Gay Marriage

So Who Is Making Out at Chick-fil-A Today?

Will gay make-out sessions change the Cathy family's mind about same-sex marriage?


Maybe they'll convince them to support gay marriage by being really hot?

There's still time to go run out to your local Chick-fil-A and make out with another dude or lady. That's the response to Wednesday's groundswell of support for the company, whose president has received criticism (as well as threats from politicians) due to his comments favoring traditional marriage.

There's even more bad publicity for the gay marriage supporters, as a restaurant in Torrance, Calif., was vandalized, with "Tastes Like Hate" scrawled on the side.

Will this effort have any impact? Hmm. The Facebook page for the event has a grand total of 13,788 people listed as going. Compared to Wednesday's apparent record-setting sales, this is not much of a response. People are invited to post their pictures on the page, but there's only a handful so far.

Also, why would it have any impact? We're talking about a company that deliberately reduces its own profit potential by closing one day a week. I'm not sure how exactly one might get the leaders of Chick-fil-A to completely reverse their positions on gay marriage, or if it's even possible, but I'm fairly certain that boycotts and kissing aren't going to do it.

NEXT: Syria Moving Missiles to Lebanese Border

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “We’re talking about a company that deliberately reduces its own profit potential by closing one day a week.”

    To be fair, people in the South eat a lot of homemade fried chicken for Sunday dinner anyway.

  2. Awww, how sweet.

  3. Also, why would it have any impact? We’re talking about a company that deliberately reduces its own profit potential by closing one day a week. I’m not sure how exactly one might get the leaders of Chick-fil-A to completely reverse their positions on gay marriage, or if it’s even possible, but I’m fairly certain that boycotts and kissing aren’t going to do it.

    Most protests aren’t about making a difference.

    1. Exactly.

      The thing than rankles me about the “kiss in” is that it’s the IRL equivalent of badly trolling.

      1. “badly trolling” struck me as bad grammar until I realized it is correct since trolling is a verb. Thanks for towing the grammatical lion.

        1. Isn’t the correct construction trolling poorly?

          1. I’m not sure badly trolling is wrong per se, but trolling poorly is certainly a lot more elegant.

            1. Now I’m picturing the knight from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: “He trolled…. poorly”

        2. Except “trolling” is being used as a gerund and thus is acting as a noun. So you either have to use an adjective as a modifier “that’s the IRL equivalent of bad trolling” or move the adverb into the verb phrase “that’s the IRL equivalent of trolling badly”.

          1. Yes, I think you are correct, so my original feeling that something was off was right.

          1. Whoosh.

    2. I think this one is more of an opportunity for people to find a hook-up.

      1. Yeah, ’cause lord knows gay folks are hard-pressed to find easy hook-ups.

        1. Pay toilets are a human rights violation. Obamacare needs to subsidize them, like it does contraception.

  4. Good lord this is such an amazingly stupid controversy. And it’s brought out the absolute worst from both sides of the argument.

    What’s crazy is that most people have no idea where the owners of their favorite products -or maybe not even favorites but ones they buy all the time- stand on most issues. The amount of outrageous outrage that would be generated if people took the time to find this out would be enough to power India for the foreseeable future.

    1. “the absolute worst from both sides”

      Really? The head of Chik Fil A, in an interview with a Baptist paper, articulates the views of voters in about 32 states, and several municipal leaders threaten retaliation, prompting criticism even from progressive sources like the New York Times. Then there’s unprecedented sales on Chik Fil A Appreciation Day, followed by like the lames counterprotest ever.

      If this is indeed the worst that either side can produce then (a) we need have no fear from the SSM side and (b) the pro-marriage side comes off looking pretty good.

      1. “We”, huh? I think that’s a bit of misplaced presumption on your part.

      2. Long term, Eduard, this is a bad business move. You don’t want to be the Sandwich of the Culture Warrior. You want to be a sandwich everyone enjoys.

        1. Or in their case, both.

          They didn’t set out to be a front in the culture war. The threats from Chicago and Boston were not *their* idea. And they didn’t plan the Wednesday support day, as far as I can tell. It was a bounty which dropped on their laps, and the SSM people started it.

          The bad business move was by the SSM crowd. They picked the fight.

          1. It does not matter who started the fight, Eduard. It matters what the perception of the corporation is going to be long-term.

            1. I have not idea about the long term, but I expect it will have a lot more to do with the quality of their chicken sandwiches (and those of the competition) than about political correctness.

              Just as social conservatism and support for free speech won’t be enough to save them if their sandwich is bad, political correctness won’t be enough to harm them if their sandwich remains better than the McDonald’s version.

            2. Long term nobody will give a shit. Just wait until the next panic.

              1. Probably correct, but it is not a smart move for corporations to get in any way involved in Social Culture War Fights.

              2. If bath salts doesn’t knock this off the front page, nothing will.

        2. They’ve been closed on Sundays, and people have know why, since they came into being. If people want to be shocked — shocked — that Chick-fil-A takes the Bible pretty seriously, that dumbassery is on them, not Chick-fil-A.

          1. Well, parts of the Bible, anyway. I would be pretty terrified if I ever met anyone who takes the whole Bible seriously.

            1. Fair enough, but when I say they take it seriously I mean it is important to them.

      3. Going out of your way to demonstrate hostility toward a minority group is not in the best of taste, to say the least.

        1. Like pedophiles?

        2. Like polygamists?

        3. Do either of you think gay people are equivalent as a minority group to pedophiles and polygamists?

          Think of them as similar to white heterosexual Christian males–you know, the most oppressed group ever.

          1. Why aren’t gay people equivalent as a minority group to polygamists? If society should accept gay marriage, why shouldn’t it accept polygamy?

            1. People aren’t born polygamists.

              1. 1. Who says?
                2. What proof do you have they aren’t?
                3. Who cares? Are they not entitled to be sexually and emotionally satisfied as well? I doubt people are born for a taste for BDSM.

              2. So it’s your opinion that civil rights and the desire not to be the object of hostility depends on innate characteristics at birth? That’s going to be your argument?

                1. It’s my opinion that being gay and being a polygamist are differences of kind.

                  But I have absolutely no problem with polygamists asserting civil rights or taking their case to court.

              3. People aren’t born polygamists.

                People aren’t born with an innate desire to get married period. Why protect some and not all?

                1. I don’t know. I don’t care about polygamists, and gays shouldn’t have to answer for them before they’re afforded equal rights. Polygamists are welcome to do their own civil rights movement, assuming they want to expose themselves as mostly rape cults.

                  1. I don’t care about polygamists, and gays shouldn’t have to answer for them before they’re afforded equal rights.

                    Which is one of the many fictions of your argument. There is no such thing as gay’s rights, or worker’s rights, or immigrant’s rights, or women’s rights, or polygamist’s rights ad nauseum. There are only human rights.

