Tomorrow: Same-Sex Kiss Day At Chick-fil-A!

Discuss

103 Responses to “Tomorrow: Same-Sex Kiss Day At Chick-fil-A!”

  1. Brainspore says:

    I think I’ll just continue the informal boycott I joined after the first time I tasted their food.

  2. Gary61 says:

    Can this be done in the drive thru?

  3. Sam Archer says:

    Um, I don’t know about anyone else, but a restaurant full of people making out isn’t really an appetizing prospect… (insert joke about their food not being an appetizing prospect anyway; FWIW, I think their food’s not all that bad)

    • wysinwyg says:

      Um, I don’t know about anyone else, but a restaurant full of people making out isn’t really an appetizing prospect…

      Do you think it’s possible that this might be the point?

    • Tess says:

      Um, yes.  See, protests are supposed to be disruptive.  That’s kind of the point. 

      • Sam Archer says:

        I suppose so, but it would be nice if the protest was more disruptive to the actual source of the problem, and less disruptive to people just trying to have lunch.  Yeah, okay, some of the money the people having lunch spend eventually makes its way up the corporation where they can spend it on things, but it still seems a little bit tasteless.  (Insert joke about their FOOD being the tasteless thing)

    • ultragreen says:

       Meh. It’s better than watching someone else throw up on the floor because of the food.

  4. KaiBeezy says:

    on behalf of all those who love and support same-sex kissers but do not themselves tend to kiss thataway, may i respectfully suggest: 

    ANY-Sex Kiss Day

  5. signsofrain says:

    I know it says @ntlsamesexkissday but the graphic is small and commits the cardinal sin of red type on a dark background in a JPG format. When I first looked I thought it said “antisamesexkissday” -_-

  6. picaflor says:

    I cannot even fathom what it must have been like as a gay person working there serving hordes of homophobes who feel that strongly against you.

  7. Donald Petersen says:

    It occurs to me that I really should stop eating at Carl’s Jr, since the late Carl Karcher contributed a million bucks toward Proposition 6 back in 1978, an initiative which would have barred public schools from employing homosexual teachers, aides, administrators, and counselors.  Ronald Reagan himself publicly opposed the measure and wrote an editorial for the L.A. Herald-Examiner saying so.

    I do love their Western Bacon Cheeseburgers, but anyone who’s significantly further to the right than Reagan when it comes to gay rights doesn’t deserve a nickel from my not-insignificant cheeseburger budget, even if he has been dead for four years.

    • malindrome says:

      Obligatory link.

      • Donald Petersen says:

        Sure doesn’t make ‘em look any better.  The “without us, some guys would starve” ads were marginally funnier, but only because I knew too many helpless schmucks like that.

        Think I’ll stick to Wendy’s.  Dave Thomas seems to have been a fairly swell guy, at least in comparison to Karcher and Nixon re-electer Ray Kroc.  (Which is fine by me; other than their sublime french fries, McDonald’s food has become pretty inedible to me.)

        • BillStewart2012 says:

          My main reason for not going to Chick-Fil-A is that I don’t eat dead animals, and BTW McDonald’s french fries have beef fat in them, so I don’t eat them either.  And they tend to be in malls, and I don’t.

          But many years ago, when I first encountered them, I was bothered by their policy of company-run prayer meetings.  I’m a Christian, and not only does it feel like they’re doing it for the attention, but if I were running a business I wouldn’t want to pressure non-believing employees into doing something they don’t believe in, or in pressuring store managers who might or might not believe what I do into leading non-believing employees in a prayer meeting they don’t believe in. 

          • Donald Petersen says:

            Ever since I noticed the Bible references (book,chapter, and verse number, not the actual scriptural text) discreetly printed in tiny text on In-N-Out cups and wrappers, I’ve wondered whether they too wield a heavy ecclesiastical hand over their business practices, but as far as I’ve ever heard, the citations are the extent of it.  They start their employees at $10/hour, and have generally been considered the best burger-flipping job in the industry.  Christian though they are, I haven’t heard of the Snyder family (owners of the chain) being particularly brassy about it.

