eating raw eggs.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    Or Philipino prostitutes...not that I would really know...

  • ||

    look between your legs duckman-THATS chlymidia

  • Doc Noitol||

    It's the antibiotic-resistant penis-rotting virus you get from boning sluts like that Fluke bitch.

  • Bruce Majors||

    I find it dubious she gets much boning, since she has no idea what contraception actually costs.

  • Bruce Majors||

    Isn't that an Obama donor that sells carbon credits?

  • ||

    The giving to such groups is done from the privately owned Chick-fil-A's nonprofit WinShape.

    They are also RACIST anti-poor, because they are closed on Sunday.

    Northeastern students should hold a campus-wide vote, but that might result in an inappropriate outcome.
    Tyranny of the Minority FTW!

  • ||

    ^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^

  • ||

    Northeastern students should hold a campus-wide vote, but that might result in an inappropriate outcome.

    When I was an undergrad at Duke, students repeatedly voted to have a Wendy's in one location instead of other fast food choices. The "problem" is that Wendy's wanted to have their own employees, or at least their own employment contract, rather than pay $20+ an hour plus benefits to unionized campus employees to staff the fast food place. So we had McDonalds, then something else.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You can't just have uneducated teenagers flipping the burgers! It'd be a campus wide disaster!

  • Bruce Majors||

    Don't Northeastern students end up working at Chick FIl A anyway?

  • sarcasmic||

    Libertarians believe in "disciplining through the market" - in refusing to do business with folks who annoy you or freak your shit as a means of making a statement about issues that go beyond any particular economic exchange. Is the Chick-fil-A ban a modern-day instance of that?

    No. Disciplining through the market would be Chick-fil-A opening up shop, and closing shortly after because students refuse to give them business.
    Banning them is an example of not allowing students the opportunity to "discipline through the market".

  • BoscoH||

    Ed-fucking-Zachary. Well said.

  • Banning = Market Discipline||

    Where is the force the university used to keep them off their property, eh?

  • ||

    Chikafil has no particular right to be on campus, so let the university decided on what ever criteria they'd like as to who will conduct business on their premises.

  • RTFA, White Dipshit||

  • ||

    I'm white?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    If you assume that the university is not a market actor, that would be true.

    But they are, so it isn't.

  • robc||

    Is Northeastern private or a state school?

    I have no clue, its not in real america (I know the answer for Northwestern and Northwestern St).

    If its private, its a market actor and can use whatever factors it wants to consider.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Private.

    Setting that aside, let's say they were a state school. Is a State School obligated to have a vendor on campus just because they are a state school?

  • robc||

    I think if they have a spot open that they are going to rent for fast food, they are obligated to consider Nazi-Burger equally.

  • robc||

    Sorry, my REAL answer is this problem is solved by separation of school and state. I shouldnt allow myself to get distracted by the minutaie.

  • mr simple||

    Their gold star burgers do come fresh from the oven.

  • Commercial||

    Made with real gold freshly extracted from Jewish teeth!

  • Bruce Majors||

    No a state school is morally obligated to douse itself in gasoline and immolate themselves, possibly while serving to BBQ chicken.

  • ||

    Trick question. We should be asking, "is the state allowed to have its own school?"

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The private public distinction doesn't tell you much anymore. Just to pick two examples, Penn State (a public school), currently gets 19% of its funding from government sources (7% from state appropriations and 12% from federal grants). Meanwhile Carnegie Mellon (a private school), currently gets 35% of its funding from government sources (in that case all grants).

  • ||

    The distinction is over who owns the university... the government or a private entity.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Most universities are non-profit corporations that "own" themselves, whether private or public.

  • BoscoH||

    More annoying about Chick-fil-A is getting "my pleasured" 20 times at the drive thru from some barely legal girl less than half my age, followed by being instructed to "have a bless-ed day". That extra syllable makes me cringe. Even more annoying is not being able to get my fix on a Sunday. But you know what? The food is so God damned good, I will put up with these veiled messages of Faith. So long as they don't forget the Chick-Fil-A sauce in my bag. Price I pay.

  • Almanian||

    I've never gotten the, "have a bless-ED-TV" day. But, yeah, "it's my pleasure to serve you...."

    THEN WHY AREN'T YOU ON YOUR KNE...I mean, thanks!

    PS Also, I'm pretty sure the kid who's always working the drive through in North Olmstead is teh gai, so...at least some stores appear to be tolerant. Cause I'm pretty sure this kid's gonna be a theater major in college. NTTAWWT...

  • Max Bialystock||

    NTTAWWT, eh? You ever eaten with one!?

  • Brett L||

    I get "have a blessed day" all the time from food service people -- actually all hourly counterstaff -- down here. I think its something the AMEs or Primitive Baptist churches have been pushing because I only seem to get it from persons of African descent.

  • SIV||

    Raaa....

  • Bruce Majors||

    If you live in an area with a large African American working class you hearthis on the phone constantly

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    The "my pleasure" thing makes me concernicus as well.

    And yes, I referenced the worst comic ever in there, so suck on THAT, little man.

  • WS||

    I have to slow down reading these comments. Yours caught my attention because I thought you were getting pleasured by some barely legal girl at the drive thru half your age.

  • sarcasmic||

    JINX!

  • BoscoH||

    Me: I'd like a spicy chicken sandwich combo with an iced tea.
    Her: My pleasure. Would you like sweet or unsweetened tea.
    Me: Unsweetened.
    Her: My pleasure. Anything for dessert?
    Me: No thanks.
    Her: My pleasure. Any sauces or sides?
    Me: Yes. 2 Chick-fil-A sauces.
    Her: My pleasure. Please pay at the first window.
    Me: Thanks.
    Her: My pleasure. Have a bless-ed day.
    Me: Thanks.
    Her: My pleasure. OK sir, please pull forward to the first window.
    Me: OK.
    Her: My pleasure.

  • sarcasmic||

    The first time I read your comment I thought some barely legal girl pleasured you twenty times at the drive through window.

  • ||

    20 is a lot. I've only managed 12. 14 if you count ghost loads....

  • ||

    "The food is so God damned good, I will put up with these veiled messages of Faith."

    This is the Soup Kitchen business model, to which we became accustomed during the Depression. Except then, it was that the food was "so accessible" that the down-and-out would pay the "price" of listening to a bible-thumping speech. I suppose that the "food being good" aspect of Chick-fil-A's variation is made necessary by the fact that they expect you to PAY for it, along with the faith-based pleasantries.

  • ||

    I read once about a fabled Lost Civilization whose people got their fast food, paid for it, and tuned out what the counter drones were saying beyond what was necessary to get the order right, and didn't spend five seconds, thereafter, thinking or caring about the transaction.

  • ||

    I kind of like the Chik-fil-A guy, because he built a large and successful restaurant chain and kept it private, in part because he did not want the Wall Street Infidel Moneygrubbers to force him to be open on Sunday, I believe. He's a Jeezis Freek, and he considers his work force to be a "family" in much the same way as the early Sam Walton. Good for him; if you don't like it, eat McNuggets.

  • robc||

    I met him my senior year in HS. Church youth trip to Atlanta.

    The strongly encouraged health in their employees, on-site gym at corporate that they expected to be used. It was mid-80s, so I think they were ahead of the curve on this stuff, not sure when that became more normal.

  • Bruce Majors||

    That is admirable, as any freak flag is within reason. And fags really want duck breast in a fig reduction with a nice merlot anyway. You hets can eat your avian Soylent green out of your tin foil bags and styrofoam plates.

  • Almanian||

    I was introduced to Chick-Fil-A on my soon-to-be-over assignment here in Cleveland.

    Excellent, excellent chicken sammich. Now trying to figure out how we can get a franchise in MI (other than me starting one) since I'm being transferred back.

    Christian anti-what huh? I just know they're not open on Sundays cause of their Xian southern roots. That only pisses me off cause I can't get a Chick-Fil-A chicken sammich on Sunday once in awhile.

    Deeeeeeeeeeeerishous!

  • ||

    I just know they're not open on Sundays cause of their Xian southern roots.

    I do not disagree with the above quote. But, maybe more is at play and having 6-day schedule may attrach a better work force for what I assume are low paying jobs. At-least in the Baltimore Maryland area, the Chic-Fil-A resurants have the best service and an obviously better motivated workforce. I have wondered how Chic-Fil-A gets this beter workforce and suggest that not ever being asked to work on a Sunday may help in attracting the better workforce. At the mimimum, at how many other low wage jobs can an employee know months in advance that they would have a specific day off, without reguard to the day of the week.

  • wareagle ||

    no, it's a god thing because that's who the owner is, and the market supports his decision to close Sundays. Publicly, the company line is something like "we want our employees to have some time with their families" because it does not want to come off as uber-preachy. Could also be that the company ethos deters knuckleheads from applying or, at the least, ensures they don't stay long.

  • robc||

    Could also be that the company ethos deters knuckleheads from applying or, at the least, ensures they don't stay long.

    There is a lot of truth to this. However, it leads to a 2nd factor, they have a lot of turnover because the people they hire are too competent to work in fast food for long.

  • I.E.||

    "the market supports his decision to close Sundays"

    By this logic, the market supports everything that every company does everywhere, naively assuming that there's no state intervention (which there always is, e.g. roads). That's stupid, though, because whenever a company changes policy, we have to assume the market immediately supports the other policy - and, by implication, opposes the other policy. So this definition of market support is meaningless; it's simply justifying corporate power.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    They are closed explicitly so as to allow employees time away from work on Sunday. If that attracts a better class of employee, that's an additional benefit, not the reason.

  • robc||

    Is it In and Out Burger that is also closed on Sunday?

    And RC Willey, the appliance store (they were Mormon owned before Buffett bought them out).

    All generally considered to be at the top of their respective industries.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    We just got In and Out Burgers by us, so I've only been a couple of times, but they seem like a burger version of Chick-Fil-A as far as the employees go... very polite, well-spoken, and attentive.

    I'm pretty sure they are open Sundays, but they do have Bible verses on their cups so they probably count as anti-gay, too.

  • 4chan||

    In-N-Out are open on Sundays, but they include bible verses on all of their packaging and closes on all Christian Holidays.

  • ||

    Note, I wrote "I do not disagree with the above quote.”

    I do not disagree with anyone on the original rational for Chick-Fil-A's policy. My comment is based on the thought that the policy, intended or not, leads to such a benefit to the business that even if the original rational were removed that the restaurants might still not open on Sundays. In most locations, for freestanding stores and not malls, if I were to guess which day had the lowest sales at a McDonalds, Wendy’s, Burger King, it would be Sunday regardless of the founder’s religious beliefs. Having the lower cost associated with a better workforce may just might outweigh having capital idle 1/7th of the week.

    I do not know the answer and may be very location depended.