                    1. One such human right is the right to be treated equally under the law. Agree?

                    2. That is all the polygamists are asking for and you just said you don’t care about them, agreed?

          2. That’s rich… a gay man who harbors bigotry against “breeders” and minorities, chastising others.

            1. You don’t have any proof that Tony harbors any such resentment, so cut the shit.

              1. He’ll tell you himself, Randian. He admitted not one or two weeks ago, that he’s been struggling with prejudices against minorities, and he’s also an admitted anti-breeder.

                Ask him.

                1. I didn’t know that.

                  Sorry. I just didn’t want this to turn into the Gay Stereotype thread, that’s all.

                  1. It cool, Randian. I was surprised when he admitted his “struggles” with how he views minorities; wasn’t at all surprised, however, when he started bitching about straight people.

                    1. Actually, young white gay men can be pretty racist.

                      Part of it started as another attempt to be “edgy” (yet again), then it was defended as merely an expression of sexual attraction, then it just descended into “I have jungle fever”, which is what happens when edgy people adopt reactionary language to be ironic.

                    2. I didn’t know that. Which should, theoretically, be impossible, since leftists lecture everyone else about being racist (although virtually every leftist is incapable of using that word correctly).

                      Yeah, I just said “most gays are leftist”. Either that, or they put up good fronts for having right-of-center views.

                    3. It’s a pretty prevalent problem.

                      If you’re inclined to explore the seedy underbelly of the cruising world, you’ll frequently see profiles that say “no curry, no tacos, no fried chicken, no egg rolls”.

                      I don’t think I need to tell you that doesn’t mean food.

                    4. In the case of women, those are four of my favorite dishes.

                    5. FIFY I admitted that I am not color-blind, that I harbor some racial prejudices, in an attempt to call you and others like you out for your absurd attempts to present yourself as beyond race, or as less racist than liberals. The point is everyone is a little bit racist.

                      And I may be uncomfortable around straight people, but I don’t advocate for them to be treated as second-class citizens under the law, however inferior a race they may be.

                    6. “however inferior a race they may be”

                      And I was supposedly being pedantic when I posted this:


                      IN THEORY, liberals *shouldn’t* harbor ANY such thoughts. Obviously, they can.

                      By the by, Mister College Genius: “straight people” are not a race.

                    7. Just occurred to me… shouldn’t such gay-bigotry-against-minorities behavior be called out on ?

          3. Whether we think they are or not, it’s indisputable that they are minority groups. Do you not approve of pedophiles being able to get hitched to their oh-so-young objets d’amour?

            1. No, moron, I don’t, because the objects are not consenting adults.

              1. At least we agree on the “consenting adults” thing, Tony. Which is rare… agreeing with you, that is.

              2. I’m shocked at your willingness to discriminate on the basis of age, Tony.

                So are you backing away from your “we need to stop the bigotry against minorities” statement?

                1. No, as that obviously doesn’t include every single nonmajority group of people you can imagine. Being for gay marriage doesn’t mean I think murder should be legal.

          4. Well, actually, they’re closer to pedophiles.

            Both have a sexual dysfunction–the one in pedophiles is just appears more extreme as their sexual proclivities still disgust society as a whole–homosexuals included.

            But, it should be considered, and considered seriously, that the sexual proclivities of homosexuals once disgusted society almost as much as that of pedophiles.

            1. Indeed, I read recently that researchers are trending toward pedophilia being a sexuality, not unlike homosexuality. If that’s the case, doesn’t it put love of sex with children on the same taxonomic playing field as homosexuality?

    2. That’s because most successful business people know well enough to keep their controversial political opinions to themselves.

      1. Yeah, if only this guy had kept his mouth shut this upstart “Chik-Fil-A” business might have someday amounted to something.

    3. Seriously. To be consistent with your outrage, you need to research the boards or owners of every company whose product you buy.

      “Hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t turn on my AC today because Siemens made the electronic controls, and you know how Nazi they used to be. And does the Chinese company that made my coat support pay equity for women?”

      Otherwise it’s silly and shallow–which this whole ginned-up stupidity is.

      1. Or at least not support Obama in 08.

      2. Seriously. To be consistent with your outrage, you need to research the boards or owners of every company whose product you buy.

        I concur completely. For example, I loathe people who cheat on their wives. Do I now need to find out the private life of the COO of every corporation with whom I do business?

        This kind of time and attention should be devoted to the most base and gross violations of human dignity and liberty. If, for example, Chick-Fil-A was enslaving children in Viet Nam to pluck the chickens, that would be something to punish the company for.

      3. No. The boards, owners, and executives of most companies know to keep these things to themselves.

        Your analogy is incorrect.

        A better analogy would be if the CEO of Siemens told a newspaper that he was proud that the company used to be Nazi run and that they had nothing to be ashamed of, or if owner of the Chinese company that made your coat went on television to say that he made a point to pay women less.

        When somebody makes a point to publicly state their controversial political opinion, it is not silly or shallow to ask yourself whether they continue to deserve your money.

        1. More Nazi analogies, please!

        2. Please. It’s common knowledge now that the executive said nothing so direct. Nor, for that matter, can anyone sanely compare an objection to gay marriage–which is not the same thing as “Homosexuality should be stomped out”–with Nazism or anything else remotely like that.

          Besides, the only important issue in this nonsense, ginned up solely for the election, is that some government officials have decided to violate constitutions of the federal government and their respective states in threatening the company.

        3. If I read that correctly, their actual views don’t really matter to you, as long as they keep them to themselves. It’s when the views are revealed (even just by answering a question from an interviewer) that they matter to you.

          So if the CEO of GE is a hardcore racist who verbally abuses his Mexican cabana boys, I’ll keep buying appliances as long as he doesn’t reveal it.

          1. Absolutely, and this is only reinforced by the silliness of the people who went and spent money there to make a statement in opposition of marriage equality. I’m not the one who made spending money at Chik-Fil-A a political statement, it’s the owner of Chick-Fil-A who did that by mixing his business and his politics.

            1. Absolutely, and this is only reinforced by the silliness of the people who went and spent money there to make a statement in opposition of marriage equality.

              Most of the people I know who went yesterday (and from all the shit on my Facebook page it was quite a few), went not in “opposition of marriage equality”, but went because they felt that the CFA President was being unfairly punished for expressing his opinion by political leaders. What they viewed as a Free Speech issue.

              That was far more important to them in this case than the particular issue of gay marriage that started the controversy.

              As far as I am concerned as long as the product is good, I could give a flying fuck what the people who are selling it to me believe, publicly or privately.

          2. Whatever floats your boat. Frankly, if I worried about what every executive thought, I’d probably do no business with most companies in the U.S. A large percentage of them do things that offend my libertarian sensibilities.