    • alittleunwell says:

       If you really believe that than you should take a close look at who contributes and what they contribute to. People have blown this Chick-fil-a thing way out of proportion. We’re talking less than 2 million dollars total donated.  Did you know the Mormon church and followers donated around 80% of the money for their prop 8 campaign in California. Somewhere around 40 times what was donated by CFA in this Chicken scandal  Look into what they own and you’ll find they own the Marriott  Hotels, 39 mainstream radio stations, Zion Securities co, Beneficial Life Insurance, Beehive clothing mills. And the single largest cattle ranch in the US, not to far from Disney World. That’s just to name a few. They not unly want to protect traditional marriage but they believe people born with dark skin were cursed in preexistence. They think dark skin determines who was faithful to fight the devil and who wasn’t. They think they come here with skin that sets them apart to show their sin. That’s just the MORMONS. Factor in contributions by Muslim. Sorry for grammatical errors, it’s late and I’m tired.

      • ChickieD says:

        I think that there is more to this controversy than just numbers of dollars. Dan Cathy’s statement was both homophobic and vitriolic. People are outraged over both his statement and his contributions. Also, since there is a single owner of this privately held company, I think people feel that they can directly affect one person who has the power to change the corporate policies. With a corporation or religious institution, you have to sway a whole group of people.

      • Donald Petersen says:

        Yeah, I knew about the Mormons.  There are a whole lot of dirty fingers in most pies, and it’s tough to stay perfectly well-informed about who really deserves our business.  But sometimes something arises that can’t be easily ignored.  Even now, twenty-three years after the crash of the Exxon Valdez, I still won’t buy gasoline at Exxon or Mobil stations.  For all the good that does.  I labor under no illusions that Chevron or Shell or BP or ConocoPhillips are noticeably “better” companies when it comes to global ethics, but still I carry this particular grudge against ExxonMobil.  Weird, huh?  Naive, ain’t I?

  8. SummerFang says:

    Oh, us poor folk who live in Mountain Time Zone, we’re always left out of everything!  I guess I could do the math to figure out when to be there.

    •  or move to a different timezone ;-)

      j/k

    • Donald Petersen says:

      Surely you’re used to it by now, with all your TV promo spots telling you to tune in at ten (nine Central).  Does your local affiliate use the Pacific feed, so you have to stay up past 11:00?  Or do you have to catch the Eastern feed at 8:00?

      • SummerFang says:

        I’m not sure, I rarely if ever watch broadcast TV anymore.  I was just playfully wondering about that convention of leaving out Mtn. Time Zone, I suppose it’s because our population is far less than the others.

        • Donald Petersen says:

          I expect you’re right.  It’s bad enough that they’d only have two dedicated broadcasts for the heavily-populated coasts, but at least they’d do the Central folks the courtesy of telling them when their offset was.

          It’s as if TV felt you guys in the Mtn Zone didn’t exist at all.  I’d be miffed too.

          • Joshua Pape says:

             what about those of us in the Arizona Time Zone? I think it may be just too hard for the rest of the continental US that actually observes DST

          • Donald Petersen says:

            My parents lived near Prescott for a decade.  They had a hell of a time remembering when whatever-show-I-was-working-on-at-the-time would be starting, especially near the end or beginning of DST.

            Personally, I wish California would abolish its observance of PST and just stick to PDT year-round.  I don’t care who has to get around in the dark at 7:00 am in January; I just hate watching the sun go down at 4:00 pm.

          • BillStewart2012 says:

             Joshua in Arizona Time Zone, just pretend you’re in San Francisco.  You’ll be on time, and it’ll feel a lot more normal…

  9. Nathan says:

    Kind of feeling bad for the kids working the counters and drive-in lines during all this.

    In my experience, prior to all this mess, they were unfailingly polite and cheerful every visit. They’re also so far from the decision makers that the hazy light from their smoke-filled boardrooms won’t reach them for a week and a half, but these kids are the ones that end up on the front lines of protests like this.  Granted, seeing a few men and women making out with their politically fraught choice of SOs in the booths is probably not going to scar them for life, and may even open their eyes a bit (aside from the wide eyed stares to be expected, I mean). But they didn’t sign up for this. They’re just there to sling chicken and scrub the toilets- hopefully using different utensils.