  • Nipplemancer||

    At the mimimum, at how many other low wage jobs can an employee know months in advance that they would have a specific day off, without reguard to the day of the week.

    Anyone who works retail in Bergen County NJ. Working at the mall meant guaranteed Sundays off. Thank you blue laws. Did that mean better workers? Fuck no.

  • ||

    Instapundit has it right. Chick fil a should refuse to locate on various campuses because they view them as "too gay friendly". Then watch the ensuing outrage. Only to then make peace and open stores on all of said campus as a show of support.

  • Almanian||

    John, and Glenn Reynolds, you ingenious BASTARDS...

  • ||

    That would never happen, because Chik-Fil-A's founder is more in the evangelical tradition. They'd rather do their subtle preaching and witnessing.

  • T||

    subtle preaching and witnessing.

    I've never seen subtle witnessing in my life. Once people start with the witnessing, it's about as subtle as a brick to the forehead.

  • I.E.||

    ... then get boycotted, fail as business units, and we're back to square one.

  • rather||

    "...questions for libertarians"?

    Is that not telling?

    I'd eat there if I ate ff because I don't care if they believe gay's can be converted.

    Time, and their children will teach them otherwise; they are not violent just unwise.

  • I.E.||

    You don't believe people should use market discipline to punish bad decisions? That's not libertarianism, that's libertinism.

  • rather||

    Is it a bad decision, or an unsound philosophy?

  • ||

    Well said. I will only give a shit and boycott if they violated NAP. Boycotting a business just because they have an idiotic belief will make you hungry...and probably naked and unsheltered.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Boycotting a business just because they have an idiotic belief will make you hungry...and probably naked and unsheltered.

    Ahh, another excellent point.

  • Tonio||

    [T]hey have unfortunately misinterpreted this support as having a political agenda, largely referencing any religious or faith-based giving as “anti-gay.”

    Which is disingenuous bullshit. It's up to the group claiming offense to determine what offends it; others may make what they will of those judgements.

    I'm not comfortable with publicly-funded universities excluding vendors because of issues like this. SLD's apply.

    Of course the easy way around this would be for the universities to require food vendors renting space from them to be open seven days a week. Problem solved.

    1) Yes they give to anti-gay groups. No amount of bullshitting, whitewashing, special pleading ("save the homos from themselves") can change that.

    2) Well, duh. Because unless you use the coercive power of the state, voting with your wallet is the only thing you have.

  • ||

    That is all true. But at some point, can't you say that it is a free country and I am not going to punish someone for thinking in a way I don't like or even find repugnant?

    Do we have to make everything into a political tribal war?

    I think Ben and Jerry are douche bag socialists. But, it is their right to be. I will still buy their ice cream because business is not and should not be political.

  • I.E.||

    "I will still buy their ice cream because business is not and should not be political."

    You can buy ice cream from Ice Cream A or Ice Cream B. Ice Cream A are heartless capitalists who only care about profit. Ice Cream B are motivated entrepreneurs who also pay people to condemn homosexuality.

    Can't you see why people might prefer to make space available for A over B? Business is merely one means of social organisation.

  • ||

    Sure people can do that. And that is one way of organizing. But I think organizing ourselves into tribes that won't do business with each other is a pretty stupid way of operating.

  • I.E.||

    I'm sure liberals will do business with companies that don't pay for, or promise not to pay for, the self-publicity of gay-conversion groups.

  • ||

    Sure. They will do business with people in their own tribe. And I am sure people in other tribes will do the same.

    But when they won't do business with other tribes, we will end up with a problem.

  • I.E.||

    Not every conservative pays for gay conversion groups. "Tribes" is a rhetorical device to avoid the moral consequences of an act.

  • ||

    So what? They have a right to support any group they want. Why do you feel the need to let your political biases influence every decision you make?

  • I.E.||

    I have a right not to support any group I want. Not every decision, but I don't like the idea of knowingly paying for Focus on the Family. Other people agree with me.

  • ||

    You have a right to do whatever you want. But that doesn't make you any less narrow minded and intolerant for doing so.

  • ||

    John,
    You are a very nice person. Its totalitarians who want to make everything about politics.

    Scientology is stupid. Tom Cruise is a great actor. I watch Tom Cruise (except for Ghost Protocol cause that was dull.)

    And I'm an anti-ghey sort, pro-Christian, but I don't eat at Chik-fil-A because their food seemed to me to be McD's, but more expensive. I might as well eat at the cheaper place even if it has The Clown.

  • Tonio||

    But at some point, can't you say that it is a free country and I am not going to punish someone for thinking in a way I don't like or even find repugnant?

    My Courageous Friend John, failing to reward is not the same thing as punishing. This concept has been covered frequently here. Also, it's not the thinking, it's the acting; the organizations they support actively harm ("ex-gay therapy") or lobby to deny rights to gay people.

    Sounds like you're saying we should just shut up and ignore the oppression.

  • ||

    No. I am saying we should shut up and accept that other people don't agree with is.

    As I said below, suppose you boycott Chick Fila. And it works. And they can no longer do business. Do you really want to live in a society where people are forced to give up their business if they want to publicly express their political views?

    Why can't you just say you disagree? Why do you have to boycott them? You would otherwise go there right? They only reason you are not is because you disagree with them politically. Why should someone's political views effectively keep them from having a business? Because your position taken to its logical conclusion means just that.

  • robc||

    Disagree John.

    I hope that Klanburger goes under, even if they make the bestest burgers in the world. And for that to happen, that means we have to accept that other people with boycott Whole Foods because Mackey is liberatian(ish).

    We can call them idiots, but I want to live in a society where people can vote with their feet.

  • ||

    Klan burger is a interesting case Rob. We have decided for good reason that being overtly and violently racist is no longer acceptable in this society. You cannot operate in this country as an overt racist. You can't work, you can't socialize. You face completely being ostracized.

    What gay activists want to do is make objecting to homosexuality like racism. They won't to make illegal and socially unpalatable to object to homosexuality.

    Some things clearly are beyond the pale. And probably should deprive you of the ability to act in polite society. But how many of those things are there? Racism is clearly one of them. And given our history, should be one of them. Is homosexuality one of them? I don't think so.

  • robc||

    In a free society, the people will decide that with the choices they make and by influencing one another. The exact process you oppose.

    The means are just, let the ends fall where they may.

  • ||

    Sure Rob. They can do what they want. But if you won't do business with someone because you don't like their politics, you are being an intolerant jerk. That is all I am saying.

  • robc||

    intolerant jerk

    Never claimed otherwise.

    But I proudly claim my jerky intolerance of the Klan.

  • jacob||

    But if you won't do business with someone because you don't like their politics, you are being an intolerant jerk.

    Doesn't this statement make you an intolerant jerk?

  • ||

    "We have decided for good reason that being overtly and violently racist is no longer acceptable in this society."

    Who is we? Who is society?

    If a big enough chunk of "society" doesn't like CFA for whatever reason, whether food quality or controversial donations, why shouldn't they refuse to do business with CFA if they don't want to?

  • Tonio||

    When you acknowledge that Exodus Int'l and FoF don't just disagree with me but actively seeks to harm me I might respond.

    Until then you're just an apologist.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    If who you have sex with is the most important thing in your life, I feel bad for you.

    I know that to some gay folks, Gay Identity Politics is what defines them, but it makes for a lot of insular and bitter gays, which is a real shame.

  • ||

    What are they doing to you? They like your life choices. That is their right. And you are free to tell them to fuck off and live however you like.

    Both of you have rights. It is the both part that seems to elude you.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They actively advocate for the government to send armed men to my house, drag me off to a metal box, and then lock me in their until I agree to stop liking other men. That goes beyond mere "disliking my life choices". When someone openly expresses their desire to become violent toward me as soon as they can legally get away with it, am I obligated to wait until they actually attempt to execute their plans to start opposing them out of some misguided notion of toleration, especially one that's obviously not reciprocated?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    They actively advocate for the government to send armed men to my house, drag me off to a metal box, and then lock me in their until I agree to stop liking other men.

    Who does? What statement or statements lead you to believe that? What is your evidence?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    They tell me themselves. Neither is exactly making a secret of the fact they want to reintroduce sodomy laws.

  • Temperate Dragon Slayer||

    Funny, Stormy Dragon, you fagscists have always made abundantly clear you want the government to send armed men to our houses, drag us off to metal boxes, and then lock us in there and torture us until we agree to stop saying sucking off and butt-fucking dudes and carpet-munching chicks is sick and wrong.

    I mean, there's just as much proof for this as there is of any of the paranoid and delusional claims you posted based on that persecution complex all you fagscists have.

  • Gleep Glop||

    I think this is the issue in a nutshell. The left (at least in this case) does not want a market-based solution because it provides little opportunity to coerce people into having the "right" attitudes.

    "I don't care if they're pink, as long as their money is green" -- Someone

  • ||

    Exactly, which is why the battle for gay marriage has moved into the legislatures (no voting by the breeders, thank you).

    Anyway, that Chick-fil-a sauce is like crack. My family always asks for more than I would bet they are supposed to hand out per order and it keeps us coming back again and again.

  • wareagle ||

    It's up to the group claiming offense to determine what offends it
    ------------------
    that pretty well creates a whole new problem, don't you think? People claim offense at all manner of things, though universities seem unnaturally willing to bow before interest groups taking offense. It's like the whole "chink" and fortune cookie ice cream thing re: Jeremy Lin; I don't hear him being offended yet apologies abound. In this case, the university has judged on behalf of the consumer.

  • I.E.||

    Malls judge on behalf of consumers, all the time. Libertarians often seem to not care about power when it's wielded by businesses, even when the substantive effect on people's freedom is the same as when it's done by a university/democratic state.

  • Fluffy||

    Right, because I'm not free if the guy who owns the mall is.

  • I.E.||

    You're free, but your choices are constrained. Same if it's a mall, same if it's a college, same if it's a democratic state providing this service. You can argue about degrees and extents, but don't pretend that "capitalism = unfettered free choice for everyone".

  • Fluffy||

    That's completely ridiculous.

    The mall owner is also free to make a choice. For me to have unrestrained choice in his mall, HE must have NO choice.

    That is a perfectly acceptable position for the state to be in, but not an acceptable position for an individual to be in. The state should have no choice about what viewpoints it accepts. The state should have no choice with regard to punishing viewpoints by banning them from public property. The state is not an individual; that's precisely why it's not entitled to liberty or choices.

  • I.E.||

    "The state is not an individual; that's precisely why it's not entitled to liberty or choices."

    Corporations are not individuals.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Corporations are not individuals.

    They are owned by a free association of individuals. IOW, does the New York Times not have rights? It is a "corporation" after all.

    Let's say that the mall owner is just one individual guy. Can you stop dodging now?

  • Fluffy||

    Corporations are not individuals.

    Don't get sidetracked by this one, guys.

