You know what I think about this whole Chick-fil-A brouhaha? Nothing – it’s a big “who cares?” At this point, everyone is well aware that the chicken sandwich purveyor’s CEO, Dan Cathy, is a homophobic god-botherer and that he and his company give money to groups opposed to civil rights for us gays.
And now that we all have this knowledge, we can do with it what we wish. I, for one, shall not patronize this establishment – though given the fact that the nearest Chick-fil-A to SF is in Walnut Creek and that I’m an insufferable food snob, this is unlikely to effect either my life or the bottom line of said poultry emporium. Meanwhile, the grease-craving among us – be they flaming flamers or fire-and-brimstone religious kooks or unemployed Alaskan grifters – are free to reach their own decision as to where they’ll purchase their next salt-laden, deep-fried slab of fowl. No one’s First Amendment rights are at risk or being trampled here. We’re all free to express our opinions however we see fit.
So, can we just fucking drop it already? All this time and energy wasted on a tempest in a teapot. Do you really want to piss off Miss Mr. Cathy? Then let’s finally make gay marriage legal at the federal level, with same-sex married couples entitled to all the same rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex married couples. And then watch the bigots squirm when they are forced to put their money where their mouths are. Oh, you don’t want to insure your gay employees’ spouses? Well, that’s illegal. Oh, OK – you’re going to stop offering insurance to all your employees’ spouses? Good luck with hiring!
I wrote earlier about my view that the bigots have already lost on this issue, because corporate America has concluded that same-sex marriage is good for business. There will always be out-liers like Chick-fil-A – but once same-sex marriage is the law of the land, they’ll have to comply with that law. Sure, they won’t like it – I’m certain there are still plenty of business owners who would happily refuse service to blacks or Jews or Latinos or some other segment of the population. But they can’t, because it’s illegal. Sure, they still hold on to their hateful bigotry in their personal views and opinions – but they can’t inflict them on the rest of us in violation of the law.
So, again, enough with the Chick-fil-A. It’s a time-wasting distraction from issues that actually make a difference in the lives of gay men and lesbians. Railing against the blithering of a fast-food magnate is not worth the effort. Making same-sex marriage legal, on the other hand, is absolutely worth the effort.
57 thoughts on “Bread(ed Chicken) and Circuses”
I’m just glad I finally understand how it’s pronounced. All this time I thought it was “chickfilluh” or “chickuhfil”. Who knew? Now I can more acurately send hate rays. But I agree, who cares?
I’ve always found it odd that the first part is spelled “Chick” rather than “Chik.”
read your article ,sob. thanks,
I want to make cakes that do not know
There are only two types of people in the world: Those who follow God’s way and those who do not follow God’s way. Which one are you? It’s hard to tell. Connie
good shared ….
Well said. God did not say to hate people. “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. None of us are sinless and should not be judging others. Love is love whether it is between two men, two women or a straight couple. You didn’t choose to be gay. I didn’t choose to be straight. Love is love.
Gays aren’t asking for the church to be involved in their marriage. They want a civil recognition by the government so that they can have what everyone else has had all along. Church doesn’t belong in politics. That’s the whole damn reason the people left England so many hundred years ago. Freedom of church and state.
Well said Amy.
Thank you….Good share 😦
Agreed. Great post! 🙂
“I, for one, shall not patronize this establishment.” and then you have a picture of Dan Cathy with a caption that calls him names. ? What I don’t understand is what has invokes such anger. He was asked a question by a publication and his response was that he believed in traditional marriage. He didn’t get snarky. He didn’t get hateful. Why is a difference of view constitute bloodlust? He doesn’t refuse service or employment to people of any sexual orientation. I cannot grasp why there has to be a lack of civility with anyone whose views are different than mine. Your post asks for people not to care, yet you inflame the issue throughout. Its ok to stand up for what you believe. Its a whole other issue to get overly emotional to the point of irrationality. “There will always be out-liers like Chick-fil-A – but once same-sex marriage is the law of the land, they’ll have to comply with that law. Sure, they won’t like it – I’m certain there are still plenty of business owners who would happily refuse service to blacks or Jews or Latinos or some other segment of the population. But they can’t, because it’s illegal. Sure, they still hold on to their hateful bigotry in their personal views and opinions – but they can’t inflict them on the rest of us in violation of the law.” You bring racists into this argument??? What does that solve? Your comparison is faulty at best and hate-filled nonsense at the extreme. You cannot honestly compare a private individual’s opinion to the refusal of service to an ethnicity of people. Writing like this is the reason that noone can have an honest, civil dialogue and noone will listen or try to understand until people can calm down and reason together.