    At the end of it all, they’re minimum wagers just trying to make ends meet.  I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect that all of them up and quit the minute they heard the CEO was a homophobe. I guess all I’m saying is be nice to the rank-and-file employees during these protests, if you’re able.  They don’t make policy, and have pretty much no control over the situation (aside from quitting in a difficult economy).  Don’t take it out on the nearest target of convenience… Wait for the career managers to show up.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect that all of them up and quit the minute they heard the CEO was a homophobe.

      Many CEO’s are homophobes, but only some donate millions in company profits via the company charity to actual hate groups. That’s the big beef here, not that some old hick, Southern chicken magnate doesn’t like gay marriage, I mean big surprise there…

      But yeah, I agree, please be nice to the low paid workers who probably just needed *any* job they could get.

  10. Rod Trent says:

    Isn’t the best response to go to another restaurant and eat there?  Chick-fil-A cleaned up on Wednesday. Vote with your dollars, not your glands.

    • wysinwyg says:

      Gay folks also have a right to free speech last I checked.

      • V10_Rob says:

         How quaint.  Didn’t you get the memo?

        People have a right to free speech as long as it’s the same opinion I hold.  If their opinion differs from mine, it’s the government’s job to silence them so they stop hurting my feelings.

        That’s the standard now.

        • lecti says:

          Apparently, the part about “hate speech toward minority group” has been conveniently left out of the description.  Let me fix that for you.

          I suppose being sent to the back of the bus was only a matter of hurt feelings, then?

          • V10_Rob says:

            You are confusing actions with speech.

            People have a right to hold repugnant opinions.  Acting upon those opinions is an entirely different thing.  Thinking that gays are destined to burn in hell is merely rude.  Setting gays on fire to speed up the process crosses the line into active denial of others’ rights.

            But that distinction is passe.  It is not enough that some people believe contrary things but refrain from acting upon them.  Nor is silent acquiescence enough.  No, everyone must BELIEVE, with all their heart, and sing praise of the Goodthink at the morning rally.  Dissent is not an option. 

            And if we have to bludgeon them into a bloody pulp so they stop thinking bad thoughts, so be it.  We’re saving them from themselves.  Everyone must conform to the party line, and once there is no difference of opinion, there will be no hate and everything will be wonderful.

            My opinion is the right opinion, so anything I do to shut up people who think otherwise is perfectly ethical.  They’re obviously stupid, and stupid people don’t deserve the same rights as me.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Rob Silver,

            You’re shrieking like a howler monkey. Please take the evening off.

          • lecti says:

            Rob, as mentioned by Navin_Johnson, the issue is that an entire company is supporting discriminatory laws against homosexuals.

            A company cannot have discriminatory policies for a very good reason.  How would you feel if a company or organization you belong to starts to openly support discriminatory law against whatever ethnicity you are or religious beliefs you have?  If you also think preventing this is forcing some “goodthink” down your throat, I’m not sure who is confused here.

            Also, since when did speech cease to be a human action?

          • wysinwyg says:

            And if we have to bludgeon them into a bloody pulp so they stop thinking bad thoughts, so be it.

            Can anyone find a single instance of gay rights supporters actually bludgeoning someone into a bloody pulp for their views/identity?

            How about instances of *ahem* social conservatives bludgeoning gays or gay rights supporters into a bloody pulp for their views/identity?

            So let’s cut through the usual hypocrisy here.  Conservatives are much more likely than liberals to use violence and emotional rhetoric to censor and enforce conformity to cultural mores that are not legally binding.  (“Love it or leave it.”  “Liberal traitors.”)  There’s been no violence over the Chick-fil-a issue.  A Chicago alderman may have promised to break the law to inconvenience Chick-fil-a and the mayor of Boston made a vague threat to the same effect but you can’t hang their actions on all liberals any more than I can legitimately hold all conservatives responsible for the views of the Westboro Baptist Church (who, say what you want about them, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit to raging homophobia).

    • Tess says:

      Or do both?

      Taking one day to go make a statement does not make it impossible to go on with a boycott, last time I checked.

  11. bobo obobo says:

    Some good Yelp reviews appearing since this all started. Should check out some of the Chik fil-as in Atlanta where theyre based.

  12. LinkMan says:

    I really hate this protest idea.  The fundamental disagreement between the pro- and anti-gay marriage (and gay rights generally) worldviews is whether you believe homosexuality is (1) an immoral behavior that harms society or (2) a human identity worthy of equal protection under the law. 