    For his argument about malls to be true, it would have to be true even if an individual landlord owned the mall as a sole proprietor.

    That makes this sidebar he's trying to start a red herring.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    For his argument about malls to be true, it would have to be true even if an individual landlord owned the mall as a sole proprietor.

    Hey, I'm pickin' up what you're puttin' down.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    You can argue about degrees and extents, but don't pretend that "capitalism = unfettered free choice for everyone".

    This is like saying I don't have "unfettered free choice" because I can't come in your house and use your bathroom any time I want.

    What? Why are you restricting MY choice of where to take a shit?

  • ||

    Free market capitalism is unfettered free choice for everyone. My choices are limited because they mall only has 100 spaces to rent. But my choices are limited if the mall ONLY has 5 billion spaces to rent. Choices are limited because everything is limited. As long as my choices are limited by scale instead of force, I'm still free.

  • ||

    Everyone's choices are always constrained. If they weren't, I'd have a batmobile, a glow-in-the-dark dog, endless rivers of chocolate, and the ability to become invisible, among other things. Also, not only are our choices constrained by the physical world, i.e., scarcity, gravity, but by the equal freedoms of other people.

  • Tonio||

    that pretty well creates a whole new problem, don't you think?

    No.

  • Almanian||

    Also, it appears someone's meds may be kicking back in...

    *thanks Science*

  • Playa Manhattan||

    Go to the global warming post. There is a whole lot of mental illness going on there....

  • Fluffy||

    Focus on the Family, Eagle Forum, Family Resource Council, Exodus International

    Those four groups are pretty much "anti-everybody", so the anti-gay thing is just an incidental.

    Seriously, if everyone in those groups went for a short train ride in a long tunnel in an Ayn Rand story I for one would be delighted.

  • ||

    Is the Chick-fil-A ban a modern-day instance of that?

    No.

  • Fluffy||

    I have to admit to never eating fast food chicken.

    I have had KFC once in my life. That's it for fast food chicken for me.

    THE COWS THE

  • ||

    Fuck the foodies. KFC is crack. Cartman had it right.

  • ||

    crack suspended in oil. The 12 herbs and spices would include that de-worming crap you find in cheap coke these days...

  • ||

    I've heard that back when the Colonel was running the show, with the pressure cookers frying the chicken, it was actually great chicken. Before my time, really, so I can't speak from personal experience.

  • ||

    It was better in the 70s I think. Kind of like Wall Mart before old man Walton died.

  • sarcasmic||

    I can remember when McDonalds pulled meat off the grill and put it on freshly toasted buns.

    Now they pull meat out of a steamer, put it on buns stored in a proofer, and then finish it is a microwave (they call the quality ovens, wink, wink).

    Following the rules you can get a sandwich where the bun was toasted several hours ago, and the meat was cooked an hour ago.

    Fucking gross shit.

  • ||

    We did a field trip to McDonald's (probably illegal now) when I was a kid. It was breakfast time (new thing back then), and I watched a guy make an Egg McMuffin. He cracked the egg into a short, little metal cylinder, kind of like a tuna can with both ends cut out. He cracked an actual egg.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think they still do that for the 'round' eggs.

    The 'folded' ones used to be beaten eggs poured into a long rectangular form on the grill, and then folded into a square shape.

    Now they come frozen.

    Hell, I remember when they had a guy out back whose sole job was to make biscuits. Damn they were good.

    Now they're frozen.

    The change happened in the early 90s.

  • robc||

    The McDonalds one exit west of Ashland, KY (I forget the town) uses non-standard biscuits. The best freaking biscuits in all of fast fooddom, IMO. Better than CFA or Bojangles or Mrs Winner or anyone else you want to suggest.

    Clearly, someone is making homemade biscuits in that McDonalds. Insanely good.

  • Eric||

    You're missing out. KFC is greasy slop compared to Chick-fil-A.

    The X-stian stuff annoys me, but their food is so goddammed good it doesn't really matter to me.
    Besides, I've noticed that Chick-fil-A seems to locate in the suburbs (at least here in the Denver metro), where teh gays (of the uncloseted variety) don't generally congregate.

  • Fluffy||

    One thing that makes it difficult for me to eat KFC is that nowadays every last KFC near me is also a Taco Bell.

    How am I supposed to enter a Taco Bell and not eat some Taco Bell?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    What Christian stuff are you seeing at CFA that is annoying you?

  • Eric||

    I was referring to the "closed on Sundays" and the various items mentioned in this article. Being from CO I have a special hatred for Focus on the Family and all that they represent.

    I haven't noticed any overt Christian stuff at the restaraunts themselves however. Unless Christian = clean, good food, good manners, fast service, etc. (and I'll use every form of cognitive dissonance possible to reject this equation)

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    and I'll use every form of cognitive dissonance possible to reject this equation

    That's funny stuff right there.

  • Christina||

    KFC was your first mistake. There are plenty of places that actually make delicious chicken, including, but not limited to, Popeyes, Bojangles, and, of course, Chick-Fil-A.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The Popeye's here is staffed by semi-literate cretins who seem annoyed by having to server customers. The CFA across the street is the same as CFA's everywhere and the employees are excellent. I can't justify going to Popeye's anymore and I really like their chicken.

  • Enyap||

    Am I the only person in the world who finds Popeyes to be dry, unseasoned, flavorless crap. KFC might be greasy be at least it has some flavor.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You may have issues with your cayenne receptors... or maybe you aren't getting the spicy. I have no idea what their regular tastes like.

    It's not the greatest stuff ever, but it beats the stuffing out of Church's and KFC, imo.

  • ||

    My only experience with Church's was the Southwest gate area food court in BMI. Chicken should not be gray. So disgusting.

  • Christina||

    BMI? Do you mean BWI? If so, I agree that the food is not good. And the service is about as surly as you will ever come across.

  • burnt||

    When I was in college in new orleans, we lived off church's chicken. It was horrible, but we could get a bag of gizzards for 1 dollar in a very bad neighborhood. Condiments cost extra.

  • Christina||

    You must not be buying spicy dark meat then. I have no idea what the mild white meat tastes like, because I like my chicken to have flavor.

  • affenkopf||

    It's a private university, they can do what they want.

  • wareagle ||

    and CF is a private company. Regardless, universities as perpetual congregants in teh church of the aggrieved and offended is getting tiresome. And even private institutions have a duty to their customers, in this case students who will vote with their feet whether they want or do not want chicken sandwiches.

  • ||

    You have to pick your shots. Will your boycott cause your target to rethink their position or will you just be wishin for better fast food chicken?

    For the most part, the charity of a business doesn't factor into where I spend my hard earned.

    The last time I ever gave it any thought was Amazon WikiLeaks kerfuffle. But as always the calculus comes out, I'd be screwing myself and they wouldn't notice.

    It comes down to:
    1) How pissed off at company X am I?

    2) What do I lose by not doing business with company X?

    3) Will anybody even notice?

  • ||

    Exactly. However, if a whole lot of people did it all at once in an organized fashion, it could work.

  • T||

    Isn't this the end result of the "personal is political" approach? Every single decision in your life has to be related to your principles and further your chosen ideology. You have to do an in-depth background check on every organization you might do business with to see if some employee once called somebody a fag or a nigger.

    Fuck, sometimes you just want a sandwich. It must be tiring to have to worry about this kind of shit constantly.

  • ||

    ^^This^^

  • NoVAHockey||

    It takes a lot of time and energy to be that angry all the time.

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, it sucks to have people who want to brainwash and imprison you. Glad that you don't have to worry about that. Try having empathy with those who do.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Chick-fil-A is now running Gulags for Gays? How have I not heard about this?

  • Tonio||

    No, rev, they just donate to people who do. Stop bullshitting. Stop whitewashing.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    They do? Where are these gulags, anyway? I mean, you said "imprisonment", so I feel like I would see some guard towers and some barbed wire somewhere, especially since I live in Redneck Yokel Flyover Country.

  • Tonio||

    "want to" =/= "do"

    HTH.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    How far does this go, exactly? the TSA, DHS, and the President would all likely consider us domestic terrorists, or at least rabble-rousers. Should I boycott each and every company that gave $10,000 to the Democrats last year?

  • ||

    That's actually a good idea but you have to be sure to make that company aware of your boycott. Like all boycotts, not patronizing an establishment means nothing if you don't make it known why. Otherwise, you're just not a customer and no one even knows you exist, much less that you're boycotting them.

  • ||

    That's where my earlier BFD came in. I purchase products and services from all sorts of individuals and organizations who have/support political views that I don't care for. Unless that's a major part of who they are, and I simply can't accept supporting that even indirectly, all I care about is the product or service. Seeing everything through a political prism is silly and unproductive.

  • I.E.||

    "Unless that's a major part of who they are, and I simply can't accept supporting that even indirectly, all I care about is the product or service."

    Nice vague heuristic ya got there. Lets you condemn college elites/snobs, without accepting the conclusion that we shouldn't ever ethically judge people.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Uh...or, it's a philosophy of "don't sweat the small stuff". But you can just keep being a dick if that's your thing.

  • I.E.||

    That philosophy is itself vague - you're implicitly saying that homophobia is small stuff, I think. Not everyone agrees with you.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    No, I am not implicitly saying that. I am saying that if disagreement with certain aspects of sexuality comprises %0.5 of a person's worldview, I would advise against wholesale judging or refusing to engage that person.

    In other words, Don't sweat the (literally) small stuff, which is what ProL said in the first place.

    I see you've backed off of "vague heuristic" (and I fail to see how it's in any way vague) and are now trying to say that, what, Chick-Fil-A = WBC or something?

  • I.E.||

    "No, I am not implicitly saying that. I am saying that if disagreement with certain aspects of sexuality comprises %0.5 of a person's worldview, I would advise against wholesale judging or refusing to engage that person."

    We have gone from "vague" to "ridiculously over-precise". Who judges that the weight is 0.5%? The Thought Police? Who are you to tell me that homophobia is a "(literally) small" part of my ethical calculus?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Who judges that the weight is 0.5%?

    I do.

    Who are you to tell me that homophobia is a "(literally) small" part of my ethical calculus?

    Someone who thinks your ethical calculus is stupid and/or predicated on Outrage at the Slightest Trigger Warning!

  • ||

    Yes, it was "Don't sweat the small stuff." Unless it's not small stuff to you. It's an individual decision.

    In this case, it's not at all clear that their agenda is anti-homosexual. It's definitely pro-Christian. Work from there, I guess.

    Haven't heard anything about them not having a policy against employing gays or turning away gay customers, either.

  • ||

    This reminds of Bloom County when Opus became a vegetarian, and refused to participate in any activity which might result in the death of an animal. Eventually he had to hang himself from a tree while wearing a surgical mask.