            1. A large percentage of [US companies] do things that offend my libertarian sensibilities.

              Boycott every corporation who hires K street lobbyists!

              1. Crap, I own some GE shares. Just imagine how that makes me feel.

                1. I have a GE refrigerator. I cry every time I open it.

                  1. Dear God, so do I! Dammit.

    4. I don’t see the bad behavior by Chik-Fil-A or its supporters in this brouhaha.

      Vandalism, threats, all-around ugliness seem to be the province of the tolerance warriors here.

      C’mon, guys – vandalizing property with “Tastes Like Hate” tells me a lot more about you than about Chik-Fil-A.

      Probably correct, but it is not a smart move for corporations to get in any way involved in Social Culture War Fights.

      I think what you’re saying here is that the culture warriors can and should threaten any company they disagree with, because they will win.

      1. I see less bad behavior from the pro-Chik Fil-a side, but it’s not like the fundamentalist right is free and clear of intolerant bigots either. I’ve heard enough fag-bashing from the right over this issue that whilst I realize does not represent the majority is still readily available.

        Stupid is as stupid does.

        1. Yes, stupid is a universal human condition. Sadly, even some people who think like me in some areas have the stupid. Look at some of things that happen within the LP, for instance.

        2. “I’ve heard enough fag-bashing from the right over this issue that whilst I realize does not represent the majority is still readily available.”

          When they start serving up deep-fried queer chickens you’ll know their fag bashing has reached peak fag bashing

  5. The Facebook page for the event has a grand total of 13,788 people listed as going.

    4.8% of the people are going to be making out with copies of themselves.

  6. This is so fucking adolescent. Yesterday, on the Nicollet Mall, right in front of my office, two women kissed each other just before going their separate ways. Just like any other couple. And guess what? Zero impact to our business.

    1. Not surprising. Minneapolis is a well known hotbed of immorality and sin.

      1. You forgot the /sarc tag.

        1. A city that clean has to be hiding something awful and nefarious.

          1. Well Pip works there so maybe that’s it.

          2. Secretly run by fascists?

            1. Oh it’s no secret.

  7. Does no one remember the protest of 2004? All of the Kerry supporter showed up; furious about their waffle fries.

  8. I get really existentialist when it comes to things like this.

    Who are the protesters and the boycotters protesting and boycotting exactly? CFA is not a monolithic “thing”. The Board and COO are but a handful of tens if not hundreds of thousands of employees. Corporations are only things in the legal sense, not in a reality sense.

    I had the same problem with Penn State.

    1. You use nuance and have a hard time being binary about cfa and penn state? You might end up being the impetus that finally brings the “dislike” feature to Facebook.

      1. I have to admire Facebook for not bowing to the pressure. 99% of people just want to flame each other with that “dislike” button.

        1. Teh Facebook Flame Warz! It could be a movie, or at least a graphic novel.

    2. Also, most if not all CFA locations are franchises, the owners of which may not care one way or the other who marries whom.

      1. We went over this yesterday. None of them are franchises, they’re all corporate owned. Even though CFA calls them “franchises” The franchisee is basically a manager with an awesome profit sharing plan. He doesn’t “own” any part of the franchise. It’s not like a typical fast food chain.

          1. So, that makes the beliefs or positions of the franchisees irrelevant, because they’re essentially employees, not owners. Your comment below is factually wrong.

            1. Still does not matter, it’s not like each store is run from CFA headquarters.

              1. Actually, more or less, it does mean exactly that. Hell, the things they say to you are prescribed by corporate policy. If they refill your drink and you tell them thanks, you’ll always get “My Pleasure” as a response. It’s corporate policy.

                I’ve had similar instructions when I worked retail, down to how we answered the phone. The corporate office calls the shots.

                In an actual franchise, that’s not the case.

                1. You’re missing the entire point of this whole discussion of CFA.

                  1. I’m missing the point because your assumptions are incorrect?

                    *IF* Dan Cathy deemed that gays wouldn’t be allowed in their stores, then guess what? Corporate calls the shots. The franchisee can disagree all he wants, but he still has to follow corporate’s lead. He has no leverage. He could be gay himself and not be able to allow gays in (and what a paradox that would be).

                    The McDonald’s franchisee can tell corporate to cram it.

                    1. Since Dan Cathy *CAN’T* decide not to allow gays that point is irrelevant.

                      That’s quite a bit different than saying Chick-fil-A can’t open a shop in your city.

                    2. Sparky, it was just an example. Here’s another: A typical franchisee may be able to determine pricing of items. You always here “at participating locations” in the ads…that’s because franchises don’t HAVE to participate.

                      The CFA “owner”? He has no say. If corporate says a #1 combo is $5.99, that’s what it is.

        1. While true I fail to see how it has any bearing on how the individual “manager” feel about gay marriage.

          1. It doesn’t matter how they feel, but it may very well matter in how they can act. I guess it depends on what the contracts say.

            A McDonald’s franchisee is basically licensing the trademarks. He has to own the property and the building for the restaurant. If the franchise lease runs out and for whatever reason McD’s corporate decides not to renew it, he can do some minor renovations and turn his McDonald’s into a Burger King, a Taco Bell, or a hardware store, or whatever he wants to do with his property.

            With CFA, the person they’re calling the franchisee doesn’t own shit. He basically has a contract to work there and take some of the profits. If they decide not to renew that agreement, he gets to head on down the road and find himself another opportunity, just like the lazy kid he fired last month.

            CFA has much more control that way.

            1. Great, it still doesn’t matter how you want to define the “manager.” Show me where a CFA has refused to serve/hire anyone based on their sexual orientation because of corporate policy.

              1. Dumbass, they haven’t. And I’m not implying that. I’m simply saying that corporate calls the shots, regardless of what the manager/owner/franchisee thinks.

                This is not the case with an actual franchise.


                1. Retard, this is why your entire argument is basically moot. You’re arguing over the terminology and corporate governance just to fucking argue.

                  1. I can’t help it if you’re too dense to realize what the discussion is about, for questions that YOU initiated.

                  2. Seriously, the corporate relationship is pretty much totally irrelevant to the discussion.

                    CFA managers, if they are anything like other managers, still have some pretty wide latitude in how their store is governed.

                    This is true of all “franchisees”. It isn’t as if Mickey D’s franchisees can just stop selling Big Macs.

                    1. Who knows what the details of the contracts are. But since CFA owns the stores, they can do whatever they want.

                      That’s not true with a McD’s. Sure, the franchise owner can get his franchise pulled if he doesn’t follow corporate’s rules, but in that case, McDonald’s just closed a location and all the profit that goes with it. And the franchisee takes his property and does something else with it, and McDonald’s now has to find someone with a million bucks to open a new one.

                      Thus, there is only a certain level of control that corporate can exert over franchisee.