    Kissing is behavior, not identity.  And I think most Americans would consider making out in a restaurant inappropriate regardless of the sex of the kissers.  Encouraging a bunch of same sex couples to engage in public displays of affection is therefore reinforcing the negative (and IMO wrong) belief that so many right-wing folks in America have about the nature of homosexuality.

    If you want someone to reconsider his beliefs, you need to give him reason to think his beliefs might be wrong–not do things that simply confirm those beliefs.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Encouraging a bunch of same sex couples to engage in public displays of affection is therefore reinforcing the negative (and IMO wrong) belief that so many right-wing folks in America have about the nature of homosexuality.

      Only…fuck them. For decades, we’ve been told to be polite and hide the drag queens and the leather men, and to delete all the sexual content from our lives in order to make ourselves palatable to the bigoted assholes. And we’ve continued to shove our crotches in America’s face, and it’s worked quite well.

      • LinkMan says:

        There are times and places for protesting prudish and sexually repressive attitudes.  That’s not what the Chick Fil-A brouhaha is about.  It’s about discriminatory legislation.

        The people who oppose gay marriage are afraid of you.  They’re afraid that granting you rights will somehow harm themselves.  A drag queen shouldn’t have to dress up in a man’s business suit just to prove to prudes or bigots that she’s not what they fear.  But she also shouldn’t show up to a fast food joint with her dick hanging out of her panties expecting any of those same prudes or bigots to change their minds about whether she poses a threat to them.

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          But she also shouldn’t show up to a fast food joint with her dick hanging out of her panties expecting any of those same prudes or bigots to change their minds about whether she poses a threat to them.

          Setting aside the false equivalence between kissing and dick hanging out, anti-gay bigots are obsessed with making gay sexuality go away, with making us celibate for life, with neutering us. Allowing them to influence our struggle for equal rights is both morally repugnant and bad strategy based on the history of the last fifty years.

        • Tess says:

          Because kissing in public is just like showing one’s genitals.  At least, if the people kissing are gay. Right? Good, glad we understand one another.

          • LinkMan says:

            The only equivalency I’m trying to draw between the exposed genitals and the kissing is that they’re both things that would be inappropriate to do in a fast food restaurant whether done by a gay person or a straight person.  Yes, one is a much greater degree of impropriety (and is probably illegal in most places).  But most people would consider both to be inappropriate to some degree regardless of the sexual orientation of the people doing it.

            And both are things people do, not who or what they are, which is my real point.  

            I’m not an expert on the gay rights movement, but of the people I’ve seen switch to supporting gay rights in recent years (and there have been many), the vast majority of them have switched sides as a result of having their minds changed about the nature of sexual orientation.   They’ve become convinced that it really is part of who we are, and has much more in common with race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and other ways we define ourselves (that we’ve decided as a society deserve protection against discrimination) than it does with drug use, violence, pedophilia or other  things people do (that we’ve decided as a society to oppose).

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            But most people would consider both to be inappropriate to some degree regardless of the sexual orientation of the people doing it.

            Yeah, straight people get reviled and busted for kissing in public all the time. If you live in Saudi Arabia.

          • Tess says:

            Straight people kiss each other in public – yes, even in restaurants – all the time. It’s just that other straight people don’t notice because to them it looks normal. I notice because to me opposite-sex kissing looks icky. I don’t actually try to make straight people stop kissing in public though.

            And you don’t get to draw a comparison between gay couples kissing and someone exposing their genitals and then disingenuously claim it’s just because they’re both things that are unacceptable. There are many other unacceptable things. You picked that example for a reason – because, to you, gay people kissing in public is on the same spectrum, somehow, as someone showing their penis.

            If you just want an example of unacceptable behavior, you didn’t have to pick a theoretical queer person behaving badly. You could have picked a theoretical straight man flashing a restaurant, you know; they exist. You had tons of options. You went with the queer-bashing one. Perhaps you should consider that.

          • LinkMan says:

             If you read my original post in this thread, I very clearly said  that “I think most Americans would consider making out in a restaurant inappropriate regardless of the sex of the kissers.”  That was a key part of my point–that you don’t persuade people that you deserve equal protection by doing something that they wouldn’t do.

            You and Antinous are both correct that a lot of people (not me) have a much bigger problem with gay public displays of affection than with straight public displays of affection.   And that sucks.   But that’s not the reason I have a problem with the kiss-in.