  • I.E.||

    "You have to do an in-depth background check on every organization you might do business with"

    No, you don't. That's a ridiculous assertion. What you have to do is judge people's actions when you know about them, rather than feigning ignorance because Competitor X might be a secret racist.

  • Tonio||

    Plus, there are organizations which do this research for you. Does the right not have these?

  • Tonio||

    Not every single decision. That's a gross oversimplification. Also, further your chosen ideology is a bit disingenuous in this case. Some of these groups want to forcibly "convert" gay people. You'd have more credibility if you didn't try to whitewash that.

  • T||

    I'm not whitewashing shit. I don't know or care what any of those organizations do, nor am I going to do the legwork to find out from sources more impartial and unbiased than, well, you.

    Take your personal feelings about teh ghey out of it. This goes back to my point: how far do you expect me to take this? Do I have to boycott a company if the executives give their own money to some horrible cause, like clubbing baby seals for Japanese crush sites? What if half of the employees hate fags when they're at home and send money to Fred Phelps? Why should I do the work to figure all this out when all I want is a chicken sandwich?

    Rational ignorance, Tonio. There's only so much time in the world, and if I don't share your pet peeves and obsessions, that's cool. You don't share mine.

  • Tonio||

    Bullshit.

  • I.E.||

    You don't have to do any work to figure out that this company is paying for Focus on the Family, because you've just read the article. Given this information set, please construct a different, actually valid case against boycott for moral reasons.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Don't have to. We're just pointing out that you guys, as Engines of the Outrage Machine, are extremely tiresome.

    I don't have to morally justify buying a chicken sandwich. Not to you and not to anybody else.

  • T||

    I don't have to construct a case against the boycott for moral reasons. I don't care one way or the other, which gets back to my original point. How much of your life do you spend worrying about similar issues? How much of my life do you think I should spend on worrying about your issues? Should I base my decision to boycott Chik-Fil-A on one article here and your screeching, because that's the sum total of my knowledge on the subject? What if the article is wrong, and you are mistaken as well? What burden of proof should I accept before making my decisions?

    How about I don't sweat it over a $3 sandwich? The time it would take to amass enough information to make an informed decision isn't worth it for a fucking sandwich. That was my point, and it has continued to sail right past you in your indignation and attempt to be a righteous (and unsuccessful) moral scold.

  • ||

    I don't care, and I probably don't care that much about gay issues in the first place. I don't want them legally discriminated against, but I don't really care if everyone likes them or not. What's next, a movement based on ending discrimination against Southerners?

  • Mike M.||

    Yes, modern leftists are some sad, pathetic motherfuckers. I can't imagine living a life where every single decision I make, including where to get lunch, has to be framed within the context of the culture war.

  • SIV||

    IIRC, the incident which sparked the crusade against Chick-Fil-A wasn't some big donation to a hate-the-gays group. CFA merely catered lunch for free to a Christian group that, among all the other mostly-charitable stuff they do, believes homosexuality is a sin that can be repented or something.
    Teh gay wasn't even on the back-burner agenda for their meetings.

    They have a corporate policy of free catering for charitable non-profits.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "corporate policy of free catering for charitable non-profits"

    Those sick bastards.

  • I.E.||

    Look at me, I've come up with an anecdote that lets me pretend they don't give money to Focus on the Family!

  • Tonio||

    ^This. Yeah, the reality denial can be pretty strong here. For a blog called hit and run...

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What "reality denial"? The plain fact is that some of us disagree with you (and I.E., primarily) that every single little thing has to be up for constant political analysis. It's fucking tiring.

  • I.E.||

    "every single little thing" - nope.

    "Paying for junk-science gay-converters" - yep.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Fine, go do your thing. And I suppose that if I go eat a sandwich there today, I HATEZ the GHEY.

    Whatevs.

  • I.E.||

    Excellent rebuttal!

    A pity you were born too late for the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    There isn't any further point in arguing it.

  • Tonio||

    Then, Rev, you are welcome to INCIF me. I'm not going to shut up about this.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Crusade on, little crusader!

  • ||

    The university can do what it wants to, I suppose. But, it being a university this strikes me as a pathetic way to address the issue.

    Why aren't they willing to engage intellectually with those of differing viewpoints? This is a university after all, a place of "higher learning". Besides, if they're so sure that their position is the obviously right one they shouldn't fear the debate.

    What message does this send to their students, who are mostly young folk allegedly being prepared for the adult world? If somebody disagrees with you, you either a) curl up into the fetal position because it's so "traumatizing", or b) throw a hissy fit and demand the offender be run out of town? Is that how educated adults are supposed to live?

    Finally, like T said above: does everything have to be a fucking political crisis?

  • NoVAHockey||

    You just like their sandwiches.

  • WTF||

    Why aren't they willing to engage intellectually with those of differing viewpoints? This is a university after all, a place of "higher learning".

    AHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    oh, God...

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Good one!

  • I.E.||

    "Engage intellectually", by selling chicken sandwiches?

  • ||

    No, talk to them. It's really not that hard. For a mature adult, anyway.

    Even if you don't persuade them to agree with your point of view, the very act of engaging with them causes you to see them--and them to see you--as human beings.

  • kilroy||

    They are closed on feakin' Sunday!

    Of course they donate to religion based organizations. For Christ-fucking-sake.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    I decided to stop going to Kalifornistan Pizza Kitched when I found out they don't allow open carry in their restaurants. The fact that their food is not very good probably aided my decision considerably.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks for that info. They're now on my boycott list. Both their stores and frozen products. BTW, got linky to that?

  • Realist||

    "Is Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay? And if so, Should You Not Eat There?"
    I don't care if they are anti-Gay. I am not Gay and their chicken sandwich is great along with their waffle fries.
    Let the Gays open a restaurant that only hires Gays and call it Queer for Chichen.

  • ||

    They would have fashionable uniforms I bet.

  • ||

    Kentucky Fisted Chicken
    Swish Chalet
    Browneye's Chicken
    Santorum's Chicken Hawks

  • Realist||

    ...should read chic(k)en

  • Tonio||

    Let the Gays open a restaurant that only hires Gays and call it Queer for Chichen.

    An actual "realist" would know that this would be illegal as hell.

    It's your choice not to care about the gays. But remember: me today, you tomorrow.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    It's your choice not to care about the gays. But remember: me today, you tomorrow.

    That's a rule about government, not a rule about social acceptance. Would you say that to me if I said "I don't care about White Power Groups?"

    Of course not.

  • Tonio||

    Since you've both asked a vague question of me, and presumptuously provided a convenient answer on my behalf, this is the only appropriate response.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    It isn't a vague question. You invoked a rule and implicitly said "you guys gotta care about the gays, because first they came for the gays, and I didn't say...etc. etc. etc.", and then I asked if that same standard applies to White Power Groups, or the NBPP, or whoever.

    So, does that apply?

  • Tonio||

    11:39

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Right - non responsive then.

  • ||

    Boycott because the company donated to a religious organization? BS. To hell w/ Equality Matters and the other rat bastard fascists of their ilk. I'll have the chick-fil-a combo please...

  • I.E.||

    Presumably, you'll stand up for the religious freedom of companies that donate to al-Qaeda. We've got to be consistent, you know. Religious organisations and all that.

    Maybe you can acknowledge that not all "religious organisations" are good?

  • Tonio||

    ^This.

  • No||

    ^^Not this. Trying to compare American religious organizations, who don't advocate the open killing of others to companies who donate to Al Qaeda is just plain stupid. IOW, you are stupid for having compared them.

  • ||

    Several comments, none of which is necessarily related to the others:
    - Were I to give in to my most common temptation, I'd eat CFA for every meal.
    - CFA's private, and I guess Northeastern is, too. So, you know, do what you want.
    - CFA's has a customer-loyalty level that other businesses would kill for. Whiny boycott-talk from the perenially aggrieved only keeps running it up.
    - IIRC, they're not actually franchises; they're company-owned, and the manager is really a traditional employee.
    - And should one personally avoid doing business with somebody with whom you have a problem? Well, I guess I do some, but you can't live your life looking for things to be upset about.
    - Alright, you can. But you'll be insufferable to everybody else. There are plenty of examples.

  • ||

    Suppose you did this. And you won. And you got huge numbers of people to follow you and refuse to patronize business X. What happens then? Business X goes out of business. And we are left with a situation where people with un PC views are forced to choose between making a living and expressing their opinions.

    That sounds like a really shitty way to run a society.

  • sarcasmic||

    I refuse to do business with one of the local homebrew supply shops because the owner is a complete dick.
    A couple other people I know have done the same thing for the same reason.
    It hasn't noticeably affected his business that I know of, but the dick ain't getting any of my money.

    Individuals should be allowed to make that decision for themselves, for any reason that they choose.

  • I.E.||

    You've jumped from "people who pay Exodus International to engage in junk science" to "people with un PC views". That's a big leap of logic. You can have unPC views without acting them out.

  • ||

    Okay. You can think what you want but you just can't act on any of your views or express them publicly.

    Yeah, that is real free society you want there.

    In the end, we are better off if we can agree to disagree with each other. We have to live in the same society. If you start mixing politics and business, politics becomes a life and death issue. That never ends well.

    Why is it so hard to say "that person is wrong but they still make a good product and have a right to do business"?

  • sarcasmic||

    If you know a business contributes to political causes with which you disagree, by patronizing them aren't you indirectly contributing to those political causes?

  • I.E.||

    "Okay. You can think what you want but you just can't act on any of your views or express them publicly.

    Yeah, that is real free society you want there."

    Of course you can express them publicly! You just can't subsequently expect everyone who owns land to let you use their land to sell chicken sandwiches.

  • ||

    "Of course you can express them publicly! You just can't subsequently expect everyone who owns land to let you use their land to sell chicken sandwiches."

    So we will create a society where the mob punishes those who don't hold the proper views. That sounds like a great place to live.

    Having a free society is about more than government. It is about the society and its internal ability for tolerance and dispute resolution. Your position erodes that and creates its own authoritarian system via the mob rather than government. The end result is the same in both cases.

  • I.E.||

    "So we will create a society where the mob punishes those who don't hold the proper views. That sounds like a great place to live."

    You're arguing that I should not act on my beliefs (behavioural change through boycott), in the name of protecting others who wish to act on their beliefs (giving money to Dobsonites).

  • ||

    Yes. I am arguing that you should set aside your beliefs in some areas for the sake of having a tolerant society. Whenever I tolerate you, I am necessarily setting aside my beliefs for some purposes. That is what tolerance is.

  • ||

    Tolerance is physically allowing people the liberty to think/say/do things you don't agree with, i.e., not forcing them to stop thinking/doing/saying those things. Suppose I chose to boycott CFA -- am I actually forcing employees/owners to quit being social conservatives? Am I stopping them from giving their own property to a cause I disagree with? No, of course not. I'm just not supporting it.

