Support NeoGAF

[GoldenEye 007]

Disappointing, but not shocking given their religious.... heritage (and that technically goes for the WinShape charity, not even Chick-Fil-A proper). I will eat there less, but only because I've been trying to cook more. If I decide to splurge every now and again, I won't be taking them off the list.

And they make amazing Arnold Palmers. I don't know his religious and political views, but the drink is damn good and I will not be giving that up!

 

[Londa]

I don't see what is wrong with them sticking to their beliefs. Its not like they say they hate anyone. Just that they don't support gay marriage. Which is against their beliefs.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

So WinShape not accepting gay couples because they can't meet their definition of marriage translates into "Chick-fil-A hates teh gheys!!!111"?

any reason to generalize and shove the gay-hating america down our throats.

 

[Jikagi]

That's not that good, but their food is really good so I'm not going to stop eating there.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I don't see what is wrong with them sticking to their beliefs. Its not like they say they hate anyone. Just that they don't support gay marriage. Which is against their beliefs.

I'm just going to do this so Mercury Fred or someone else doesn't have to:

Would you be so forgiving if they were monetarily supporting withholding rights to blacks?

 

[MilesWebber]

I do wonder what they do politically and with regard to employee benefits and stuff though, and how their charitable subsidiaries (if they exist) act.

In-N-Out offers domestic partner benefits to full time employees.

 

[Dead Prince]

Not going to stop me from eating there. I never let politics get in between me and food. (and why should it really)

 

[Buckethead]

I don't.

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

It's an empty gesture that has no bearing on the issue itself, especially on the highly speculative premise that any of this is true.

 

[DominoKid]

the deliciousness of the spicy chicken sandwich renders this irrelevant to me.

 

[Sanjuro]

I just can't side with you WiiCast old pal. If this was Burger King, fuck'em. I don't have a Chick-Fil-A anywhere near me in this heathen area of Massachusetts, but I would kill a man for one.

 

[Londa]

I'm just going to do this so Mercury Fred or someone else doesn't have to:

Would you be so forgiving if they were monetarily supporting withholding rights to blacks?

I'm kind of sick with gays lumping themselves in with blacks. Gay is not equal to being black.

The more correct term would be African American.

 

[Alucrid]

Oh god. I love the gays, but Chick-Fil-A is delicious, and at my school. I have a long sojourn ahead of me.

Edit: Actually, there's probably nothing to worry about. I only want Chick-Fil-A on Sundays.

 

[avatar299]

eat chic-fil-a because you like their food, not because of the political stance

Eat there if you like the establishment. If they do something you believe is wrong, you have every right to give your money to someone else.

Vote with your wallet. Hell it's probably has more value.

 

[Neki]

Eat there if you like the establishment. If they do something you believe is wrong, you have every right to give your money to someone else.

Vote with your wallet. Hell it's probably has more value.

what is this talk, some nonsense about free market! only the rich vote with money!

 

[GhaleonQ]

This is true. Afterall, our (D) President doesn't even believe in gay marriage (until 2014) yet I still toss him money anyway. My problem is with Chick-Fil-A donating to virulently homophobic outside groups such as Focus on the Family.

I have to say that this is a much more legitimate argument than the original post's (in terms of moral outrage; obviously, spend money where you want to do so). If pro-same-sex marriage people are supposed to accept the nuance of Chick-Fil-A's theological or political argument, Chick-Fil-A's owners should be considerate when choosing the anti-same-sex marriage organizations that reflect their positions.

Kudos, Incognito.

 

[numble]

In-N-Out offers domestic partner benefits to full time employees.

Do you have a link that verifies this?

 

[Spire]

I'm kind of sick with gays lumping themselves in with blacks. Gay is not equal to being black.

The more correct term would be African American.

This is the first time I've missed the :lol smiley.

 

[soco]

i thought most people knew this already. the first give away is that the chain isn't open on sundays. some of their other pro-christian stuff in the past probably would've helped too.

 

[Salmonax]

I've never eaten there, and now I feel wonderful about that.

In-N-Out offers domestic partner benefits to full time employees.

In-N-Out can't help being awesome in all regards.

 

[SouthernDragon]

It's an empty gesture that has no bearing on the issue itself, especially on the highly speculative premise that any of this is true.

I don't like giving my money to organizations who then funnel their funds to causes I dislike.

I don't think that's empty, really.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I'm kind of sick with gays lumping themselves in with blacks. Gay is not equal to being black.

Sure, it's not equal. But denying people rights due to who they are is an issue that we have direct historical experience with, and there are correlations between the denial of the rights of gays with the denial of rights of other minority groups.

Edit: And I'm not worried about the political correctness of a term used, I'm more concerned with the real world implications of treating people differently and denying them equal treatment under the law based on who they are.

 

[Kusagari]

Anybody that knows anything about Chick-Fil-A should have expected them to do this. There corporate statement says the business exists to glorify God.