                      With CFA, it’s relevant to the discussion because it’s more like a WalMart store: corporate can exercise complete domain over every aspect of the business….and if the guy running the store tells them to shove it, they simply show him the door and replace him.

                      You guys keep saying that the “owners” of each CFA outlet can do what they want. They can’t. They don’t have leverage. They may be given significant latitude by corporate, but that can change at a moment’s notice.

                      Anyway, I’ve beaten this dead horse enough, and if you don’t see what I’m talking about by now, you never will.

                    2. Again, the discussion is irrelevant. Who are what are you ‘punishing’ when you boycott the local store? The local people who work there, whose views you are clueless about.

    3. Chik Fil A is a private company. In that sense, and in the sense that corporations ARE people, it is difficult to distinguish between the company and the people who directly own and operate it.

      There used to be a grocery store down the block from me who’s owner was very politically opinionated in the pro-war, save babies, worship the flag kind of way. He put up signs in his windows making these views clear, and as a result, I didn’t go in there. I didn’t shop there because the owner was an asshole who by making public pronouncements was tying his business and his political opinions together.

      Chik-Fil-A is doing exactly that, just on a bigger scale.

      1. And the express purpose of them doing that is so that you won’t go there. So, you know, mission accomplished.

      2. But it isn’t. The executive made a relatively low-key remark, and the company donates to an organization with a mixed history, some of it not generally favored. That’s not the same thing as an announced policy to stomp out gay marriage.

        And this has been known for years.

        1. The executive made a relatively low-key remark

          He said that we risk calling down the wrath of god if we attempt to redefine marriage. Even though I consider that assertion ridiculous, I don’t consider the sentiment behind it very low-key.

          1. I’d be more impressed if he’d said that he intended to be the Wrath of God: “I, the wrath of God, will marry my own daughter and with her I’ll found the purest dynasty the earth has ever seen.”

            1. Another Aguirre reference. The acting profession has never been the same since Klaus Kinski died.

              1. I like to think he faked his death and is living, Kurtz-like, in some jungle. With lots of slaves.

                1. Stormy, face facts: The CEO of CFA does not set gay-marriage policy.

          2. I find it really funny that people are worried about the wrath of God in regard to gay marriage. Wouldn’t the fact that most of the world is not Christian (or whatever) be a much larger potential bringer of the wrath?

            1. I just had a brilliant idea. A hardcore Christian restaurant chain. Not like Chick-fil-A, which is mildly Christian, but a place with products named after Biblical stuff, the whole works. “I’ll have the Wrath of God meal, with extra Wrath Sauce.”

              I’m going to be so rich now.

              1. “I’ll have the Wrath of God meal, with extra Wrath Sauce.”

                Is that like the Taco Bell Taco 12 Pack?

                1. No. Taco Bell is Satan’s work.

                  1. Taco Bell’s “Fire” sauce is pussy stuff. Not nearly hot enough.

                    Then again, I have extreme tastes when it comes to hot sauces.

                    1. I have extreme tastes when it comes to hot sauces.

                      Me too, I’m actually making a batch this weekend from my most recent Jolokia harvest.

                    2. Oooog. Not THAT hot. But Dave’s Insanity Sauce, for instance, is just a tad mild for my palate.

                    3. Plus, it doesn’t taste good.

                      About the only things from a restaurant that I find hot is the crap made with cap extract for the sole purpose of being hot, with no consideration at all for taste.

                    4. Plus, it doesn’t taste good.

                      I can’t tell you how delighted I am to come across another individual that understands that certain hot sauces simply taste horrible. I don’t care how macho using it might make me seem – if it tastes cleaning chemicals pumped through a dead horse’s digestive tract, it isn’t going anywhere near my food.

                    5. There’s two type of hot sauces: there’s the type that’s developed for people who actually have a pallet for spicy food and are more interested in the flavor than purely how hot it is. The other kind is for frat boys who just want something as hot as possible so they can watch each other try to eat it and giggle.

                    6. Well, wait until you’ve tried our Divine Vengeance Sauce. It’s hotter than hell.

                    7. Well, wait until you’ve tried our Divine Vengeance Sauce. It’s hotter than hell.

                      Tell me more.

          3. “I don’t consider the sentiment behind it very low-key”

            O M G!! High key sentiments! Release The Hounds!

            1. You’ll need a “dog whistle” for that, Camp.

      3. In the example of a single owner or a closely held enterprise, the distinctions do get harder to make.

        But to say that the entire corporation is analogous to the sole proprietorship is complete and utter nonsense. There are thousands o employees and the chain is largely franchised. You may as well say that Governor X’s viewpoints can be applied as the viewpoints of all citizens of State X. That’s collectivist nonsense.

        1. Those thousands of employees and all those franchise owners tied themselves to the owner when they took those jobs. What’s actually collectivist nonsense is the notion that those employees and franchise owners have some sort of right to be insulated from the poor business decisions of the owner. They do not.

          1. That’s a whole pile of stupid there Thom. Nobody has claimed that the boycotters should not be allowed to boycott in order to protect CFA’s profits. People have claimed, correctly, that CFA should not have to fight off the government at the same time.

            1. Nonsense. It’s unfortunate that those progressive mayors decided to give Chik-Fil-A ammunition in this fight, but what it’s turned into is bigoted jerks using Chik-Fil-A sales receipts to “prove” that being a bigoted asshole is the morally correct position.

              1. Please, keep piling on the stupid.

                1. Meh. If all you can do is answer with an unsupported insult, then I’ll just answer back with “fuck off.”

                  1. Your posts are comprised in bulk of unsupportable presumptions, all made to cast the target(s) of those presumptions in the worst light possible.

                    To debate you in good faith would be an fruitless and one-sided gesture.

              2. It’s unfortunate that those progressive mayors decided to give Chik-Fil-A ammunition in this fight…

                There wouldn’t be a fucking fight had the mayors and alderman not opened their authoritarian pieholes in their official capacities.

                1. I have a hard time believing that there would have been no issue had the lefty mayors not gotten involved. Those people are reactionaries – they didn’t make this controversy up by themselves.

                  1. You have a hard time believing it because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions. None of this information — none of it — is new.

                    If the mayors had kept their mouths shut, what would be the new controversy here? This is a company that is unabashedly Christian and that closes on Sunday, and always has been. The controversy would be the same as it always had been: people who disagree with their corporate giving wouldn’t eat there and the world would keep right on spinning as it always had.

                    In your view, what did Chick-fil-A do to fuel the controversy?

                    1. Seriously, go into one of their stores and you will find family values stuff all over the place. This has been the case for as long as I can remember. Now it’s all of a sudden a huge deal?

                    2. Big time. One of their kids meal things has been VeggieTales CDs, etc. That’s overtly Christian.

                  2. I have a hard time believing that there would have been no issue had the lefty mayors not gotten involved.

                    Bullshit. Cathy’s stance on gay marraige was floating around the web for several months before this blew up. It’s been well-known for years that the reason it was closed on Sundays was due to the religious beliefs of the founder.