    It's really disturbing the way the left has co-opted the word "tolerance" and turned it into this moral relativist/unitarian universalist principle, where you can never call anything morally wrong -- except "intolerance," of course.

  • ||

    Well I'm not trying to "run a society".

    And I don't think anybody else should, either. I also don't think your comment makes any sense; what alternative do you propose to avoid the situation you describe? Compulsory purchases?

  • ||

    You're assuming that all customers are on the same page ideologically. I know social conservatives who are more loyal to CFA because they donate to FRC and Dobson, and they'd certainly keep CFA in business even if everyone else organized into a massive boycott. Even if we all only bought from firms that supported our own ideologies, as long as the population itself is split between several ideologies, business owners will be free to support any one of them and still retain a customer base that doesn't have a problem with that.

  • Andrew Hall||

    I'm an atheist. I do my best not to give money or support organizations that propogate dangerous superstitions.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm an atheist. I like your position, if not your spelling, because it means one fewer person in line ahead of me at CFA.

  • Realist||

    "...because it means one fewer person..."
    ...because it means one less person...

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Please tell me you're kidding.

  • Realist||

    I am also an atheist, but I love Chick-fil-a.
    You'll fucking starve to death!

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Another Atheist here who's only problem with CFA is I can't get their delicious chicken on Sundays. So depressing when you forget and show up to an empty store.

  • Britt||

    HAHA one of the best conversations I ever had with my brother. It was like 1 pm on a Sunday, we were both hungover. I'm like let's get some food.

    Him: Oh yeah we should. Where?
    Me: You pick.
    Him: fucking Chick Fil A bro lets go
    Me: Oh yeah good call dude, nothing like going out for some Sunday afternoon Chick Fil A
    Him: I know I havent had it in so long lets....oh....wait....fuck.
    Me: yeah.

  • ||

    You have to do an in-depth background check on every organization you might do business with to see if some employee once called somebody a fag or a nigger.

    No kidding. I hate to admit it, but I am not going to scrutinize the donor records of the Brady Campaign in an attempt to "punish" anybody who gives them money.

    I have other things to do.

  • hlfk||

    Yes but that's a far cry from giving money to Exodus Freakin' International, the damn brainwashing anti-gay cult. You have to draw the line somewhere.

  • Old Mexican||

    If a restaurant gives money to causes you don't like, does it make sense to stop patronizing it?


    If tax dollars go to bomb Muslim countries, should be stop patronizing each other for supporting the government?

    Libertarians believe in "disciplining through the market"


    The great Northeastern University has every right to exclude anyone they want or any vendor they want for whatever reason. Discipline of the market means that you might lose a few customers because of your activities, you might win a few more customers for the same activities.

    What anti-market zealots REALLY want is for the discipline to come from a panel of sage and wise overseers who dispense justice like the gods themselves, and not from the market, precisely because of the way the market can punish AND reward the same behavior.

  • sarcasmic||

    What anti-market zealots REALLY want is for the discipline to come from a panel of sage and wise overseers who dispense justice like the gods themselves, and not from the market, precisely because of the way the market can punish AND reward the same behavior.

    Who at Northeaster University, other than "a panel of sage and wise overseers who dispense justice like the gods themselves", determined that students shall not be allowed to purchase Chick-fil-A on campus?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    Who at Northeaster University, other than "a panel of sage and wise overseers who dispense justice like the gods themselves", determined that students shall not be allowed to purchase Chick-fil-A on campus?


    Who cares? It's their university.

    I was talking about the anti-market zealots, wherever they may be.

    Anyway, I don't eat at Chick-fil-A. I am more of a beef guy.

  • ||

    Cassanova McKinzy chose to go to Auburn on a football scholarship instead of Clemson because they don't have a Chik-Fil-A.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/.....06961.html

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "Every morning when we open our restaurants across the country, we strive to treat each customer with honor, dignity and respect. At the cornerstone of this commitment is a belief in the importance of loving your neighbor as yourself. We will not champion any political agendas on marriage and family."

    Every time I have eaten at CFA, in any state or neighborhood, they have succeeded at this, even with some customers who well and truly deserved to be kicked out on their ass.

    If people want to get mad because some beliefs held by some beneficiaries of CFA's charitable giving differ in some ways than if those people got to direct every dollar themselves, those people are going to go through their lives with a lot of anger and misery.

    As for me, I'm now going to go have a #1 meal with a lemonade for lunch.

  • Tonio||

    So, you'd be ok with them donating to, say, the KKK? And I'm not equating KKK with FoF, but asking if there are any limits to this?

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    He's directly implies there are limits but this is a case of "don't sweat the small stuff" as described multiple times above:

    If people want to get mad because some beliefs held by some beneficiaries of CFA's charitable giving differ in some ways than if those people got to direct every dollar themselves (extra emphasis added for those who enjoy sweating the small stuff)
  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I italicized "some" a lot for a reason. Yes, there would be a limit for me but I don't expect every position of every beneficiary of every corporate donation to meet my approval.

    If CFA is donating to groups that advocate violence against gays, that would be a problem. If CFA is donating to groups that, because of their religion, have issues with gays, that isn't enough to make me stop going, even though I don't hold the same beliefs.

    Hell, I have a Citibank card and the fuckers donated a ton to Obama's campaign. For me, people have to be pretty aggressive in being anti-something-that-matters-to-me and the anti part has to something fairly direct and not merely one aspect of a large whole before I'm willing to forego something that is otherwise beneficial to me.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    (character limit wouldn't let me include the last paragraph...

    For most religious-affiliated entities -- and I don't have the time or inclination to study them all or read the studies of others -- there's probably going to be at least a latent (no pun intended) negative view toward homosexuality (among a laundry list of other things, no doubt) and, even as an atheist, I'm not willing to have an issue with that for any corporation that donates to religious organizations.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Hell, I have a Citibank card and the fuckers donated a ton to Obama's campaign. For me, people have to be pretty aggressive in being anti-something-that-matters-to-me and the anti part has to something fairly direct and not merely one aspect of a large whole before I'm willing to forego something that is otherwise beneficial to me.

    YES. Very well put.

  • Apatheist ಠ_ರೃ||

    Tonio must have some condition that prevents his eyes from seeing italics.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If CFA is donating to groups that advocate violence against gays, that would be a problem.

    Does wanting to reinstitute sodomy laws and imprisoning homosexuals qualify as advocating violence against them?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Not much more than advocating to keep drugs illegal is advocating violence against drug users. Should I stop patronizing any business that gives money to the police, Democrats, or Republicans since I think drugs should be legal and those groups don't?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yes.

  • Ring||

    Wasn't the shoe on the other foot when talking about the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood? Wasn't the argument that KF was funding the non-abortion part of PP?

    Just pretend that CFA is funding the non-anti-gay part of the religious groups, or are the two totally inseperable now?

  • Kev||

    ^This.

  • ||

    So this definition of market support is meaningless; it's simply justifying corporate power.

    Right on, Sister. Retard Power Rules!

  • I.E.||

    Meh, weak joke (and am I detecting some sexism?). It's a logical fallacy to say that every choice of a corporation is supported by the market, when corporations enjoy some power over the market itself.

  • Scott||

    I did (after a deep sigh and screaming "Whyyyyyy!" at the cosmos) stop eating there. Despite their efforts to say "We donate to these organizations that do have anti-gay components but really, we cared about the non-anti-gay good things they do," there's nothing to organizations like Exodus International but the anti-gay.

    If they were giving money to the Catholic Church (or even a Baptist convention) I probably wouldn't make the same decision. Even though both churches have significant anti-gay platforms/efforts, they do actually legitimately devote money and resources to helping others outside of this agenda.

  • Tonio||

    Thanks. It's good to know there are some friends out there.

  • Thom||

    I've been staying away from Chick-fil-a, Citgo Gas Stations, and the works of Orson Scott Card for years. Your money and your mouth - put them in the same place.

  • ||

    Because every act is political? Think about what you are saying there. If you buy CITGO gas, you are only making a political statement if you choose to make it that way. And if you do, aren't you politicizing every single thing in life. Do you really think it is a good idea to make everything everyone one does revolve around politics? I don't.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't.

    Then don't. And let others do if it makes them happy.

  • ||

    You miss the point. Sure they can do it. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

  • sarcasmic||

    What if it makes them happy?

    In the case of that homebrew shop, my refusal to do business with him doesn't harm him. He has plenty of customers. In some instances I may be able to get a better deal from him, so I am in fact harmed by not doing business with the guy.

    But he's a total dick. I can't stand him, and it makes me happy to not do business with him.

    Is it a good idea? Probably not. But it makes me happy.

  • I.E.||

    That's fine - in fact, to disagree with your statement here would be to disagree with the moral basis of a boycott in the first place. But your logic still has a gap between "boycott known donors to Exodus International" and "politicise every single thing in life". That is a big gap.

  • ||

    I think that boycotts in general are a problem. Like everything, small doses are not an issue. Taken to extreme, boycotts become a way for the mob to create an authoritarian state.

    Political and religious differences are not going away. In fact, in a tolerant society, you don't want them to go away. That is the point of being tolerant after all. So we better figure out a way to live with each other and gasp tolerate each other. Refusing to do business with anyone who disagrees with you religiously or politically is not particularly tolerant and when applied to society as a whole produces a horribly conflict ridden intolerant society.

    Was it okay for racists to refuse to do business with black owned businesses? I don't think so.

  • sarcasmic||

    John - a boycott is a choice. There is no force involved.

    Comparing many individuals voluntarily making a choice to refuse to do business with a company with authoritarian rule, which involves force, is a false comparison.

    Choice is not force.

  • Scott||

    I'm pretty sure racists still refuse to do business with black-owned businesses.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm pretty sure racists still refuse to do business with black-owned businesses.

    What about blacks, or Joos, or some other non-whites who only do business with businesses owned by their particular group?

  • Thom||

    If the message is ultimately "homophobia is bad for business" I'm ok with that. I don't see anything authoritarian about putting people out of business who want to use my money to harm people in a way that I find objectionable.

  • I.E.||

    "Like everything, small doses are not an issue. Taken to extreme, boycotts become a way for the mob to create an authoritarian state." - The last political change to which a boycott contributed was the ending of apartheid in South Africa. Hardly the creation of an authoritarian state.

    There is a qualitative difference between being black and paying for gay-converters. Please tell me you accept that.

  • sarcasmic||

    That is a big gap.

    It makes for an easy straw man to slay.

  • Scott||

    It's an awesome idea.

    Cultural problems shoul be solved by cultural responses, not by government intervention.

    Chick-Fil-A is entitled to absolutely nobody's money. If the market doesn't care about how they spend their money then fine, they keep doing it. If they do, market actors are perfectly entitled to withhold their money until changes are made.