In addition to his personal opinion that same-sex marriage should be prohibited, he and his company contribute millions to hate groups who are actively working to deny civil rights to gay men and lesbians. That, in my opinion, makes him a bigot – and yes, an asshole. You are welcome to disagree. (Also, know your meme… ;-))
And how is homophobia different than racism? The only difference I see is that homophobia is still socially acceptable in many circles.
Thank you for civil response. I would like to know what organizations you are referring to. I also would be interested in your definition of homophobia. I would imagine that many people have a different take on what that means.
Here’s some background on the company’s donations:
As for the definition of homophobia, I think “hatred or fear of homosexuals” is pretty straightforward. That’s my whole problem with those who oppose civil rights for gays and lesbians – they typically couch it in terms of their religious beliefs. And while I vehemently disagree with those beliefs, they are entitled to cling to them, regardless of how cruel or hateful they may be. But in this country, marriage and the benefits it bestows are based on two people entering into a legal contract. Sure, they may choose to have a religious ceremony or to regard it as a sacrament – but none of those mean anything in terms of the law. If you don’t think gay marriage is OK, then you may refrain from marrying someone of the same gender.
Also, just a reminder: in 29 states, it remains legal to fire someone because of their sexual orientation.
Ok, I see the totals, but the organizations are labeled “anti-gay” by Huffington Post. What qualifies an organization as “anti-gay” other than opinion?
As for your definition, yes, the latin translation is hatred or fear of homosexuals, but it seems that then the question would be what would constitute as hatred or fear. I am genuinely asking these questions because I believe that these words are often used, but there is no set standard for what is considered hateful behavior and not. It is a term that is deemed appropriate based upon whomever is offended. One might believe that the label on this post of Dan Cathy’s picture might be term as “hate-speech,” for instance.
Because I am really wanting to hear you, your main contention with wanting a state sanctioned marriage for homosexuals is the law that allows benefits that are also attributed to heterosexuals. I am understanding correctly?
The Huffington Post article is rife with links to a variety of sources, so it is not just HuffPo that is declaring these groups anti-gay. And groups that oppose gay marriage are, in my view, anti-gay – they seek to preclude same-sex couples from enjoying the same legal rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex couples.
Eric, I see what you are saying. But, at least one of the organizations that is mentioned in this article refrains from lobbying and political activity. So I would disagree, based on your definition of an anti-gay organization that Exodus would fit the bill. For more commentary about Exodus, I would invite you to visit my piece at http://orderinthequart.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/exodus-ministries-the-great-debate/
Thank you for talking with me. I know it is a sensitive issue that is very personal and close to your heart. God bless you,
Exodus not political? That’s rich. An organization that views homosexuality as inherently wrong and something to be fixed through the use of discredited “reparative therapy” (see, I can use scare quotes too!) is absolutely political.
Your assertion that Exodus uses Reparative therapy is a misconception. And I have tried to be respectful and civil in my dialogue, I would ask the same of you.
Exodus Int’l has been around for over 30 years and embraced reparative therapy during most of its history. It’s only in the last few months that they’ve spoken out against it. And none of that changes the fact that they view homosexuality as something objectionable, something to be overcome. Just because they’ve softened the language they use doesn’t make their mission any more palatable – or non-political. “We appreciate any step toward open, transparent honesty that will do less harm to people,” said Wayne Besen, a Vermont-based activist who has worked to discredit ex-gay therapy. “But the underlying belief is still that homosexuals are sexually broken, that something underlying is broken and needs to be fixed. That’s incredibly harmful, it scars people.”
Never mind – I take back my response. I don’t disavow one word of my comment stricken above, but carting out the Exodus trope in relation to my OP is simply getting too far off topic. Not to mention, you bringing it up is actually very disrespectful to me as a gay man – it’s an organization working with people to “overcome” (what an Orwellian word choice!) being gay. Sexual orientation is not something to be cured or overcome.
