you mean like... I don't know... an abortion clinic.

Santa of course misses what Emac was saying, and runs to something that usually gets Federal funding of some sort, and thus comparing the 2 is apples and oranges.

I went to Chick-Fil-A yesterday for lunch. They have the best chicken sandwiches. Twice I was asked by the staff if I need a drink refill. That never happens at McDs or BK. Good food and good service. I could care less what the CEO believes.

If you actualy read the article you get to the bit where [mayor admits he has no power to stop Chick-A-Fil setting up in his city]

So basically this mayor is either A) an idiot or B) making noise becuase he wants publicity or C) Both.

@stressdlines: federal funding doesn't make this a different issue. The issue was whether government so get to decide what a business does; if the mayor had the power to provide funding to Chick-A-Fil's opponents they could effective shutdown the opposition.

Of course when it comes to health care the brand doesn't matter; demand is not based on cost, it is based on need. The basic arguements of Adam Smith re:supply/demand don't apply. There is something else here worth mentioning... But abortion clinics sutely fit right into a debate over the freedom of businesses to operate in the US. If that is you think health care shouldn't be subsidized and socialism of this knid has no place in the US...

I of course fully support gay marriage; am against the special treatment of religions (in terms of selling them property at below market rates) and believe in socialised health care. But them i'm a 'liberal' who thinks the state has a place in protecting people - not just militarily but also in terms of health care.

I've never been to a Chic-Fil-A...and frankly, I haven't seen any in my neck of the woods...

Are they more regional than nationwide...I mean, I see tons and tons of fast food chains down here, but not that place.

Anyway.

Do I disagree severely with the CEO?
Yes.
Does he have a right to say what he said?
Yes.
Do folks have the right to boycott his product as a result.
Yes.
Do both sides have a point?
Yes.
Will this result in me ever eating or boycotting Chic-Fil-A?
Not likely, as again, I've never even seen one near me.

The end. :)

Chick-fil-A is amazing. The end.

Don't care what the CEO thinks, just like I'm don't care about the people who manage the grocery store I buy my groceries from or the guy who fixes my car. I'm sure many of them disagree with me about lots of stuff. I don't care.

Now, if they start posting stuff on the receipts about how they want to kill puppies or something, then I might care. As far as I can tell, Chick-fil-A has been giving money to charities, including "family" charities that people have a problem with, for years. It just recently became a big deal for some reason with the Muppets thing.

As for me, I couldn't care less. As long as they have waffle fries and Polynesian sauce, I'm all about the Chick-fil-A.

Oh, and as for where they are, I always try to stop at a Chick-fil-A when I'm traveling through an area that has them, so I know where they are.

It's a Georgia-based chain, but I think they go as far north as Pennsylvania and as far west as about Texas/Oklahoma. A bit pricier than your KFC or Wendy's chicken sandwiches, but much better. No chicken nuggets or square slabs out of pressed ground chicken bits - just actual chicken meat filets on a bun or biscuit. Yum.

'Don't care what the CEO thinks, just like I'm don't care about the people who manage the grocery store I buy my groceries from or the guy who fixes my car. I'm sure many of them disagree with me about lots of stuff. I don't care.'

You have the power to exercise your voice, and change the world by boycotting. This is a part of democracy. If a CEO makes it clear that they are in favour of something you oppose you can choose to enjoy their competitors food.

You don't have to, you can be entirely apathetic and enjoy the best fast-food you can find. But then you're not really taking part in anything but a pure consumerist society. Which is of course your privilege.

Never mind. I just went to their website and apparently they have them all the way up in New Hampshire, and all the way over in California, though I'm pretty sure most of them are concentrated in the area I described.

orathaic, I agree I have the power to change the world by boycotting.

It's just that once it starts, where does it end? I have very peculiar political views (quite right wing on a few things, quite left wing on another few, and then a majority in the middle) and I rarely find anyone who agrees with me on everything.

Unless the person in question is advocating something really evil, like rounding up all the Jews or something, and making a big deal about putting it into my face, then I'm just going to ignore them.

if you're the only one doing it then there will be little impact, if a large group of people band-wagon, or seem to agree then some change may occur.

So i'd say the limit is your personal choice, but if you believe you can have a bigger impact on certain topics then you might be more likely to choose to act in specific cases like this one.

Personally, i think causing animals to suffer is wrong, and i've been cutting animals meat out of my diet for the past 9 months. Similar moral arguement, but vegetarianism is one of the biggest alternative diet markets.

If he stated he wouldn't hire LGBT folks then I'd boycott. Otherwise it is dumb to boycott.

((((Now, if they start posting stuff on the receipts about how they want to kill puppies or something, then I might care))))) I died when I read this. Thanks Kochevnik.