                    “Gee, I had no idea the owners of CFA were anti-gay!!!” really doesn’t pass the smell test here.

                    If opposing anti-gay bigotry is so fucking important here, why the hell isn’t Hobby Lobby being targeted for these juvenile kiss-ins as well for making donations to Oral Roberts University?

                    1. If fighting for the rights of homosexuals were the goal, everyone would be at the White House.

                      Dan Cathy will never donate enough money, in three lifetimes, to restrict the expansion of rights to gays as much as Barack Obama has just by being President so far.

              3. So, more people showed up in support of Chick-fil-A’s owner’s freedom of speech than showed up in opposition and now that means opposing same sex marriage is morally correct?

                1. I’d ignore the whole business if it weren’t for the government officials opening their mouths. This is a fairly significant setback for gay marriage advocates, if you ask me, because they’re getting tarred by the authoritarian brush a bit. A decent number on the left are objecting, which is good.

                  It’s so annoying that people let this issue distract them–as intended–from the economic and unlimited government problems we have today. This is purely and solely an electoral tactic.

              4. Actually, the progressive mayors were also being “being… bigoted asshole[s]”.

                Which is odd, because leftists are – in theory – supposedly “above” bigotry.

          2. Those thousands of employees and all those franchise owners tied themselves to the owner when they took those jobs


            What’s actually collectivist nonsense is the notion that those employees and franchise owners have some sort of right to be insulated from the poor business decisions of the owner.

            I didn’t say they had the “right”, just that this entire boycott fails when viewed through an atomistic lens. Who are you trying to punish and why?

            1. You go to work for somebody who mixes their outspoken political views with business, you better be smart enough to know the risks.

              1. My state does not recognize gay marriage, thom.

                Are you going to boycott my state now? Will you refuse any products made from there? Will you not do business with any companies headquartered there?

                1. Depends on what shithole state you live in. Well?

                  1. Why would that matter?

              2. Yeah, I can just see all the new Chick-fil-A franchisees saying, “Wait, what, we have to close on Sundays? I didn’t know that.”

                Every. Fucking. Body. knows what they are getting with Chick-fil-A, both product-wise and philosophy-wise. People who are only just now getting their outrage on are hacks, morons, or a combination.

                1. Notice how it automatically assumes your state is a “shithole”, Randian. Typical leftist elitist behavior.

                  1. Right? I mean, what if I lived in California, which does not recognize gay marriage?

                    1. Well, if you DID live there, Randian, you’d obviously be living in the redneck part of the state. And be married/divorced/remarried to your sister.


  10. Happy now, SIV?

  11. Let me see here. Chick-fil-A got support from people who care about free expression rights and/or conservatives on Wednesday. Today, people will be going in droves in the hope of seeing some hot lesbian sex.

    Are we sure Chick-fil-A’s PR department isn’t behind all of this?

    1. If it replaces those annoying cow billboards, let’s hope.

  12. Dave Burge at Iowahawk has the definitive take:

    “Lesbians making out *and* chicken sandwiches? Is this heaven?”

    1. Iowahawk made the observation that I’m adopting for use in every political discussion this idiotic political season (paraphrased):

      “Obama wants you to care more about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama is doing with your money.”

      1. Ooh, nice. Don’t see him around here–used to every once in a while.

        1. More Iowahawky goodness:


  13. I’m wondering if any gay couples will get pissed and bitch and moan if they’re kicked off the property for making out? I don’t want to see people making out in public, regardless of their orientation.

    1. I hope that CFA tells them they will have to leave if they don’t purchase any chicken. So then they do, thus giving CFA more chicken.

      1. er… more profits.

          1. Step 1: Chicken

            Step 2:??

            Step 3: Profits!

            1. Actually, Auric, Step 2 in this case is well known already. It’s “deep fry”.

              1. I watched a show on the rise of the Colonel (“Oh, I hated the Colonel with his wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. “Oh, you’re gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!”), and the early days were really fascinating. He came up with a method for frying chicken in a pressure cooker, which cooked it much faster than previous methods. Bet the chicken was danged tasty, too.

              2. It’s only well known if you go and tell everyone! Trade secrets!

          2. Actually, less chicken = moar profits.

            Because if they haven’t sold the chicken, that haven’t gotten any munny.

            1. Unless they hoard all the chicken and become a monopoly! Then they will get ALL the money! Somehow. Tony told me so.

      2. I’d like them to do a promotion and give out free sandwiches to the first x-number of people that took a picture of themselves kissing. Use the enormous amount of cash they made yesterday and turn this shit on its head.

  14. Lesbians making out *and* tasty fried chicken? Is this a great country or what?

  15. I can’t help but notice that it’s generally one side recently which has been provoking these culture-war battles, almost as if they were trying to distract attention from the economy or something. The sad thing is that even fighting on their own culture-war ground, they don’t seem to be winning.

    War on Women! But to the public, it looks more like a war on religious conscience.

    OK, then, Justice for Trayvon! But quite inconveniently, the FBI decided it wasn’t a hate crime and the alleged perpetrator has black ancestry.

    Uh, disenfranchisement! Jim Crow! You mean, asking people for IDs so they can vote?

    OK, then, how about invasive vaginal exams by the prolife extremists! But it turns out that it’s the abortionists, not their opponents, who engage in such activities.

    Well, then, stop the H8! Ban Chik Fil A! Forcing even the New York Times, more in sorrow than in anger, to defend the First Amendment rights of the Chik Fil A company.

    So it’s not just that they’re trying to distract us with cultural issues, they aren’t even winning on those issues!

    1. Of course that’s what’s going on. It would take a lobotomy not to see that.

  16. This has really opened my eyes. I’d like to promise, here and now, to my gay brethren, that I will never again eat at Chick-Fil-A.

    Unless they are really, really convenient or everyone else at work is getting take out there or something. In other words, the same as now.

    1. I may have to buy a sandwich for free speech support purposes, but I’ll give it to a gay homeless person.

      Then I’ll go there whenever my kids can talk me into it. Same as before.

      1. That’s just like going to Klan rally. Stormy said so.

        1. I’m so tired of the hyperbole with these overwrought causes. Some kid working at a Chick-fil-A will get hurt or killed if they keep fanning the flames. Is that worth any of this?

          Object. Boycott. Try to change minds. But save the vilification for the Nazis. Or our government.

        2. Do some of the causes CFA contributes to call for the re-criminalization of sodomy? Because I could understand all this if that were the case.

          1. I believe someone with the Family Resource Council said something along those lines in an interview but I don’t know if its actually a stated goal of the entire organisation.