As I wrote in my post about Exodus, I believe every institution makes mistakes and as a counselor, it is also a fair assumption that some therapies work for some and do not benefit others. I don’t know much about reparative therapy so I don’t have an opinion either way, but I just want to be sure it is known that the people at Exodus did not, themselves, use the therapy. I do know that many therapies that people once believed were effective are now unethical. This assertion that Exodus “views homosexuality as something objectionable, something to be overcome” is not accurate. They don’t go into the gay communities with a Bible and a club to wipe out the “gay.” They invite people who are hurting who want to change to get support. The fact is that we take our guidance from what the Bible states, but unfortunately the delivery of the message has been assaulted over the years. While we stand by the truth of Scripture, we as Believers are also commanded to love in action and in truth and with gentleness and respect. The other important understanding is the difference of homosexual orientation vs. open homosexual lifestyle. The fact is that this issue has become “taboo” which is sad, too. The truth is that gossip, pride, and HETEROsexual lust areJUST as serious in Scripture as homosexuality. It is unfortunate that the church chose to latch on to this as a dominate way of isolating people – THAT is wrong.
Interesting, Eric, that you say, “you bringing it up is actually very disrespectful to me as a gay man..” I would remind you, that you brought it up initially. “In addition to his personal opinion that same-sex marriage should be prohibited, he and his company contribute millions to hate groups who are actively working to deny civil rights to gay men and lesbians. That, in my opinion, makes him a bigot – and yes, an asshole. You are welcome to disagree. ” This is where the dialogue has now broken down, because I was invited to disagree and now that I have chosen to have discussion, you are retaliating saying that I am being disrespectful. I have invited you to my commentary, but I see that you are unwilling to look at any other view other than the one you have posted, and this is your right. I still choose civility over incivility and I also choose to listen rather than get defensive.
If you can’t understand why a gay man finds Exodus objectionable and disrespectful, then you are being disingenuous at best. Not to mention, I’d hardly classify the labeling of your comment as disrespectful as somehow retaliatory. If I wanted to retaliate, I’d simply delete your comment or engage in an ad hominem attack.
I have used this forum to express my views and opinions – yet I haven’t been singing the praises of any “ex-Christian” organizations or suggested that you need to better familiarize yourself with the missions of atheist or secular-humanist organizations that can help you overcome your Christianity.
Again, my OP is about same-sex marriage. Does Exodus support or object to the legalization of same-sex marriage? If they don’t support it, then they are opposed to equal treatment under the law for gay men and lesbians. Yes, it’s that simple.
I would remind you again, that you brought up the organizations. And further, you were the one who used the word “disrespectful.” Finally, if someone makes claims about an organization, I don’t see any problem being certain about your claims before you assign labels. That’s common sense. This blog IS about gay marriage, not about my faith, so that argument is null. The argument that if someone is not “for” something then they are against it is interesting. If you use the same argument and given the fact that you brought up Christianity, you are clearly not “for” Christianity, does that mean you are “against” Christians? One might find THAT very offensive. Alas, this IS your post and I believe the extent of our discussion is at an end. I wish you the best.
Oh brother – I brought up the organizations in response to your comment that CEO Cathy was only expressing his personal view on same-sex marriage. I countered with the evidence that he and his company give millions of dollars to anti-gay groups. And yes, I include Exodus International among those groups. Regardless of how much that particular group has soft-pedaled its message (after 30+ years of embracing reparative therapy and other dangerous methodologies), the fact remains that the group sees homosexuality as something to be overcome. And yes, I regard that as disrespectful – that is, the opposite of being respectful, as you claim in your comment.
If there were a group created to help you overcome your struggle with heterosexuality, wouldn’t you find that disrespectful? I’m sure you find the very idea of such a group existing as preposterous and laughable – yet Exodus International, NARTH, Focus on the Family, etc., etc. are regarded by many as legitimate organizations with legitimate goals, namely that if one’s sexual orientation doesn’t hew to a particular interpretation of what is permissible from a religious perspective, then it is something to be fixed or suppressed or overcome. That is not respectful, no matter how civil your language may be.