'If he stated he wouldn't hire LGBT folks then I'd boycott. Otherwise it is dumb to boycott.'

clearly i'm not aware of what he did... Is his tasty chicken-based products worth the potential social harm? or are you in agreement with him?

I mean, i'm guessing once he caves there will be tasty chicken for all!

Anyone see that god struck down their PR VP right after this happened?

this is obviously a marketing ploy to make Chick Fil-A a southern bigot institution. They succeeded in getting their name in the paper and having every bigot preacher in the country make Tuesday Chick Fil-A night

"It's a Georgia-based chain, but I think they go as far north as Pennsylvania and as far west as about Texas/Oklahoma."

Well, that explains my not seeing any in Los Angeles or Orange counties... :)

So Texas and eastward, Pennsylvania and southward, based in Georgia...

Hm...

Well, that sounds like it's rather Bible-Belt focused, then, and spilling over into the Midwest and into Pennsylvania (which obviously has religious hotspots as well, after all, they did produce Rick Santorum)...http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/26/news/la-pn-santorum-and-huckabee-urge-chickfila-counterprotest-20120726

So it sounds as if the Chick-Fil-A owner could somewhat afford to make that statement in such a region...after all, if he were based in LA, San Francisco, New York or Boston, it'd be a different story, likely...

Doesn't make it right, but whatever, if he wants to shoot his mouth off, it's his right--

I don't support him any more that I support that disgusting creep Santorum, but still, he has a right to sound like an ignorant ass if he so chooses...and folks have a right to boycott...and I...don't live within hundreds of miles of a Chick-Fil-A, it sounds like, so really, I don't have a dog in this fight, it seems. :)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/chick-fil-a-store-owners-seek-distance-from-gay-marraige-debate.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lanowblog+(L.A.+Now)

Or not...we have them right near here in Hollywood? O.o

Huh.

is the business a franchise? i which case each individual franchisee owns their little part of it and benefits from marketing strategy of the whole...

In that case, they are likely not free to change their brand name and disassociate from the rest of the franchise without some expense. But equally they are not personally responsible for the pronouncements of their CEO... or whatever the top guy is. However they are paying him for the privilege of using the brandname, and as such a privilege is eroded by bringing a boycott against it i'm sure this will hurt growth...

IT still makes boycott of the brand-name on moral grounds a valid approach towards effecting change. Even if individual owners may be loyal to the brand on the basis of their contractual obligations... they may have no impact on the overall brand-strategy, and similarly may have difficulty selling a damaged brand,

This kind of personal plea from an owner is great, complete with self-interest and a lack of alternatives...

Thanks Santaclausowitz. "every bigot preacher in the country make Tuesday Chick Fil-A night." Love it!

Will Chick Fil-A allow same sex couples to eat those plump breast biscuits? Does Chick Fil-A take any precautions to make sure that its own chickens stay on the straight and narrow and don't engage in any same sex escapades?

The scary thing here isn't the boycott. That's totally fine for individuals or civil organizations to do for any reason. The problem is government dictating (or trying to dictate) whether a company can do business based solely on ideological criteria. Replace "opposition to gay marriage" with "support for gay marriage" and Chicago or Boston with Salt Lake City or Memphis and see if you really like the idea of government being able to do things like this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/312424/chicken-inquisition-editors

Pro tip, boycotting your local CFA because the franchise CEO says something bigoted is only really hurting your local CFA, which may or may not actually hold the same views as aforesaid CEO. Even factoring in that corporate profits have gone to fighting gay equality, the profits the corporation loses from your boycott are puny.

I'm not saying don't boycott, either; certainly if you feel compelled not to let any of your money go toward fighting gay equality, you should boycott. Just noting that the significant part of the damage a boycott would do is not to the CEO's pocketbook. I'm personally boycotting (not a big deal anyway since I don't eat CFA and haven't in years) and trying to find a more effective means (if one exists) to make it work. Maybe a bunch of disgruntled folk could pool money and buy a combined majority share in the company and replace the leadership at the next vote?

Exactly. Do things like that, don't have the state determining what businesses can operate based simply on social-political criteria.

Just read that the original founder was so devout he closed his stores on Sunday. His son keeps the tradition going. Could you imagine a McDonald's closed on a Sunday?

Em, Invictus, nobody is sayig tue state should have this power. (mostly because Putin isn't here) and nobody think the Mayor was wrong to give muslims below market rate for some property, or at least based on what they are saying.

But this does make me ask about 'democracy' again... It seems you support using money to buy up the right to make CFA a gay-rights platform.

This seems like a corp-ocracy. Whoever has the most money has the most power; with people working together, forming corporations to better flex their monetary muscle.

In a democracy would the 'correct' course of action not be for people to vote (perhaps a simple constitutional change would resolve this gay rights issue once and for all) and you're done! (and yes, i know ratification of constitutional changes to the US constitution is painful, on a par with changes to the EU founding treaties... Which we've had a lot of in recent times...)