            The indecent exposure example was an unfortunate choice, but I stand by the underlying point, which was that I don’t have a problem with Antinous’s hypothetical drag queen showing up to a protest in full drag because it’s who she is.  But she shouldn’t do something that would be inappropriate for anyone (gay or straight) to do.  That has been my point all along.  Go back and read the thread, instead of just picking phrases out of context.  I am not trying to imply that gay kissing is equivalent to indecent exposure, or that gays are more likely to expose themselves than straights, or anything of the sort.  And I resent being called a gay basher.   

            At the same time, you and Antinous both make excellent points that many of us allies have a hard time fully understanding what you’ve been through and what you continue to go through.   You’ve persuaded me that my position has a stifling and even condescending element to it, and I both apologize for that and thank you for opening my eyes to it.  I will most certainly consider that perspective when thinking about these things in the future.

          • wysinwyg says:

            Go back and read the thread, instead of just picking phrases out of context.

            The context was that you were going out of your way to find a problem with the protest.  This is obvious because if you were being fair-minded you would compare public same-sex kissing to public opposite-sex kissing rather than to indecent exposure.

    • Tess says:

      Nah, fuck that. 

      I mean, you’ve got a point, but it’s a point that’s been drilled into us over and over again.  We have to behave very nicely if we’re to be accepted.  No holding hands!  Yeah, you’re drawing the line at kissing in restaurants.  Other people draw the line at holding hands in public.

      In the nearest city to where I currently live, a gay guy was just stabbed by a stranger right after that stranger found out – by joining a conversation the man was having with a friend – that he was gay.  He was talking to his friend and he got stabbed by a third party.

      So um fuck the whole “we need to behave the way they want us to.”  Nope.  If it is reasonable for me to be afraid I might be killed by an asshole with a knife for talking to a friend in public, I’m sure as hell not going to let anyone decide when and where I get to kiss someone. 

      The vast majority of us (everyone who doesn’t live in a queer mecca, I think) spend almost all our time around straight people, some of whom are anti-gay.  We behave in ways that we hope mean they won’t assault us.  Like, every day.  Every time I’m in public I have to think about this.  If, once in a while, I decide I want to kiss someone to make a statement?

      Yeah, I’m gonna.

    • ChickieD says:

      There’s a woman on You Tube who has proposed asking for a glass of water as a protest. I think her approach is much more likely to make its point with the intended audience. 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JprRWKQys7A

  13. Teller says:

    Wish there were a way for each store demonstration to be accompanied by two live chickens kissing – y’know, for super-relevance on a couple levels.

  14. ackpht says:

    “Many CEO’s are homophobes, but only some donate millions in company profits…” The CEO in this case is one of the owners of this privately-held company, so the profits belong to him in the first place.

    Those considering engaging in intentionally-disruptive behavior at a restaurant should remember that they’ll be on private property- if the owner asks you to leave, the law requires you to do so.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      The money is donated via the company charity so it’s not just a personal endeavor that can be divorced from the whole company.  Not that it really changes much…

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

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      if the owner asks you to leave, the law requires you to do so.

      Ah, a Redcoat. What a wonderful world we would live in if no one had ever defied the law.

      • ackpht says:

        Oh, break the law if you believe that society can’t advance without your personal sacrifice- but please, no carping later about being arrested.

    • Tess says:

      Yes, and getting charged with trespassing is mildly annoying!  

      People who protest via sit-ins and similar things are often charged with “criminal trespassing.”  The most common result is that the court orders some community service.  It’s almost a joke, because the kind of people who knowingly get themselves arrested for protesting are the sort who already do tons of community service.  It’s a non-punishment and not a particularly damaging conviction.
      I knew a woman who always volunteered for this because she looked like someone’s kindly old grandmother (seriously, it was hard to imagine her without seeing a plate of cookies in her hand) and it made for great television footage, the cops hauling off grammie for protesting.  (She was a spitfire really.  But often there were cookies.)

    • lecti says:

      I suppose if the government mandates you to pack up your stuff and go to a concentration camp based on your ethnicity or personal beliefs, you’ll have no objections since it’s decreed by law, then?