Order in the Quart!, I agree with your comments in regards to some of Eric’s language (I prefer the softer side of English myself), but I completely agree with him on the points that he’s made here. I think it is obvious to most people where true hate and fear begin as opposed to just being a matter of personal offense. Murders, attacks on the street, and hate speech certainly qualify as fear and hatred, and these are all legitimate issues facing members of the LGBT community.
If you would like another perspective on this matter with Chick-Fil-A, with numerous references to the Bible, I encourage you to read a recent post on my blog entitled “To Eat or Not To Eat (Mor Chikin).”
Eric, thank you for this enjoyable post and your many entertaining and informative comments as well. Please keep writing.
And Eric, thank you for that link. I had no idea that was a reference 🙂
Same sex marriage / partnerships / as opposed to the
man &woman / which those of religious beliefs /ideas
believe the correct formula / is a mite misunderstood
by christianity. GOD never objected unto male + male
relationships or female + female relationships / what
GOD objected to was a sideeffect of creation on EVE
a side effect bible does not discuss / the reason being
as why Adam & Eve having got evicted from heaven.
Adam & Eve if any don’t know story were the first two
human beings created. /However due to them having
sex they were cast out of heaven (where’s heaven you
ask ?) Heaven is to be found when in reaching the end
of “Milky Way” one then takes a sharp left turn /then
but following the “Yellow Brick Road” till reaching OZ
heaven’s but ten miles in one heading south East of OZ.
There be those whom asking the question “Why did
God Object to Sex/have them evicted from heaven ?.
The answer to that being EVE unfortuatley for God
he had made an error in her creation he overdid her
capability for sexual pleasure / thus in their sexual
couplings the cries /howls of pleasure coming from
EVE was grave a distraction for God thus in the end
GOD having no choice but evict Adam & Eve from
heaven unto planet EARTH which near enough to
heaven but far enough away in GOD getting peace.
Thus its for christians to understand GOD having
never opposed same sex relationships / marriage
or had ever opposed male + female relationships
what GOD had found objectionable was the noise
made by EVE in her continious sexual couplings.
I hope these words make things a mite clearer to
christians in the true reason for heavens eviction
as it makes it clear GOD having no objection unto
same sex relationships or in same sex marriages.
Either you are asserting satire or your own man made religion. These are beliefs that I have never before heard of. Of what book or document are you positing these assumptions?
With your use of the expression, “Christ, what an asshole”, clearly demonstrates that you do not deserve the respect and tolerance which you are demanding.
Where did I demand respect or tolerance? I certainly don’t expect it from those who use their religious beliefs to preach that I don’t deserve equal treatment under the law.
Also, see “know your meme” up-thread…
There is not a single argument for same-sex marriage that is not equally applicable for every-other-combination marriage. Discrimination would be hypocritical. We are looking forward to Chick-fil-A starting up in Australia.
Eric in considering “equal treatment”
– contrast this : http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/03/a-lesson-in-love-from-the-drive-thru/
– with this: http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/08/03/chick-fil-a-kiss-in-hollywood-the-pictures/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Tatler
And here’s where we agree. I think Adam Smith, berating that woman who works at Chick-fil-A, is an idiot and a real jerk – an asshole, if you will. Apparently, his employer thought so too and fired him.
And as far as those folks at the kiss-in? They are exercising their right to free speech – whether you agree with what they have to say or not isn’t really germane.
And then there’s this:a bunch of people singing “God Bless America” while waiting in line to purchase fast food. I thought this was hilarious. Indeed, the practice of stuffing one’s maw with calorie-laden, factory-farmed animal flesh is as American as apple pie (or free speech).
But that’s really the point of my OP. I’m not trying to convince anyone to change sides. I’m saying that people on both sides of this argument are wasting a lot of time and energy on something that is completely inconsequential: if you object to Chick-fil-A’s views and its support of anti-gay political groups, then don’t eat there. If you agree with their stance, then keep on eating there. If you don’t give a damn one way or the other, decide to eat there based on whatever criteria is important to you. But turning the act of eating in a fast food restaurant into a political event is absurd – whether one eats or doesn’t eat at Chick-fil-A is not going to make one whit of difference in furthering or hindering the cause of equal rights for gay men and lesbians.
Also, what’s with the square quotes around “equal treatment”?