            1. The “someone” was the guy in charge of their policy shop, being interviewed in his official capcity, and the organization has explicitly refused to condemn his remarks.

        3. I said it was like a Klan rally if you’re going there as part of an event explicitly set up to promote anti-gay political organizations.

          1. Lobbying for anti-gay legislation is totally the same thing as terrorizing, beating and murdering blacks, jews and immigrants.

            1. Again, how exactly do you think these homosexuality bans are going to be enforced, other than by terrorizing, beating, and (if they resist) murder?

              1. Banning homosexuality is never, never, never going to happen again. Ever. Unless the Republic completely falls apart, in which case we all have bigger problems to worry about.

                1. Banning Judaism is never, never, never going to happen again. Ever. Unless the Weimar Republic completely falls apart, in which case we all have bigger problems to worry about.

                  1. *eyeroll*

                    Like I said, if you want to compare the FRC to the rise of Hitler, that’s your own lack of perspective.

                  2. The first thing the Nazis did before going after the Jews? Chicken lunch.

                    Everyone knows that.

              2. how exactly do you think these homosexuality bans are going to be enforced

                Easy, it’s never going to happen.

              3. Again, how exactly do you think these homosexuality bans are going to be enforced, other than by terrorizing, beating, and (if they resist) murder?

                That only happens for issues that the lefties support. Like when the KKK was terrorizing, beating, and murdering Blacks when they wanted to vote Republican or whistled at White women. Wait a few years and when the lefties pick a different mascot, they will be beating the old one.

          2. I sense you think you’re being clever and funny, but you’re not.

            1. Tonio, is this going to be another thread where you claim you don’t advocate a boycott or that this is that important but yet you are categorically critical of those who don’t care about CFA or think this is overblown?

              Because that would be pretty tiresome.

            2. If you don’t see the difference between the two then you are either completely ignorant of history or retarded, maybe both.

              1. Yeah, Stormy… *just* like a Klan rally. Not a lick of difference. Exactly like one.

                You don’t get out much, do you?

              2. This particular issue aside, it bothers me how much activists want to make every issue into freeing the slaves or ending segregation. I hate to break it to them, but oppression of minorities isn’t even remotely the problem these days.

          3. I won’t go back until they stop frying the gay chicken, sir.

      2. I may have to buy a sandwich for free speech support purposes, but I’ll give it to a gay homeless person.

        Didn’t reason run an article or two warning us that feeding homeless people in NYC (or was it LA or even SF, maybe Houston) is already against the law unless you are a government agency?

    2. Chick-Fil-A has excellent breakfast and a really good spicy chicken sandwich, second only to Carl’s Jr. and maybe Jack in the Box. But then, I probably eat more fast food than most people.

      1. I’ve never had breakfast there, come to think of it. What is it, the biscuits?

        1. The biscuits are f-ing delicious.

          1. Well, I may have to have one. Let me say that if and when I do, I will eat it neutrally, without intending to make a political statement.

            1. Get the Chick-n-Minis. Those are the best.

              1. I wonder if they’d taste worse or better with the sauce of controversy?

                1. Sauce of controversy makes everything taste better.

                2. I recommend mayonnaise.

                  1. Artisanal mayonnaise?

                  2. Controversial mayonnaise?

            2. The supreme biscuit, or whatever they call it, is superb. It’s like chicken, bacon and cheese. Also, their parfaits are wonderful. Don’t know if they use better yogurt than Mcdonalds, Starbucks, etc., or they just dump a shitload of sugar into it, but it tastes a lot better than any other ones I’ve ever had.

        2. They have mini chicken sammiches that my kids are bonkers over.

  17. Chick-Fil-A-Wha?

    Anyone else notice that Obama’s economic policies have been a complete disaster?

    1. No, everything’s groovy, man.

      1. The private sector is doing fine with businesses they did’t build.

        1. Mitt Romney isn’t paying his fair share.

  18. WHere’d they find two Simon Cowell impersonators?

    1. The guy on the right is actually Simon Cowell.

  19. I haven’t been following this close because we don’t have a CFA here, but didn’t he say that he believes in the “biblical” definition of marriage? Did he say he hates teh gays? Or, if you don’t believe in gay marriage, does that mean you hate teh gays?

    1. Well, they didn’t put up signs saying no gays allowed.

    2. The Reason 24/7 news feed keeps saying, incorrectly Cathey made “anti-gay” remarks. They also appear to have edited one of the news summaries that used to state Wednesday’s protest was “in support of traditional marriage”. I see no mention of the edit.

  20. “Obama wants you to care more about what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama is doing with your money.”


  21. There’s even more bad publicity for the gay marriage supporters, as a restaurant in Torrance, Calif., was vandalized, with “Tastes Like Hate” scrawled on the side.

    Nonsense! The LEFT is populated by intelligent, caring people – Tony told me so numerous times, until red in the face.

    1. That’s “blue in the face”, OM. There’s not a shred o’ red in Tony.

      1. Of course not. Indians are minorities, too.

    2. The left doesn’t care what anyone does, so long as it’s compulsory.

    3. I posted this the other day at HuffPo:

      It’s not about defining marriage, which the government shouldn’t have any role in anyway, it’s about the government representatives, like Rahm Emanuel, who spoke about not allowing Chick-fil-A to do business in their little empires because of something the son of their CEO said. That just reeks of government overreach and contempt for freedom of speech.

      And one of the replies I got:

      hhl482 I haven’t heard many people dispute that point. Stifling expression, even irrational hateful expression, isn’t a liberal position

      The lack of self-awareness is astounding.

      1. Thing is, leftists use stifling and irrationally hateful expressions while chiding others for doing same.

  22. Amazing how all these people who were, really, pretty copacetic with the President of the United States holding these views a year ago are now frothing at the mouth because the president of a chicken sandwich shop does.

    1. I’ve been meaning to bring that up. Does Obama get a pass because he hasn’t actually done anything for America, while Chick-fil-A has provided jobs and an okay fast food product? Is that the logic these days?

      Crap, at least half the country, possibly more, opposes gay marriage. And many of those same people aren’t calling for a ban of homosexuality, so it’s not some cut-and-dried discrimination argument.

      1. I thought Obama freed the gays?

        1. He did. But before that, he owned some gay slaves.

    2. At it’s core it is a anti-SoCon issue.

      If this was someone like Steve Jobs who is popular with the left and not seen as a Social Conservative, this would have been mostly a non-issue.

      1. I don’t know about that. They hit the Whole Foods guy pretty hard when he said he opposed the public option in 2009.

    3. To be fair, I’d boycott Obama’s company too, but then they’d charge me with tax evasion.

  23. What makes this kiss-in business so stupidly hilarious is that while the gay rights crowd demands to be normalized, they stage an act to say “look at us! Look at how edgy and shocking we are!”