    • ultragreen says:

       A same-sex couple kissing can’t be considered “intentionally disruptive” behavior if non-same-sex couples do the same thing at a given locale. Many cities and states have anti-discrimination laws that take sexual orientation into account. A restaurant isn’t merely private property — it’s also a public business that is open to members of the public. Thus, it is a government-regulated public accommodation, and the anti-discrimination laws apply. While the owner (or manager) of a restaurant can force a same-sex couple to leave on the basis of one pretense or another, afterwards either the owner or the restaurant risks being sued under the anti-discrimination laws of local or state government.

  15. Andrew Rich says:

    All right!!  This’ll change, um, well, nothing, actually…

    • Tess says:

      You really think so?

      Actions like this one have been part of the LGBT protest handbook for, good gods, 40 years now.  And before you say they haven’t worked, in that time we’ve won a lot of things.  We have employment protection in slightly more than half of the states.  We can even get married in some.  We are no longer considered mentally or physically ill or unstable or pedophiles by actual competent medical professionals.  Many of us can walk in public holding hands without actually being assaulted.We can co-adopt children in some places, though not in all.  Some whole religious sects have chosen to accept us.  

      Each action may be small, but they’re part of a greater whole, and in case you hadn’t noticed:  we’re winning.  Not as fast as I want us to, but we are.

  16. hanoverfiste says:

    I couldn’t last 5 minutes yesterday on Facebook, seeing how so many people I know bragging about having Chick Fil-A, or others deleting “friends” over it. It was kind of like watching Fox News. (I have lived in Texas for all but 4 years of my life)

    I hope we can get to a point where there is a real national dialog about people’s right.  Can certain religious people understand that allowing people to marry even if they don’t agree with not much different a whole lot all the other legal things on their checklist of sins they may actually be doing?

    Maybe they think if their kids don’t see it they won’t have the ability to recognize in themselves.  Then the kid grows up in a culture condemning it and in his mid 40s he creates a national scandal and has to step down from being governor because he has been having an affair with another man.

    But I am afraid this could spin out of a control in a controversial direction that furthers no cause.

    Looking into my crystal ball I see coming up next… Conservatives respond with “Heterosexual Nuclear Family at Chick-Fil-A day” (load up the bus with your 19 kids and counting).  A rebuttal with a response of “Free Condoms outside of Chick-Fil-A day”.  Firing back with “Bring Your Bible and Thump it at Chick Fil-A day.”
    “Pride Flash Mob at Chick Fil-A Day” (locations and dates top secret).  This all followed by “Westboro Baptist Church Chick Fil-A is going to Hell day” because Chick Fil-A doesn’t condemn homosexuals or use anti-gay slurs.

    Have courage my friends.  Sometimes a period of prohibition is followed by a time of permission.  Worked out to our flavor for alcohol, not so much for investment banking.

    We Americans are a very shallow society,90% of the products or services we use supports a cause or concept we as individuals think we are opposed too.

  17. ethanwc says:

    But they’re bound to get lunch while there, right? At least a lemonade. Sounds like this might work in Chic-fil-a’s favour.

  18. _ says:

    Comments so far are  interesting and impressive – especially to an old fool like me.  I have copied and pasted them to visit and think more about.   

  19. I’ll be honest… I LOVE the flavor of Chick-a-fil’s food. The regular chicken sandwich (ordered with pickle but pickle eaten prior to sandwich… no condiment) is my 2nd favorite foodstuff ever.  I’m nearing 43 and it’s been 2nd since my first taste in 1981. The coleslaw is my favorite coleslaw.

    I am also a “straight” man in central texas who’s been a vocal supporter of equal rights for the LGBT community since I was in my teens.

    All that aside… I’m truly more pissed off that Chick-a-fil has got away with defaming Jim Henson Productions with the retroactive “recall” of the kids meal toys. Come on folks… although there wasn’t a single report of injury….  “there are some reports of children getting their fingers stuck in the holes”…. of FINGER MUPPETS.

    edit:
    ah hell, i forget the reason for posting at all…. i’ve an acquaintance who says he’s going to Chick-a-fil tomorrow dressed as Ace Frehley. love it

  20. chris jimson says:

    You know, the year I was born gays were still regularly jailed or institutionalized for the “crime/mental defect” of being homosexual, so the fact that we are even having a serious political debate about same sex MARRIAGE means Dan Cathy lost the battle a long time ago.  You can’t get locked up just for being homosexual anymore (and you CAN serve openly in the military.)  These people are struggling to hold onto some semblance of the 1950′s and it’s a desperate losing proposition; the majority of their kids are going to grow up accepting homosexuality.  