Any fast food joint that isn't open on Sundays isn't serious about my business. I have complete respect for CFA permitting Christians to refrain from work on Sundays, but with the number of non-Christians in Southern California, there should be no reason they can't stay open on a Sunday - manned by the great multitudes of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, etc. in the area who think Sunday is just another day.

Aside - first they come for your marajuana, next they'll come for your chicken: http://www.economist.com/node/21559637?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/highsandlows

"first they come for your marajuana"

With all of the stories that have come out recently about city councils and local police departments shaking down medical cannabis dispensary owners for money (illegally) in California (and the near-passage of the cannabis legalization initiative back in 2010), you'd think the Powers That Be would be hanging their heads in shame. It has become completely obvious that cannabis prohibition is just a way for government to shake down honest hard-working folk and terminal cancer patients for cold hard cash.

I'm going to have a good laugh at all the "legalize marijuana!" people when the law is eventually passed and a joint costs $25 due to all the taxes.

How much do today's tax-free joints cost?

I wouldn't know. ;-)

If you were serious, yahoo answers says between $5 and $10.

Here's an interesting analysis by Matt Yglesias of what pot would cost if it was completely legal: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/07/how_much_would_legal_marijuana_cost_a_new_book_says_it_would_be_nearly_free_.html

His conclusion is that full legalization would drive the price of marijuana (before taxes) down to around $1 per pound. I don't know precisely how that translates to cost-per-joint, but it's quite cheap.

Oh, I totally agree that the weed itself would be supercheap.

I just think that the compromise needed to get it legalized would be "you can tax the heck out of it" and that the taxes would be unbelievable.

@Invictus

You have to have some state determination of how businesses can operate based upon social concerns, or the next thing you know, you get business that decide they won't sell to, say, the Irish.

@Bob - The issue here is that Chick-fil-a is a privately held Christian-based company and, as such, the founder and owner has a right to be an ass and refuse business to people he feels are in discord with his God. He may be an ass for doing such, but it is within his constitutional rights ot be that ass as it is his religion and doesn't violate anyone else's rights (unless you think the LGBTQ community has a right to his crappy sandwiches).

@Tolstoy - Being open on Sunday would be breaking one of God's laws of doing commerce on the Sabbath. As the owner, if the stores were open on Sunday, he would be doing commerce on the Sabbath. I actually respect that part of his decision (but not his persecution of the LGBTQ community).

@All - Maybe someday, being homosexual will be a protected class by the US government, but until then, there is unfortunately nothing illegal in discriminating against someone based on sexual orientation.

Here is an interesting article that shows CNN spun the story on Chick-fil-A and did so by actually using statements that were never mentioned in the original interview. Interesting how the anti-Christian movement can outright lie to get a spin and suffer no consequences.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/231270/rahm-emanuel-chick-fil-a-and-the-easy-slide-into-fascism

i thought I would bump this today, since today was the big 'buy in ' day at Chik Fil A for Conservative groups, to protest the 'Kiss in" day.

so, one man in our office took up collections for anyone wanting to participate (which was everyone apparently), and drove down there (we have one about 8 miles from here), and calls and says "I had to park over 2 blocks away and walk it in. It is pouring rain, and the line is at least 200 meters out the door, and they have shut down the drive thru, and there is atraffic cop here. This is crazy, but I will sit in line, and get my damn chicken for us".

So, this is just a local thing, so I am not sure how it is going elsewhere, but here, the response is .....quite interesting.

I'll have to detour by at lunch and see if our local one has the same amoutn of hoopla. I don't eat their cause they don't know what lo-carb means. Sure, they have salads, btu nearly every one of their dressings has added sugar in it and their buns have an outrageous amount of carbs and sugar.

And no, I don't eat at McDs anymore either. Most fast food is out except White Castles where a double cheese, hold the middle bun, is only 15 total carbs. A diet coke and 3 of those and I'm good for lunch.

yes, I dont eat fast food hardly ever, but I contributed to them today, since some Government officials have decided thathis rights are not as important as other peoples rights. Regardless if I agree with his opinion or not, I do support his RIGHT to have that opinion.

I had the better chicken at BW3s today.

and much better beer too I'm sure

Not at lunch. No, I don't drink at lunch time and don't really drink much at all any more now that I'm on a low carb diet for my blood sugar.

so much for my theory then, brother

What theory is that? When I did drink on occassion, it was just a couple times a month and then usually a scotch, bourbon, sherry, or cognac with a cigar or pipe (just one) or a vodka drink or two while playing poker or blackjack at the casino. On very rare occassions a Dos Equis or Corona after work with the guys (Thursday night is "business at the bar" night in my group of codehead coworkers). But rarely more than one and never more than two.

A human is at his zenith during the second drink.