    1. Their version of normalized is everyone becoming like them not them becoming like everyone else.

    2. To be fair, they’re only staging “kiss-ins,” not “Folsom Street Fair-ins,” so it could be a lot more obnoxious (and, to be quite frank, disgusting).

    3. Uh, kissing is edgy and shocking? You should try getting out more, appropriately handled commentator.

      1. You know what he means, Tonio. For whatever reason, there’s a “shock the squares” streak that runs through the gay activist community, and yes, it pisses of those gays who are just trying to live their lives without engaging in categorical identity politics.

        1. engaging in categorical identity politics.

          Shhh, that’s all Tonio knows.

        2. +1
          Lot of friggin’ “I’m gay and that’s the most important thing on earth. Watch me be gay” Twirl, twirl, curtsy.

          1. Is there anything more cliche’ than gay men dressing up as nuns?

      2. What I wrote:

        they stage an act to say

        What you think I wrote:

        Teh gheys r kissin! Icky!

        The moral of the story: Learn to read before you attempt sarcasm. Thank you, fuck you, bye.

    4. Excellent point.

    5. Very good point. They can’t be Marilyn Manson and Dita von Tees today and Ozzie and Harriet tomorrow.

    6. Most homosexuals aren’t participating in this, actually. Every group has a loony fringe.

  24. God made CHickens. Colonel Sanders made them equal.

    1. God made chickens. Colonel Sanders genetically modified them into fat, beakless blobs of meat.

  25. IMO, conservatives are much more worked up about this than liberals.
    I still don’t see a lot of liberal friends talking about boycotting Chick-Fil-A (most of them probably don’t eat fast food anyway). But I do see a lot of conservatives up in arms about said supposed boycott.

    This is reflected in your note on the Facebook Kiss-in page vs. the “appreciation day”.
    Conservatives getting pissed is what took this from an obscure thing nobody was paying attention to to a front-page story.

    1. I’m not sure that liberals’ not being pissed at overt threats of government sanction based on someone’s expression is really a big point in their favor.

      1. Seriously. If they’d all have flipped out and said, “Over the line!” that would be one thing. I’m just relieved that the ACLU and a few other prominent leftists have at least lodged protests over the flagrant First Amendment violations going on, but is that the case generally? No.

    2. If it took conservatives to call attention to censorship threats from municipal leaders, then more power to conservatives!

      1. This time. Next time, they’ll fuck us. That’s how this shit works. Bipartisanshit.

    3. I believe it was a couple of high profile mayors who made it a story, by threatening bans on Chik-fil-a in their cities. That’s what got it into the national media. Also, Muppets. The “appreciation day” was a reaction to that.

    4. Conservatives didn’t get worked up until the threats from politicians started

      Shit my facebook page is non-stop ” Only Haters Eat At Chick-fil-A-Hole” stuff from 10%+ of my “friends”.

  26. While my preference is for CEOs to keep their big mouths shut on political and social issues, the flip side of this is that on the rare occasion where a CEO does speak out and happens to be libertarian(ish), it makes me more likely to use their company.

    John Mackay and TJ Rodgers are the only 2 to spring to mind. If Whole Foods were more convenient to me, I’d go there more often, but since Cyprus Semiconductor isn’t a consumer-oriented business, I can’t do anything there.

    But I do love a good nun-slapdown by Rodgers.

  27. due to his comments favoring traditional marriage

    No, Shackford, you’re wrong. The beef, as it were, is about CFA’s corporate financial support for the Family Research Council which wants to outlaw homosexual behavior, as well as divorce and porn. This is all well documented.

    Had previously enjoyed your articles, but this is a credibility killer for me.

    1. No, it isn’t, because that’s been known for years. It’s not even the comments that set this off. It’s clearly more culture war crap to distract everyone from the shitty economy.

      1. Yes. It’s no coincidence that Rahm Emanuel was a big part of this.

        1. I’m having a hard time not suspecting that this whole business was planned from the get-go. The interview sounds like it was a little obscure to get the kind of attention it did. Then again, I’m a libertarian wacko.

          1. What’s next week’s distraction?
            I like fried chicken and I like queers so this week’s was a good one.
            Moar ‘War on Women’?
            You know what hasn’t been brought up lately? The Epidemic of Racism in Amerikkka.
            Of course the secret War in Syria is warming up for your entertainment.
            Also SHARK WEEK!

    2. Good point. Opposing gay marriage and favoring traditional marriage are completely separate things. Gay marriage and traditional marriage are not mutually exclusive.

    3. Well, as someone who lived with a bi girlfriend for five years, wants to have the ability to get a divorce should the need arise, and likes porn, he’s 0 for 3 with me. And he still has every damned right to have and express his opinion without threats to his business from dim-witted government officials.

  28. This is, like, totally, the most boring HampersandR thread EVAR.

  29. Reason just can’t help but go all cosmo on the small “kiss-in” protest after totally not covering Wednesday’s huge 1st Amendment one.

    1. SIV: claiming not to engage in the Culture War while firing shotsin the culture war.

      1. It’s not a war and it’s not about culture. It’s about minority civil rights vs. Christian bigotry. Same story told over and over in this country.

        I bet the Christian bigots lose again.

        1. It’s not a war and it’s not about culture.

          Yes it is and yes it is.

          I am sorry that gays were previously treated badly, but this ain’t the fucking Stonewall riots, Tony.

          1. So it’s both not as serious as Stonewall and a war?

            I’m against marriage and don’t know why anyone would want to be married. I just think it’s both a legal inequity and emblematic of a persistent antigay bigotry in this country, which like all antiminority bigotries deserves to be stamped out. Not that anything needs to be done. The bigots eventually die off.

            1. And yet, it’s still okay for you to practice anti-straight bigotry. Got it.

              1. There are no laws that punish people for being straight that I’m aware of. But if you think I’m a bigot against straight people, does that make it OK for you to be a bigot against gay people?

                1. “here are no laws that punish people for being straight that I’m aware of.”

                  So prostitution is legal now huh? I can hardly wait until it’s 5:00.

            2. Like I said, pedophiles are a minority. Do we need to stamp out the ill will against them?

              1. You’re either being obtuse or an obnoxious bigot. The only people whose rights I’m defending are normal adults who want to get married but aren’t allowed to because they happen to be gay.

                But I’m all for freedom. Let pedophiles take their case to court too. Again, gays don’t have to answer for them.

                1. I’m asking you about what you said, which was far, far broader than just pounding your tin cup on the ground for gay marriage. I’m wondering how far you’re willing to ride that slippery slope.

                  Apparently pedophilia isn’t out of the question, eh?

                  1. Pedophiles are not a minority who deserve civil rights protections for their pedophilia. Happy?

                    1. You’re such a bigot. Welcome to the club!

        2. That’s rich… a bigot, griping about the bigotry of others.

        3. “I bet the Christian bigots lose again.”