 

[Seanspeed]

Not surprised. Wont stop me from going there cuz the food is fantastic, but I've always known they're stupidly religious. It was bad enough that a FAST FOOD place wouldn't be open on a freakin Sunday for christ's sake.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I don't like giving my money to organizations who then funnel their funds to causes I dislike.

I don't think that's empty, really.

Literally every medium-or-greater-sized business you use has lobbied every domestic politician imaginable on a host of issues, many of which hold positions that contradict yours. I'm not saying you can't be arbitrary, but it is definitely empty.

Sure, it's not equal. But denying people rights due to who they are is an issue that we have direct historical experience with, and there are correlations between the denial of the rights of gays with the denial of rights of other minority groups.

Edit: And I'm not worried about the political correctness of a term used, I'm more concerned with the real world implications of treating people differently and denying them equal treatment under the law based on who they are.

You're totes anti-abortion, right? Like, hardline?

 

[MilesWebber]

Do you have a link that verifies this?

It was a chamber of commerce website...let me find it.

here :http://www.mattoonchamber.com/steve_straus/lowwage_highend.cfm

 

[SouthernDragon]

I'm being choosy. As things come to my attention, I act on them, as practically as I can.

For example, my university receives funds and promotes many local figures and politicians I find to be very corrupt. Can't do much about it, though, since they are developing my campus and finding another education of equal quality and price is impossible. I do campaign against them, though.

And how is it empty? I'm withholding funds from their company and their cause, and I campaign for equal rights. I honestly don't understand that part of the argument. Care to explain in simple terms?

 

[mYm|17|]

Expected but I still love eating me some Chick-fil-a

 

[chaostrophy]

I don't want to get too involved in this discussion, especially in this thread, but I just want to say that believing marriage is between one man and one woman does not equate to rabid hatred of practicing homosexuals. I am a Christian who believes that marriage is a holy sacrament established by God, partially as a mirror for the relationship between Christ and the church, which is why a same-sex relationship cannot really be called marriage. But I interact on a daily basis with open homosexuals in my daily life as a musician, and am good friends with many of them. Simply because we have differing viewpoints doesn't mean we have to hate each other, guys. Don't overreact at Chick-Fil-A's position here.

As a secular humanist, I believe that marriage is a commitment between two people motivated solely by their feelings for each other as people, not by religion. So a relationship between Christians can't really be called marriage. I'm friends with open Christians though, so that means my position is reasonable.

 

[GhaleonQ]

I'm being choosy. As things come to my attention, I act on them, as practically as I can.

For example, my university receives funds and promotes many local figures and politicians I find to be very corrupt. Can't do much about it, though, since they are developing my campus and finding another education of equal quality and price is impossible. I do campaign against them, though.

And how is it empty? I'm withholding funds from their company and their cause, and I campaign for equal rights. I honestly don't understand that part of the argument. Care to explain in simple terms?

I wouldn't want to deny you the sense of moral fulfillment you get. It just seems to be a matter of perspective, since in pure power terms, you (or anyone) have no idea what your overall influence is and little control over it. To me, that's empty.

As a secular humanist, I believe that marriage is a commitment between two people motivated solely by their feelings for each other as people, not by religion. So a relationship between Christians can't really be called marriage. I'm friends with open Christians though, so that means my position is reasonable.

We know? It's been resolved already by doubling up. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/us/04divorce.html Work on your analogies.

 

[Dice]

Is it really so hard to comprehend differing worldviews and how semantics get all rolled up in this?

Belief in a defined supreme authority > Belief that authority has given the term "marriage" a specific definition > Actions which try to enforce that definition of marriage

ZMOG THEY HATE GAYS!

How are you not playing the exact same game of semantics that they are with marriage when you say they hate gays? Aren't you just defining "love" as actions which support and "hate" as actions which hinder, completely ignoring the connotations of malicious passion within the word? Do you really think they are all out to "get" you and ruin your freedoms, rather than their focus being more on making sure the institution is viewed as they learned it? To them it's not about who gets to do what, it is about what they believe is a divinely revealed truth, and not wanting anything else to be accepted in replacement of that.

Go ahead and hate that, go ahead and call it stupid that they believe in a divine truth of a specific form, go ahead and rail on the fact they are ignoring real life circumstances of civil liberties of people with different beliefs over the semantics of how the public views a word, but if you go around blasting on them saying it is from hatred with no proof or attempt to understand their perspective, you're no better than them.

All this shit is why marriage, a religious term, shouldn't have anything to do with government, and anyone should be able to have a civil union if they want to do that with their lives, love or not.

 

[SouthernDragon]

That fella is denying his friends a fundamental and human right. Not really their friend when the chips are down, eh.

Edit:

Ghaleon, that same sentiment can be used against voting in national elections. One vote doesn't really matter, since much larger and powerful forces are at play.