I never get a heated debate over at my blog, I wonder why? Anyway, debate it is: from your commenters: “There are two types of people in this world, those who follow God and those who don’t” An odd statement, as it can be applied to anything: “There are only two types of people in this world; those who eat cheese and those who don’t”
Anyway, as the saying goes, a fool and his money are soon parted (especially when you voice your political concerns in the form of queing for a chicken sandwich). I wonder if all future protest will be done through the medium of fast food?
not true there is a chick filla in fairfield. Orso i am told . To be honest I had never noticed it before , the big blow up .
What I would like to know is What does popeyes feel about same sex marriage?
What you don’t understand is the double-standard that exists when conservatives and liberals spout their political views. It seems conservatives are demonized more than liberals, and it is about free speech. While I don’t agree with his stand, I can separate my chicken from my politics and support Cathy’ s right to say what he wants without being branded a bigot by the likes of you. And try writing a post without swearing, or do you need that to be mildly amusing?
Wait so you support free speech if its Cathy saying things that are discriminatory but not if this dude says curse words? I’m sorry what were you saying about double-standards?
Mechasketch: DId I ever say I wanted to censor his speech? It’s my opinion you can make your point without cursing and I believe it demeans points one makes. People can say they want.
No but you were snarky in asking him to stop talking the way he likes to talk, which I believe is overstepping a line, you have the right to say what you want, but if you don’t like it go fucking read something else. Duh. Who are you to tell him anything about his use of shitty language? I for one, think its brilliant and I wouldn’t go to your blog and say, jeez you know, your posts are so boring, how about throwing a fuck in there every so often to spice shit up a bit? Cause its rude! Not saying you’re not entitled to your opinion, just saying I’m entitled to saying just cause you have an opinion doesn’t mean you have to voice it at any given moment.
In regards to your last response, I’m sorry if you thought I was snarky. But my response was pretty mild in contrast to yours. But I’ll let your word choices speak for themselves. There should be more civility in political discourse, and I think brains should trump feelings when it comes to debates. Your last sentence: “Just because you have an opinion doesn’t mean you have to voice it at any given moment.” So, when should dissenters give their opinion? Midnight when few are listening? Early morning when everyone’s sleeping? Are maybe people who disagree with you should just Also, will you be consisent in saying that people who are same sex marriage supporters (like me) should shut up, too? Maybe celebrities shouldn’t always give their opinion about their support for President Obama. There are no time limits for free speech. It sounds like you lack tolerance for it.
To amend my incomplete middle sentence: Should people who disagree with you just shut up some of the time? Does this hold for people who agree with you, too? Let me ask you this: Does one taking a stand for traditional marriage mean that they hate gay people? Or are they just staying true to what their beliefs are, right or wrong? Thanks for the debate.
Just a reminder: the Constitutional guarantee of free speech applies solely to prohibition by the government of the exercise of free speech; that is the government may not abridge our freedom of speech. But we are all free to object to the speech of others. When an individual disagrees with speech that s/he finds objectionable, that is in no way related to the First Amendment. The freedom to express one’s views in the public square does not mean one is protected from the consequences of such speech, whether that is your business being boycotted or being called an asshole and a bigot by some two-bit blogger.
I though it was a recipe for breaded chicken. I suppose F**** you NBC is not the main ingredient or is it?
“Fuck you NBC” is the main ingredient in my recipe for sour grapes…
Gladiator wants to inquire about this post. “Are you not entertained?” Too bad he dropped he sword and he’s now wielding a chicken thigh. Ooh, this is going to be juicy. And delicious.
You get bonus points for using the word “outlier.” And your image caption. 🙂
People have no right to disagree with the gay culture… if we’re going to oppose something oppose the REAL problems of the world. Two men or two women finding happiness together is NOT an issue -nor we should be focusing OR investing money in ”anti-gay” groups; it’s so stupid. I’m just grateful I was raised by an intelligent christian mother who DIDN’T baptist me 🙂
Thank god 🙂
Really, Katie? People have no right to disagree with the gay culture? Read that again. Isn’t this the attitude that we need to avoid? I agree with you on the right to gay marriage, but I can’t say that people have no right to disagree. Free speech should never be selective.
In living you get the same people come to blows
they but come in another form another life and
then continue a arguement they previously left.