    This is the rightest of rightness. It burns righteous rightosity.

  • ||

    Sure they are entitled to it. The are also entitled to burn 100 dollar bills if they like too. That doesn't make it a desirable thing to do.

    I am not saying you shouldn't be able to boycott. I am saying doing so is generally a stupid injection of politics into every day life.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    John, unfortunately, to some people, who sticks what to whom in the bedrooms, and what other people think about that, is the most important A#1 issue on the planet. People just can't leave you to eat your chicken sandwich in peace.

  • sarcasmic||

    People just can't leave you to eat your chicken sandwich in peace.

    Wouldn't someone's refusal to go to CfA make your chicken sandwich eating experience even more peaceful?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Like most puritans, his life is a constant terror that someone, somewhere, might be having fun. If he sees you in Chik-Fil-A, he can see you're miserable at having to eat there. If you stay away, his lunch is ruined with thoughts that you could be off somewhere consensually sodomizing people.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Not going to jail is the most important A#1 issue for me. And when a group publicly advocates throwing me in jail (as FoF and EI advocate throwing gays in jail), I'm not interested in financing their efforts.

  • hlfk||

    yes, it is unfortunate that some people think they need to stick their noses into what people get up to in the bedroom. Those types surely don't deserve my money. I can make a pretty mean chicken sandwich at home, anyway.

  • Thom||

    But it's not the patron (or non-patron) who is making the choice political. It's the business owner who is using the proceeds of their business to engage in some objectionable or divisive political action who is making it political. If the patron finds the ultimate destination of their money to be distasteful or objectionable enough, they are really left with no choice.

  • ||

    No. You are making it political by deciding that where you dollar goes is a political decision.

  • robc||

    Do you think his Card avoidance is political?

    I have refused to see any John Woo movies since Face/Off and I know fuck all about his politics.

    But Im boycotting him until I get a refund and apology.

  • Thom||

    Well, yeah. But I've been looking for a used copy of Enders Game ever since mine disappeared (house guests...). Ain't no way I'm buying that shit new and generating royalties.

  • Thom||

    I don't either - and thanks to competition I don't really have to. When I'm trying to decide between alternatives where my money is going to end up is a totally legitimate factor. In the three cases I've mentioned, I've decided that I simply don't want them to have my money for any reason at all.

  • Realist||

    You show 'em!

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I enjoy doing things that people shun me for doing. I went to Whole Foods a few times after people told me not to, so....

  • Scott||

    On the flip side, efforts by the anti-gay folks to boycott anything pro-gay is failing miserably. The AFA tried to arrange a boycott of Toys R Us for carrying Archie comics (because they introduced a gay dude!), and it sold out instead.

    I don't think boycotts themselves are particularly effective in changing company policies these days. But the publicity the boycotts sometimes draw can create effective cultural pressures.

  • ||

    you'll stand up for the religious freedom of companies that donate to al-Qaeda.

    If they want to provide me with delicious slow-cooked goat kebabs, yer fuckin-A right.

  • ||

    Damn straight.

  • Eric||

    I'm calling Bullshit. Drink!

  • ||

    when corporations enjoy some power over the market itself.

    Be sure and let us know when Walmart's stormtroopers come to your house and forces you to shop in their store at gunpoint.

  • I.E.||

    Please choose from one of the following statements to characterise your views. Logically, you must agree with one:
    A. Individual corporations enjoy some power over the market itself.
    B. Individual corporations enjoy no power over the market itself.

    If B., please explain the existence of monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies, cartels, monopolistic competition, discounts, sales, price discrimination and loyalty cards.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Define "power".

  • Thom||

    Power over a market means control over prices.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Power over a market means control over prices.

    Everyone in a market has that "power". Hence why we are talking about boycotts...right?

  • sarcasmic||

    Power over a market means control over prices.

    If they charge so little that nobody else can compete, but still turn enough of a profit to stay in business, the consumer wins.

    If they charge so much that someone else can enter the market and charge less, the consumer wins.

    When the government steps in and uses the power to tax or regulate in order to bar competition and artificially inflate prices, the customer loses.

    Corporations don't have power. Government does.

  • Thom||

    I understand and agree with all you say, but I don't think you understand what I meant. Perfect markets are rare. By "control over prices" I mean that there are firms/people/etc in the market that can control not the price that they will buy or sell at, but the market price itself. This is a real phenomenon. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, just that it is what it is.

  • sarcasmic||

    Example please.

  • ||

    What Sarcasmic said.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    You can't make this stuff up. Loyalty cards = kyriarchial market oppression by the Big Corporation.

  • I.E.||

    Lol no. "kyriarchial market oppression by the Big Corporation" =/= "some market power".

    I assert that corporations enjoy some power over their markets. You say that's impossible because WalMart doesn't operate a gulag/labour camp/Death Star. One of us is being ridiculous (you).

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Define "power".

  • ||

    But he's a total dick. I can't stand him, and it makes me happy to not do business with him.

    Exactly. I do it regularly. I have no delusions about my "boycott" having any discernible adverse effect on those persons' business, but fuck 'em. It's personal.

  • ||

    Only partially on topic, but ...

    Wal-Mart employees are nearly universally useless, except in very rural areas.
    McDonalds employees are nearly universally useless.
    Home Depot employees are mostly knowledgeable and helpful
    Chick-Fil-A employees are polite and helpful

    All of these employers, I assume, have similar pay and benefit levels. What makes them so different?

    The government does not determine the minimum wage, McDonalds does. The real minimum wage = whatever McDonalds has to pay to get workers.

  • sarcasmic||

    What makes them so different?

    I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy down it my heart!
    Where?
    Down in my heart!
    Where?
    Down in my heart!

  • Franklin Harris||

    The only time I'm in the mood for Chick-fil-A is Sundays. Chick-fil-A is closed Sundays. Therefore, I never eat at Chick-fil-A anyway.

  • T||

    That seems rather reflexively contrarian to want a product only when you can't have it.

  • Old Mexican||

    2. If a restaurant gives money to causes you don't like, does it make sense to stop patronizing it?


    It's my money. I can patronize anybody for whatever reasons strike my fancy.

  • ||

    It's a logical fallacy to say that every choice of a corporation is supported by the market

    You're a dumb fuck. The dreaded "market" is not a top-down monolith. It is the net result of the cumulative actions of millions of individuals. trying to characterize The Market as an actor is completely, wildly, off base.

    Go back to trolling youtube comments.

  • T||

    Now I really want a Chik-Fil-a sandwich for lunch. I blame all of you for this.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    HOMOPHOBE! BIGOT! SANTORUM LOVER!

  • T||

    I will be participating in the boycott, mainly because there isn't one close enough for a lunch run. Then I will go back to not thinking about Chik-Fil-a for months at a time.

  • led||

    The biggest split here isn't whether there's an overall point where you their actions mean you stop going there, but the individual point.
    As seen in many of the comments here, some people don't care that the money they pay for sandwiches goes to support anti-gay causes. Just as some people don't care that the money they pay for products from [x] go to support other unseemly things such as [y] presidential candidate or [z] rights conditions where products are made. It comes down to the market, the amount of utility they get from the product is greater than their ethical qualms.
    To note, however, part of the Free Market system we so espouse INCLUDES a fully informed consumer. EVERYTHING is an ethical issue when it comes to choosing products, but it's up to us to decide, again, whether the utility we get from the product outweighs that ethical concern.

  • T||

    To note, however, part of the Free Market system we so espouse INCLUDES a fully informed consumer.

    No. A lot of models assume that, but it's provably wrong in that information has costs. I am not fully informed as to what the companies I buy stuff from ultimately do with my money because the cost of finding out is generally too high.

  • led||

    We don't HAVE a free market system, and we likely never will because it's an ideal, but we still should pursue the ideal and seek out information on company practices not just for our own use but to inform others.
    Regardless, this has no impact on the fact that CFA is using proceeds from their business to support anti-gay causes, as that information has been out there for quite a while. It has no cost, it's here on a free-to-view website fully accessible at a public library. I have no right to make them stop from giving to ANY group so they wish, but I don't have buy their product either.

  • T||

    It has no cost, it's here on a free-to-view website fully accessible at a public library.

    Costs come in forms other than money. My time is a cost. Again, why am I going to spend any amount of time worrying about a sandwich purchase? If it takes me more than 5 minutes, I've lost on the deal.

  • led||

    You've come to that decision yourself, without any information other than that you were hungry and unwilling to read. Just remember you have no room to ask for help when you face the consequences of consumption without education.
    Simply put, you value 5 minutes of your time over the fact that your money would help a business fund anti-gay groups.

  • GILMORE||

    This is utter nonsense.

    Ethics are about individual acts/values. Not an endless chain of causation. by the 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon, anything and everything you spend your money on will lead to some 'unethical' issue eventually. Lacking omiscience, seeing into the future, it turns *individual* ethics into meaninglessness.

    What you DO matters. "Not eating" @ Chik-fil-a does not make you a 'gay rights supporter'. It makes you a moral narcissist.

  • led||

    I, myself, don't go to Chick-Fil-A anymore because my money would have an effect on the money they give to anti-gay groups. I wasn't going there much anymore anyway due to having to spend $8 on a chicken sandwich to have any noticeable difference than any other chicken sandwich from a fast food chain

  • GILMORE||

    Free market at work; I for one have long endorsed the idea of *explicitly* associating one's business with either related or completely unrelated political/social causes/issues.

    For example = "Peace Cereal"
    http://www.peacecereal.com/

    Now, never mind that that product is made by a conglomerate run by a group of yogi-cult millionaires, who, among other things, have a large stake in *military facility security contracts* (which, FWIW, they were sued over for fraud)...who've been convicted of embezzlement, ponzi-schemes etc...

    ...that's not the point = The point is, they sell their product based not on *what it is* (shitty, falsely-labeled organic cereal), but because they endorse "Peace"...

  • Andrew||

    A little late, but Golden Temple was sold off to Hearthside Foods about a year ago and is no longer owned by the Bhajan sikhs.

  • GILMORE||

    (cont'd)

    ...Other products sell themselves as "rainforest safe coffee"... whatever.

    So, I think this "ethical" consumption market needs to be expanded =

    - I want a chicken-sandwich shop which PROMISES, that with every sandwich, they will make the world MORE gay. They will have a ticker tracking their success gaying-up the world. ("100 million out!") There's no reason gay predators shouldn't have a place to eat.

    - Similarly, how about "WAR Cereal"? With every purchase they contribute a $1 to mercenary groups to destabilize third world regimes. Or provide bomb-making materials to terrorist groups.

    - Or, contraire "vegan", take products that have NO REASON to have animal products in them, fortified with the body parts of endagered species. Ground-up chincilla, bald eagle jerkey, blue-whale jelly, etc. And the animals are not just killed - they're *tortured to death*.