    In the late 1970′s Anita Bryant successfully rallied Florida to pass laws that made it OK to discriminate against homosexuals, and 20 years later those laws were repealed.  Get used to it, haters.

  21. penguinchris says:

    Joe Tex sings “Chicken Crazy”
    Joe Tex sings a song telling you not to fight, sleep, take your shoes off, or, yes, kiss in his restaurant – I have both of these songs on CD in good quality but unfortunately all I can find on youtube for this one is this low-fidelity recording from a 45. So turn it up and listen carefully to catch everything he says.

    I have only eaten at Chick-fil-A once. I thought for fast food it was pretty good. But the place has a weird vibe and it always bothered me that they were closed on Sundays. In any case, I won’t be going back. I’m straight but I do sort of wish I had a male friend who would cooperate. Since gay guys hit on me all the time anyway, maybe I could just show up and try my luck :)

  22. jeligula says:

    Same sex kiss day and all the lip imprints are female?  This poster is sexist!!!

  23. Navin_Johnson says:

    No, it’s because this company donates millions to designated hate groups, and many people already knew this. It has come to a head because of his very public comments and attempts at making inroads into Northern urban neighborhoods… like mine.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

    Also, people that disagree aren’t allowed their opinions? You seem to only care about the (nonexistent) right of this guy to speak his “opinions” without any kind of repercussions.

  24. Brainspore says:

    No, if that was the case then people would be calling for his arrest. This isn’t a first-amendment issue.

    His “opinion” was expressed in the form of giant wads of cash to organizations which seek to curtail the rights of other Americans. Which is, of course, his right—just as it is the right of others to call out that bigotry in any way they can. Free speech is a two-way street.

  25. Brainspore says:

    It’s not just about gay marriage, though that’s part of it. The organizations which received money from Chick-Fil-A also:

    * Oppose laws which would make it illegal to fire someone just for being gay
    * Seek to repeal legal rights gays already have in this country
    * Support organizations which lead homophobic “missionary” efforts abroad… including ones that helped back Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill

    So yeah, pretty homophobic stuff.

  26. EvilSpirit says:

    Yeah, actually, pretty much. Although that is, in fact, not the half of it, I’m going to go ahead and say that not supporting gay marriage *is* homophobic. Anything else is just excuses.

  27. grimc says:

    Because denying gay people a basic civil right actually means that you like them. Makes complete sense.

  28. lecti says:

    Yup, that pretty much says it.  Others are just hypocrites.

    “Oh, I don’t mind colored folks.  I just don’t want to share the same bathroom”

  29. LinkMan says:

     Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful.

  30. EvilTerran says:

    Not quite the same issue, but I think this is relevant:

    http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2011/6/25/5/enhanced-buzz-31863-1308995619-2.jpg

    Or do you also think, say, “small children being exposed” to hetero couples kissing,  on daytime TV for instance, is also “ridiculous”?

    What about the poor widdle kiddies who might have been traumatised when Emily Davidson stepped in front of the King’s horse in the name of equal rights? Did the possibility that kids were watching render her actions “BS” too?

  31. EvilTerran says:

    Also: concern troll is concerned.

  32. EvilSpirit says:

     That’s correct: he exercised his first amendment right to state his odious, bigoted, hateful opinion. Now people are objecting. That’s how it works.

  33. lecti says:

    Plenty of countries ban hate speech, and they didn’t turn into China.  Don’t worry about that.

  34. Tess says:

    I’m amazed by how many people seem to think the dude has some sort of God-or-Constitution-granted “right” to sell sandwiches to people, whether or not those people like 1. him or 2. his sandwiches.

  35. ChickieD says:

    I think the right is trying to reframe this as a 1st Amendment issue so they can feel like victims. The letter from the Boston mayor gave them justification for acting like this. The fact is, the mayor of Boston can’t legally control whether Chik-fil-A comes to their city; it was a politician’s publicity stunt. Dan Cathay, however, is donating money to groups that want to limit the rights of gays.

Leave a Reply