Basically you have two groupings those content
with ideas beliefs those whom wishing to venture
beyond ideas belief / knowing the true purpose
of creation / thus you have basic disagreement.
Did God make such situation ?. Answer is NO.
All comes to individual choice as the stage of
development at which an individual content in
their need to further understanding furthering
experience. If people at a stage where content
in following of a religious faith that their be an
heaven or a paradise that beyond the clouds
that a soul entering on death of human frame
then so be it. // Thats the stage they being at
and such must be respected by other factions.
In the same sense those wishing as desire
to go beyond ideas as beliefs unto greater
understanding as experience in (knowing)
as fully understanding creation as creator
must also be respected by those religious
groupings content at present in believing.
The reality be GOD is the true republican.
A true Democrat giving one their freedom.
Via brain & heart / one has the tools that
take one unto a stage of where knowing
creator in understanding as experience
thus one having / in an human form the
abilty as opportunity in increasing ones
understanding with experience / at the
level as pace that suiting the individual.
The balance betwixt the spiritual as the
material is important in maintaining an
balance in ones life’s thus that conflict
does not arise betwixt all the variuous
groupings thus in bringing ( injustice )
a seed bringing a bitter harvest to all.
Those that are of further development
in understanding of / more experience
carry a heavier responsibility as more
is expected from them. Thus don’t be
over mocking to those of an religious
nature. As those of a religious nature
should have more respect to those in
seeking to further their understanding
in furthering their practical experience
of creation in their knowing of creator.
Is Exodus International one of the groups he supports that oppose equal rights? Read their whole policy statement first – don’t judge lest ye be judged. What do you say about this?
Exodus Policy Statements
Excellent, Blondequixotic. Thank you for putting this here. I have another extensive quote and commentary on my blog too, http://orderinthequart.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/exodus-ministries-the-great-debate/
My original post is about the brouhaha over Chick-fil-A’s support of groups opposed to same-sex marriage. Unless you can direct me to a statement of support for same-sex marriage by Exodus International, then your point is off-topic here.
Same-sex marriage is an issue of civil, secular law. Religious views are not germane to matters of law.
A closed mind = a closed heart! The fact that they used a political stance for profit clearly shows they have NO business ethics. This is a required course if you want a degree in business and should be a common practice for a company like Chik-fil-A. Secondly using the church or God as a scape goat for closed minded beliefs is a sin in and of itself. Keep in mind that the Christian religion has killed more people in the course of history than any other religion and I’m pretty sure that wasn’t “God’s will” either. If you would like to hear some more inside information and hear some stories that are sure to put a smile on your face please check out my latest e-book. http://secretsofabartender.wordpress.com/
Great post. Proving my theory that we really DO live in a mad world.
That’s the challenge / How does one solve challenge
one practices compassion understanding humanity.
When reach the ultimate in external stage of learning
one but ready for the inner ultimate stage of learning.
Inner ultimate stage is that of meditation one turning
the senses inward in one’s unfolding the spiritual self
( just to give a little understanding the material is the
essence of creation is much diluted // where that of
meditation comes spiritual experience much deeper
of the essence of creation / thus it’s stronger by far).
Throughout the history of humanity there spiritual
teachers among such be the “Teacher of Teachers”
whom giving guidence to those whom via meditation
wish go beyond ideas as beliefs unto that of practical
spiritual experience / experience that gifts one the
clarity answering all ones questions. Whom am I ? .
What is the purpose of life ?. Is there a GOD ?. Is
there a heaven ?. All one’s questions be answered
thus one enter the world of knowing not believing.
Presently “Teacher of Teachers” is Prem Rawat
on PC search put ( words of peace ) or ( words of
peace global ) on the site selection of videos that
Prem explains meditation / in turning the senses
inward / bringing a unfolding of the spiritual self
where practical experience answering questions.
Prem has dedicated his life in aid to those whom
reaching such stage of meditation / thus his door
is open for those whom be prepared in learning.
I should add in Prem you’ll not meet kinder soul
having earned title “AMBASSADOR of PEACE”.
sweeet rant! i do agree though. i dunno if you saw on FB there was a “kiss someone of the same sex day at chick-fil-a” or something. so obnoxious and just creating more drama for your mama.