But someone's got to start somewhere. If one million folk think it's pointless, then it is, because no one acts.

If one million people boycott Chick-Fil-A, then that company is going to take notice.

I'd rather be on the side of action than in-action. Just saying. I'm aware that my individual contribution doesn't mean much, but I'd rather try and fail than never have tried at all.

 

[Jenga]

this thread actually reminded me that I haven't had chick-fil-a in a while...ill have to swing by there tomorrow

man i could go for some waffle fries with some chik-fil-a sauce

 

[Medalion]

What if gays AND straights, get HARD...feelings for Chick-fil-a?

What if the restaurant was called Guy-fil-a, would that be the gay version?

 

[GhaleonQ]

What if the restaurant was called Guy-fil-a, would that be the gay version?

It depends on how you pronounce it.

Okay, crass. Ew.

Edit:

Ghaleon, that same sentiment can be used against voting in national elections. One vote doesn't really matter, since much larger and powerful forces are at play.

But someone's got to start somewhere. If one million folk think it's pointless, then it is, because no one acts.

If one million people boycott Chick-Fil-A, then that company is going to take notice.

I'd rather be on the side of action than in-action. Just saying. I'm aware that my individual contribution doesn't mean much, but I'd rather try and fail than never have tried at all.

That's fair, like I said. I'd just say that it's not something to crow about, given how little political autonomy we have. Good luck! Well, not good luck, but...you know what I mean.

 

[BakedPigeon]

If your hungry and enjoy chicken, then eat there if you want to. If you want to make a point to not eat there because they do not support gay couples, then don't eat there. They are a restaurant, not a movement of some kind. I don't understand why people are comparing them in the same category. We don't need to group food with gay rights.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

I wouldn't want to deny you the sense of moral fulfillment you get. It just seems to be a matter of perspective, since in pure power terms, you (or anyone) have no idea what your overall influence is and little control over it. To me, that's empty.

So... like voting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

 

[thetrin]

Anyone ever notice how they aren't open on Sundays? Must be in their religion clause.

This is actually exactly why. Their president is heavily religious.

 

[wenis]

In-N-Out is an extremely religious family owned company that even print bible passages on all of their packaging, but they're not out there telling people they hate gays.

We just assume they do and eat our delicious double doubles, fresh cut french fries and creamy shakes with our heads hung slightly lower (and we try to hid the smiles from the deliciousness).

 

[Jeramii]

however, chick fil a does enjoy pleasure.....

while at any chick fil a in utah, i've noticed that every single employee says my pleasure after you say thank you. people in utah hardly ever say my pleasure... the only place i ever hear it is at chick-fil-a..

random fact for you.

 

[GhaleonQ]

So... like voting?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

I'm not saying my point's original, but, to be fair, votes aren't fungible.

 

[numble]

It was a chamber of commerce website...let me find it.

here :http://www.mattoonchamber.com/steve_straus/lowwage_highend.cfm

I haven't found any information that corroborates this random claim, not even on the In-N-Out employee benefits page and a Businessweek article that details employee benefits.

 

[Crumpet Trumpet]

Just ate there today. Feel like I need to go purge or something.

No more Chick-fil-a for me!

 

[Burger]

I fail to understand how a corporation can even have a stance on something like this.

If I was a CEO of a place like this my position would be "We have no view on LGBT interests. We make chicken sandwiches, it's unrelated to our business completely."

Different from my personal opinion of course.

 

[perfectchaos007]

It's a great day at chik-fil-a just as long as you aren't gay! The Lord we truly treasure, if you're straight serving you is our pleasure...

Spoiler

just made it up

 

[GhaleonQ]

Would they buy chickens from farms run by same-sex couples? You know what to do, activists. Get some rich gay people to buy factory farms out.

 

[vitaminwateryum]

Boo-urns. Looks like I'm not eating at Chik-Fil-A anymore.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I fail to understand how a corporation can even have a stance on something like this.

If I was a CEO of a place like this my position would be "We have no view on LGBT interests. We make chicken sandwiches, it's unrelated to our business completely."

Different from my personal opinion of course.

Looking at it, that is basically what the Chick-Fil-A CEO said. These other statements came from the CEO of WinShape, a charity supported in part by Chick-Fil-A.

 

[Jenga]

Boo-urns. Looks like I'm not eating at Chik-Fil-A anymore.

for every waffle fry you don't eat, i eat 10

 

[FreezeSSC]

Man idk, there customer service is soo top notch too it would be hard to give them up.

 

[ZealousD]

I just can't side with you WiiCast old pal. If this was Burger King, fuck'em. I don't have a Chick-Fil-A anywhere near me in this heathen area of Massachusetts, but I would kill a man for one.

Think of it from his perspective. Wiicast hasn't exactly thrown up a sign in this thread, but he is gay.

Would you actively eat at a place that was working against your own personal rights? Even if it was delicious?