  • GILMORE||

    ..(contd)

    The market needs more choices! I'm tired of buying things, then discovering its 'dolphin-free', or 'free range', or 'all natural'. How about, 'hand-made by child slave labor'? Or, "forest-fire ice-cream?" (not a flavor - just an added bonus)... I'm kind of tired of all these smug fake do-gooders making money by appealing to lazy people's narcissistic need to be 'moral' via their Chicken consumption, etc. Why not expand the concept and be a little more honest? Our id needs a market too.

  • ||

    By "control over prices" I mean that there are firms/people/etc in the market that can control not the price that they will buy or sell at, but the market price itself.

    Gibberish.

  • GILMORE||

    I have raised a sort of related-but-separate issue before =

    If I like something, I like it for *what it is* -> not what it 'represents'.

    I basically have the opposite view of the feller (led?) above who thinks 'proper libertarians' must by definition be "ethical consumers"

    (e.g "EVERYTHING is an ethical issue when it comes to choosing products")

    I completely disagree.

    I don't eat a chicken sandwich because of my feelings about Homosexuality* (pretty neutral). I eat a chicken sandwich because its yummy, cheap, convenient, or whatever. The chicken sandwich is what Im buying. Now if the owners of said chicken shop donate money to, say, the KKK? Its not my problem. I just wanted a goddamn sandwich. Not everything is political.

    Miles Davis was a wife-beater = do I *boycott his music* out of respect for women's rights?

    A chicken sandwich is not an ethical conundrum.

  • sarcasmic||

    A friend of mine told me a story about meeting Miles Davis backstage after as show.
    Miles is sitting on a bench with a white woman, chatting her up, and my friend goes over and gushes about how Miles is his musical idol and so forth.
    He responds "Go away kid, can't you see I'm trying to get laid?"
    Yup. Miles Davis was the coolest man to walk the earth.

  • GILMORE||

    Miles Davis was the coolest man to walk the earth.

    I don't argue with that.

    Still, others have differing perspectives =

    Besides being one of the greatest musicians of all time. Miles Davis was not shy about smacking the shit out of his women and spoke about it in such a blase manner you'd think he was talking about the weather. Of course, it wasn't a big deal for Miles, the women stuck around....

    http://blackheadband.blogspot......hback.html

    I came across this funny comment=

    ""Did he really beat his wife? If so I am gonna stop listening to him, I do not like to listen to evil people.""

    this must be a modern concept particularly appealing to retards = 'All moral acts pass on to the consumer - ergo, I am *good* for my negative consumption'

  • sarcasmic||

    Some take the degrees of separation even further.

    I knew a Jewish lady who stopped listening Wagner when she learned that a certain German dictator liked his music.

    Total retard.

  • ||

    Well, Wagner was actually anti-semetic himself, even wrote papers on why Jews were inferior, so that actually would make sense.

  • ||

    Then again, plenty of girls listen to rappers that basically call all women sex objects, so I guess a lot of people don't really care, even if the musician is attacking the very group to which they belong.

  • ||

    The larger question is interesting-- should patronage of an otherwise-worthy business be influenced by the business's politics?

    I'm inclined to say it shouldn't-- if they're offering something I want to trade for cash, that's all that concerns me. Otherwise, where does it end? Do I boycott a potential trading partner for any trivial quality I find unsavory? If that were my standard, there'd be very few people I'd deal with.

    Fortunately, incompetence typically goes hand-in-hand with genuinely unsavory politics, so great moral conflicts rarely present themselves.

  • hlfk||

    I guess if you're straight and you don't know much about those organizations it may seem trivial, but if you understand the sorts of things these groups get up to, and they happen to be targeting you for mistreatment, that chicken sandwich is hard to swallow.

  • ||

    A chicken sandwich is not an ethical conundrum.

    "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

  • Bill Clinton||

    ...and sometimes its not! Hi-ohh!

  • MattyP||

    Well, I don't eat Chic-fil-A because it doesn't comply with my food ethic). Well, I guess that's my answer to whether you should patronize a company with whom you disagree on various issues.

    But I don't really think there's a question about it: the leadership of Chic-fil-A came out and said they didn't support marriage equality (also known as equal protection under the law and right to free association) of homosexuals, therefore, they are anti-gay.

    When you buy a product, you are, in a sense, voting with your dollars for the product, the company that sells the product, and the various places that company puts their money. So, if the idea of giving your money to "pray the gay away" charlatans or bigots of any stripe makes you uncomfortable, then don't buy from Chic-fil-A.

    If not, then that's your choice and those are your tastes, and--as they say--there's no accounting for taste.

  • GILMORE||

    When you buy a product, you are, in a sense, voting with your dollars for the product, the company that sells the product, and the various places that company puts their money

    Bullshit.

    I'm giving my money for a chicken sandwich.

    The owners of the company give their money to "pray the gay away".

    There is no "ethical" decision/act on my part.

    Your concept of 'endless ethical consequentialism' reduces the idea of 'ethical behavior' to meaninglessness.

  • hlfk||

    So if Al Queda had a bake sale, and you wanted a brownie, would you buy one? If your argument is that we should never consider spending money on a business based on ethics, you're basically saying that we shouldn't bother trying to encourage the market to be ethical. If we don't at least put in the effort, liberals are going to continue to think that the government must FORCE us to do so. If we're going to support libertarian principles, we must demonstrate how those principles can work to make the world better for people, not be indifferent to wrongdoing.

  • GILMORE||

    ...Unless you yourself are helping pray gay away, your connection to it via a chicken sandwich is entirely specious. What if the *other* chicken sandwich-place's owner happens to spend his profit on kindnapping african babies to harvest their organs? Your ethical decision concept requires *perfect knowledge* of an endless chain of causation at all times. Thats impossible, and would suggest that you in fact have *no control* of consequences, and therefore your actual ethical status is completely out of your hands. ("why did you bomb iraqi children, BTW? you taxpaying monster!")

    Not only that, you're attributing "ethical" decision-making to yourself for *negative acts*. If you campaign actively in *favor* of gay rights, you've made an ethical decsion/act. Not eating a chicken sandwich does not give you the same claim.

  • sarcasmic||

    Your ethical decision concept requires *perfect knowledge* of an endless chain of causation at all times.

    Or you just act on what you know. If you don't want your money indirectly going to "pray the gay away" and it makes you feel good to not give them money, then don't.

    ("why did you bomb iraqi children, BTW? you taxpaying monster!")

    That's a dumb comparison being that taxes are obtained by coercion, and nobody is coerced into buying a chicken sandwich.

  • GILMORE||

    Or you just act on what you know. If you don't want your money indirectly going to "pray the gay away" and it makes you feel good...

    Here's the nub though = that's not an 'ethical' decision. You're satisfying your personal moral narcissism. And there is no real knowledge here that constitutes an informed decision, or basis for actual 'ethical' determination. The profit-generated may be used in many many other ways you know nothing about. And you're not responsible for the good or the bad uses of it. You heard they donate to a charity that don't like gays. Well, so what? Maybe they're racist, too. As in your second point = is there anything they're *coercing* anyone to do? (I think the funniest thing about 'praying the gay away' is that its possibly the most harmless and futile method anyone could imagine)

  • hlfk||

    I don't think what Exodus does is harmless. It's pretty messed up, actually. And I don't see any reason to spend money with an organization that has made it clear they want to diminish my ability to be treated equally under the law, and that doesn't respect me as a human being.

  • df||

    BGSU blocked Chik-fil-A ... wow, I didn't not know that.

    Un-Falcon-Beleivable

  • Christina||

    I love Chick-Fil-A because they actually make it easier to bring your very small children with you. They have free little containers of Cheerios for toddlers. They have plastic placemats that stick to the table. They give books in their children's meals, not plastic crap. And they offer a bowl of mixed fruit as a side, not just apples. Then of couse there's the fact that the employees speak English and do things like carry your tray when your arms are full of baby. That's not even getting into the food, which is really good. I heard that their secret is marinating the chicken in pickle juice. Whatever they do, it works and I'll continue to patronize the place and hope that they open one in my neighborhood.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So what you're saying is that even if Chik-Fil-A stops funding anti-gay groups, I still shouldn't go there because I hate being around small children?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Actually, I should rephrase that. I hate being around small children whose parents think the entire world revolves around raising children, and thus feel empowered to bring them into any situation regardless of the level of disruption that imposes on other adults in the area.

  • Christina||

    Ah, Stormy, you had it (almost) right the first time. Chick-Fil-A is a place where families with small children are welcomed. If you hate families, then by all means, avoid the place or use the drive-thru exclusively. I appreciate them for being family friendly, because I don't want to be that asshole parent bringing my children where they don't belong. Chick-Fil-A has a playground for Pete's sake.

  • protefeed||

    Re the cow suit "get free chikin" pic attached to the article: my GF dared me to post this email from her in the comments thread:

    "We are so going to do partial furry- like cow girl with the human
    clothing and leg warmer/pigtails. You can be my young milk boy, in
    powder blue shorts/suspenders and matching neck bow and sailor hat.

    YES

    or we could confuse everyone by the sexy cow-girl milking the yung milk-maid-boy

    YES again

    put that on reason !!"

  • protefeed||

    re this: 1. Do you think Chick-fil-A's giving is in fact "anti-gay?".

    2. If a restaurant gives money to causes you don't like, does it make sense to stop patronizing it?

    Companies don't give money. Individuals working at the company give money, sometimes using corporate checks.

    And it's money earned in this case by mutually beneficial exchanges benefiting both parties, so I have no problem with individuals who have control of that money spending it however they see fit. If they were using it to take out racist or homophobic ads or whatever, I might boycott the place (in addition to my ongoing boycott of fast food because of health reasons), but I wouldn't get my panties excessively in a bunch over it. I'm OK with people vigorously exercising their free speech rights, even for repugnant speech.

  • GILMORE||

    ""Companies don't give money"'

    Tell that to Wal-Mart

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17.....e-charity/

    Dude, corporations give *tons* of money to charities of all types, and not based on the aggregate 'personal inputs' of individual employees = its a determination that may be made by board/management/3rd party consultants, etc... but the key point is = 'individuals' dont receive the consequent tax-deductions - the corporate entity does... so that is pretty much definitive that it is the *entity* that represents the donation, not any individuals.

  • ||

    re: this: 1. Do you think Chick-fil-A's... "anti-gay?"

    I think that our christian, conservative, arian dominant inspired country and therefore its companies all patronize some form another of evil.I succumb to evil. I think we'd all be naked and eating bark in non-gender specific tribes in ani-partisan sect of non ruled island of A__if we all really truly believed so strongly in our consciences...Just don't buy C-F-A if it offends thee, in fact, don't buy ANYTHING anywhere in this country !