          This sums up your issues with liberty pretty well. Nobody has to lose, T o n y. Gays can be all gayish and kiss and hug and the CEO of a company in America can call them strange and unnatural without having a fucking politician make threats about their business.

          1. My GF and I are going to hit the local CFA and smooch in front of the gay folks… then we are going out for Mexican food.

            1. My GF and I are going to hit the local CFA and smooch in front of the gay folks

              Let us know if one of them screams “hate crime!”

              1. Oh, I will. Hell, I hope we get arrested for said “hate crime” behavior.

          2. I agree that the politicians should have stayed out of it (in terms of policymaking in response to speech). So does Jon Stewart and most other liberals.

            1. Stopped clock, twice a day, et cetera.

              One of the few times you agree that politicians should stay out of things. You’re on a roll today, dude.

              1. I do actually believe in free speech. Besides, I don’t want to think what my neck of the woods would look like if politicians started examining business owners political beliefs.

        4. Yeah, Tony, because no Christians were involved in advancing civil rights, especially not Rev. Martin Luther King and the Souther Christian Leadership Conference.

          You’re a great example of why academia needs to be completely de-funded.

          1. That and the whole “George Washington’s role in the Civil War” thing that I related here yesterday.

        5. Speaking as a Christian, the only dread I have about gay marriage is the inevitable crushing of the rights of others who don’t want to participate in the gay festivities.

          It’s already happening, in fact.

          1. Not attending a gay-pride parade = YOU HATE GAY PEOPLE, even if you were in a coma the day of the parade.

            1. It goes way past that. I posted text from a story in the Chicago Phoenix about CFA having complaints filed against it by the Illinois Department of Human Rights by homosexuals. Local (to STL) bed-and-breakfast places have been sued for refusing to host receptions for gay couples. Photographers have been sued for refusing to take pics at gay weddings.

              Like I said, get hitched, I could care less. But when you start using the State to force people to do your bidding, you lose my support and gain my antipathy.

              1. That’s sick, twisted behavior, Brutus. Unfortunately, it’s gaining ground.

                1. Marriage is just the cherry on the banana split. The real goodies come with forcing people who don’t like you to bend to your will.

                  1. I hear ya, comrade.

                    Off to work. Have fun storming the castle!

    2. Shouldn’t you be curating some soft-core porn?

  30. “Tastes like Hate” + vandalism = Occutard mentality.

    Try pinning THIS incident on right-wingers, dumbshit leftists.

    1. A little harmless graffiti by liberals and suddenly libertarians become prudish boobs.

      The heteronormative patriarchal Abrahamic majority doesn’t have any need to be subversive.

      Besides, one incident of vandalism doesn’t outdo masses of people going out of their way to express homophobia. That’s some disturbing behavior, and they won’t look any better in photos in history books than their parents/grandparents who stood up and protested school integration.

      1. Hey, asshole… property damage is property damage, and it doesn’t make a fuck’s difference WHO does it.

        BTW, there is no parallel with school integration here. Stop trying to coattail this with the civil-rights movement.

        Oh, and speak for others about prudishness. Perhaps use that word when it is truly warranted, not just “because you say so”. Like you do with the words “racist” and “homophobe”.

        1. BTW, there is no parallel with school integration here.

          Okay, explain why. A minority group is being excluded from equal participation in a public institution. How are they not analogous?

          Yes yes, vandalizing property is very bad.

          1. Wow. How very kind of you to condescend on the property-vandalization issue.

      2. What are a few smashed windows when Social Justice is at stake, right Tony?

        I mean, why not mail bombs next?

        1. Meet me on one of the threads you guys are arguing for the immutable right to armed insurrection, then we’ll talk.

          1. That’s when the entity that has the sole right to initiate violence against someone abuses the privilege. See: the Declaration of Independence for further clarification on this subject.

            What it does not mean is smashing in the windows of a private entity.

            1. I’m sure you guys will maintain that distinction when Civil War II comes. What about politicians’ private residences? Those are off-limits right?

              Then again, public buildings aren’t your personal property to do with as you please either, they kind of belong to everyone. Better get permission from everyone before you start your insurrection.

              1. Tony, is this and armed insurrection the same thing?

                No? Then fuck you. This is the most patently ridiculous argument I have seen in a while. You are basically saying that because the COO said some words, it’s ok to vandalize someone’s property, when you don’t even know the opinions of the true owners of that property.

                1. I didn’t say it was OK. I didn’t say this either, but it’s what I meant: Matt Drudge and the rightwing stupid machine will use this incident to attempt to discredit the entire protest and make its participants out to seem like universally a bunch of heathens, much as they did with OWS.

                  1. All it took was for someone to claim that someone shouted the n-word at the CBC to declare the TP racist. Don’t like the rules you’ve set for yourself?

            2. Help, help, I’m being repressed [by a chicken sandwich]!!!

      3. Then we can come vandalize your place?

        1. AND eat all his sammich materials, AND jump on his furniture. AND scratch graffiti in the paint on his Prius.

          Because property rights just don’t matter. Tony just said so.

          1. Tony’s property matters. That of others doesn’t.

          2. You are truly a special kind of stupid.

            1. Don’t try to deny it, Tony. Your libertarianism ends, conveniently, precisely where your prejudices do. You wrap them in a slimy layer of sanctimoious bullshit, but you’re not fooling anyone.

  31. “Eat mor chikkin, not mor dikkin.”

  32. So do gay people really think straight people make out at Chic-fil-a?

    1. We’re convinced it’s like that bus in the Eddie Murphy “White Like Me” bit. When the last gay leaves, the party starts.


    1. In virtually every culture, marriage is an institution involving a public commitment between a man and a woman. The complementary nature of men and women points to the unique purpose of marriage: to bear and raise children. One can recognize this fact and so conclude that “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron?without being “anti-gay.”

      Mr. Cathy and many other Americans see marriage as a sacred institution. As a result, the campaign against Mr. Cathy is not just an attack on speech but on religious speech.

      1. the campaign against Mr. Cathy is not just an attack on speech

        How dare you hurt Mr. Cathy’s feelings! Don’t you know speech is only when Christians say things, not that subhuman grumbling you heathens insist on!

  34. I’m just gonna leave this right here. The author is a typical “it’s ok when my team does it” shill, but some of the arguments in the comments are hilarious.

  35. Hehe.

    Tucson exec loses job over anti-Chick-fil-A rant in drive-thru

    “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here,” Smith says to the employee, before calling himself “totally heterosexual” and saying there’s “not a gay in me” and “I just can’t stand the hate.” He also says he’s “I’m a nice guy, by the way.”

    After he’s done talking to her, he says he thinks he “just did something really good” and “I feel purposeful.”

  36. I know one thing is for sure, the poor under paid employees that work at Chic Fil A are sure hating all this business.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.