    2. If a rest. gives money to causes you don't like... stop patronizing it?

    Only if you really give a shit. But there are what, like 3? 4? parent companies that own everything anyway? Still going to buy the Nike shoes? CK undies?...So really, we as outsider thinkers are fucked unless we change everything.

    ------------------

    RE: Protefeed's dare

    Well done sir. Well played. Your sailor hat awaits.

  • ||

    If you're going to use a word like "chlamydia", learn to spell it.

  • ||

    The whole concept of 'anti-gay' has lost its meaning in our society.
    Iran and Saudi Arabia would both be accurately considered 'anti-gay' since they execute convicted homosexuals. Kinda the epitome of 'anti' anything.
    Exodus International's purpose is notably less 'anti-gay', since they ultimately are trying to save souls not eradicate them. Like most do-gooders, the proper response is to smile and walk the other way. They may be deeply misguided, but their working for good not evil. Its sad that this distinction is lost on activists these days.
    Based on the standard CFA is being held to, it would seem clear and logical that the most anti-gay organization in the world is the US government, through its indirect and direct subsidization of virulent anti-gay countries around the world. Funny that.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    Which makes leftists the most "anti-gay" people around through their tireless efforts to expand that government to the nth degree.

  • ØJØʃ negros||

    the ever-so-unappetizing cholesterol-laden Ben and Jerry's. yuk!

  • ||

    Commiting a sex act with the same sex is a SIN, just as being in this country ILLEGALLY is criminal. I do not CARE about EITHERS Opinion. I am most assured they could care less About mine. As far as I am concerned they can S.T.F.U.

  • Lee Reynolds||

    "Do you think Chick-fil-A's giving is in fact 'anti-gay?'"

    A better question might be, do I care?

    The answer is no. Gay people aren't my concern. I have no hatred towards them as that would imply that they are of interest to me in the first place. They are irrelevant. I find all of the fussing over them to be ridiculous.

    What I do care about is the ability of a fringe group representing .3% of the population to brow-beat a university into kicking a profitable business off its campus for spurious reasons that are only persuasive to the far left.

    This nonsense simply proves that Northeastern is not a place where I would want to pursue higher education, nor would I willingly pay for my children to go there.

    If Northeastern wants to increase the number of brain-dead leftists who go to school there, this is a great way to do it since the rest of us are simply going to stay away.

  • ||

    People and companies give money to people they want to give money to, not to people "you" want them to.

  • Kes||

    Yes, and I have the right to give my money to people based on the values they espouse. Chick-fil-a shows in their actions and the groups they donate to that they are undeserving of my money.

  • ||

    And that YOU can choose to spend your money there or not is YOUR right. What these types of protests do though is also take away my choices and my rights. The business should be able to go in and then anyone that does not care for their food or politics can spend their money elsewhere but this specific action has denied all others their right to choose. That is not democracy.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    If you wanna ride with team blue, good for you. Team red won't like you very much. Or maybe people and organizations should give their own damn money (and I mean their own damn money, not government cash) to whoever they feel like giving it to.

  • ||

    I ate about a pound of their nuggets for supper yesterday. MMMMMMmmmmmm.

  • ||

    What's a "Chick-Fil-A"? Never seen or heard of this place before... if it's not in CA, it doesn't actually exist. :-D

  • Merrill Guice||

    Those organizations spend most of their time doing good works not related to politics or gay issues. The gays are blind to this as they have one issue only: making sure that everyone agrees with them on their sex life and punishing those who don't. Go ahead and eat at Chick*fil*a - they'll treat you nice and feed you well.

  • ||

    I surely miss those gay old times when a fried chicken company would only worry about serving the best fried chicken at the lowest price possible, instead of diverting my money to fund the Federation of Chicken Athletes or another ridiculous chicken/christian organization. This god meme will just not die, will it?

  • rfurman74||

    Hummmm. Guess I need to frequent Chick-Fil-A. Live and let live. People will make their own choices and are responsible for them. God bless all.

  • ||

    Why is it such for a lot of groups that "voting with your dollars" means preventing others from voting with theirs? In this case, some of the students don't want Chick-fil-A on campus due to what they see as an "anti-gay" agenda. Fine, if you feel that way, do not spend your dollars there but why does your protest have to impact me? Why does your "vote" get to out weigh mine? If they were true in their intent, they would let the business go in and then refuse to eat there and encourage others to not eat there but instead they have not even allowed anyone else a choice.

  • Tom||

    "Libertarians believe in "disciplining through the market""
    Absolutely - by individuals.

  • Chloe||

    Kind of wondering if Nick ever got that chicken he was jonesing for?

    Also, it is spelled chlamydia.

  • ||

    I have trouble believing that liberals actually care about the things they say they care about. Why else do they ignore people in other countries who actually murder homosexuals and instead focus on not buying chicken from those who simply disagree with homosexual actions? It's either a flimsy illusion of morality or they are crazy and stupid.

  • Sevo||

    Anyone remember the HUGE lefty-boycott of Whole Foods when Mackey pointed out that Obama-care was a crock?
    You don't?! Well, neither does Whole Foods.

  • ||

    In a rather surprising turn of events, NYU opted not to ban Chick-fil-A from campus. I'm pretty sure it won't stick, though. The fact that it was seriously considered in the first place is a harbinger of what's to come. These gay groups are getting so strong they'd ban every religious organization from campus if they could. Why not? With few exceptions, religions are all "anti-gay" by their book. Bans on restaurants allow them to redirect their aggression onto a safe target.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I love Chick-fil-A. The food is decent (only place I've ever had a chicken nugget where I didn't NEED a sauce). But I love the service - they have never gotten my order wrong, the kids behind the counter are courteous and professional, and they can actually get me through the drive thru line in about 15 minutes when it wraps around the building. Compare that to Mickey D's or Wendy's, where they constantly screw up my order, the order takers can be downright surly, and it takes fifteen minutes to get through the drive-thru when there's only three cars in line.

    I've read on here that In and Out is comparable, and I've heard good things about them from others, as well, though I've never had the pleasure since they don't exist in my part of the world. It does make me wonder if it has something to do with the Christian ownership of the companies, since they have that in common.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I am a Christian, but I do recognize that Christianity isn't perfect. Hypocrisy runs rampant in the church (though we do not have a monopoly on it, as some might want to believe), and there are way too many who don't get the concept of hate the sin but love the sinner, especially when homosexuality is the sin du jour. But I do think for the most part, Christian organizations do try to function at a higher standard, and apparently the high regards people have for CFA and In and Out backs that up.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    As for CFA being anti-gay, just because they happen to give charitably to some organizations that overall are doing some good things, does that make CFA anti-gay in the process if those organizations have some anti-gay stances? It's not as if the primary function of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes or Focus on the Family is to wipe out homosexuality. I'm sure these same groups that are tough on CFA for their charitable giving also would tell us that it's wrong to be down on Planned Parenthood because a part of their function includes abortions (liberals love to point out how that's not *all* they do, after all).

    If CFA were on record for not hiring or serving gays in their restaurants, then I think there'd be a reason to boycott them. For giving to other Christian organizations, though, that's just taking things too far if you ask me.

  • Yet Another Dave||

    Have I mentioned lately that the 900 character count limit is annoying?

  • hlfk||

    Exodus International exists purely to convince homosexuals that we should be ashamed of who we are, try to act straight, enter into unhappy marriages, and be celibate. It has been spoken of by ex-members as a brainwashing cult. It doesn't do any other sort of charitable work. The other groups are no better- FRC spends a lot of time spreading untruths about gay people in an effort to promote a bigoted, prejudicial attitude towards us. These aren't good charities, they're political organizations that devote a lot of resources to stopping us from getting married encouraging people to treat us as subhuman. Serious stuff.

  • Dave||

    Um... Am I the only one that noticed that "Domino's ... supposedly refused to include fetuses among its toppings."?

    I'm not being sarcastic, I have genuinely been trying to figure out if this is a typo, or some reference I don't get. Can somebody help me out?

  • Yet Another Dave||

    I saw it. I just wondered if it was some sort of in-joke that if you weren't there, you won't get it.

  • Dave||

    Hmm... Maybe. It's just a really weird thing to say.

  • ||

    Yeah, I thought it was weird, but I figured the same thing. It's probably some kind of joke.

  • Beth||

    I thought it was a reference to th founder of Dominoes being Catholic and pro-life. He is a controversial figure because he is rich and supports Catholic causes.

  • Beth||

    This is where havin a personal set of religious beliefs comes in handy. Religion provides the kind of moral framework to help you make these types of judgement calls. My religious beliefs will not prevent me from enjoying Chik-fil-a, but I respect your right to be offended and/or boycott based on your own personal beliefs. I think that these types of boycotts become troublesome when groups put pressure on other groups or individuals to boycott as well or face negative consequences. If the boycott becomes an excercise in group think it becomes an enemy of liberty.

  • hlfk||

    religious beliefs should have nothing to do with this, particularly if you are looking at it from a libertarian, reason-based, point of view. There is nothing wrong with being homosexual, and there is nothing good about promoting an agenda that seeks to treat a group of people as less than equal human beings, and limit our equal treatment under the law and in society. It is an immoral thing to do, and I don't think religious doctrine, which boils down to "I do what I'm told because he said so", should be an excuse to do immoral things.

  • Joana||

    I just want to say this and just to put it out there. I understand the negative belief that the students belief that Chik-fil-a does to their community. However, I just think that we should respect the direction that this company wants to take their money to. I have strong religious beliefs, but I respect the opinions and views of the gay community. I just think when you pressure the company to change the view and direction where they have been you are trying to change the essence of who they are. As a company they should have the liberty into having control where the money is going if it is benefiting people in a positive way. I would think the gay community would respect that.

  • hlfk||

    Why does the view and direction of the company need to be to limit my rights and convince other people that I should not be allowed to do as I please and treated respectfully? I do not see any reason why anyone should support such a vision by funding it.

  • hlfk||

    Of course I would not give someone money so that they could give it to an organization that exists to impede my equal rights under the law, make up lies about me to encourage people to be prejudiced against me. This is more comparable with funding the KKK than it is to giving money to Occupy. These are people who actively work to cause harm, they do things like make up false studies to spread lies about gay people, put teenagers into ex-gay camps where they bully shame them- they're truly awful. I can't imagine why you wouldn't just go to another of the many chicken places available to you. I feel like a callous attitude towards this sort of thing seems to discredit the Libertarian philosophy, because it makes it seem like people just don't care if a business is causing harm and won't do anything about it on their own.

  • hlfk||

    I don't understand why anyone would call themselves a libertarian, or read something called "Reason", if they are opposed to gay rights, particularly if they are so opposed based on religious dogma. All we want is the right to be ourselves, dress and talk and act as we want, and love whom we want, with equal treatment and equal respect. To be opposed to that is incredibly immoral, and you don't get to get away with immorality by claiming your religion encourages it.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement