Market Currents
The debate on Chick-fil-A's unofficial stance on same-sex marriage keeps getting ratcheted up by...
-
Friday, August 3, 2012, 1:40 PM ETThe debate on Chick-fil-A's unofficial stance on same-sex marriage keeps getting ratcheted up by politicians and activists from both sides pandering to crowds. While seemingly only a minor event a week ago, the large crowds gathering inside and outside of the chain's restaurants day after day has caught the eyes of at least a few restaurant analysts wondering if the flareup could affect U.S. sales at rivals MCD, WEN, and BKW.
Other date
Latest Consumer Articles
This news story has 37 comments:
I assure you, the extreme leftist groups are not the ones lining up around the block to get some fried chicken.
Richard, I truly believe that it is because of people like you that we are where we are...
Soon more CEOs will "come out" denouncing gay marriage, discussing literal religious interpretations, and probably also insulting various races just to take things to the next logical level.
Mark my words, this, my friends, is financial innovation in progress!!!
The homosexual lifestyle is a "race"?
But make no mistake, the hordes of people lining up to get their fast food are not making a political statement about wrongful behavior of the left, rather they are cheering the bigotry of the right. Bigotry, after all, is a traditional American value.
Or maybe that is just another example of D_Va. "being hyperbolic." No matter, liberals' need a cause and they are used to getting their way, and their way beomes the politicaly correct way and anyone pushing back can expect to be called names and abused.
Maybe, just maybe, this time will be different.
Went there for lunch to try the sandwich; it was like the McRib: composite meat, only disguised chicken in the Chick case; without the MdD sauce that was tasty. In either case I will not eat another so the trial worked out; I shall not eat them anymore and the coupon for Chick-fil-A served its purpose; won't eat another, again.
If they can't spell "filet" correctly, how could they prepare one correctly?
Flaunting only calls attention. Attention attracts all kinds pro and con. Cool is much better. Just sayin'
If homosexuality was universally considered to be no big deal (and correspondingly treated equally under the law), you would have no pride parades or other flamboyant displays.
However, as long as a large percent of the population loudly says "it's no OK", a nontrivial percent of the population will loudly say "yes it is". They will just be different kinds of loud.
The accurate quip is that you have the right to marry the PERSON you want to, and gays don't. You presumably would want to marry a member of the opposite sex, and so would I, and that's fine.
But if a man wants to marry another man, both of them are citizens, and marriage brings with it many legal and financial implications, yet they are not allowed to marry.
It's illegal to discriminate based on gender for hiring and other transactions, so why is it legal for marriage?
And sure, maybe the answer isn't gay "marriage", maybe it's ubiquitous civil unions or something else that guarantees the same legal and financial implications but doesn't freak out the medieval religious types so much.
I don't really care what the churches do -- freedom of religion and all that. But laws needs to stop discriminating.
Just like gays serving openly in the military, opponents are on the wrong side of history. In a few decades, we will laugh about how backwards the U.S. was and how long it took them to just get over it when it comes to homosexuality.
But until enough time has passed that it's funny, it remains simply sad.
The issue here is not homosexuality. It is whether a person has the right to express his honest opinion without becoming the object of a smear campaign and boycott. Free speech is a constitutional right! As for the idiot politicians who would keep CFA stores out of their areas, they are pandering jackasses. Even the ACLU believes in that.
After all this I would be more likely to eat at a CFA, besides I think their billboard commercials are very clever.
> without becoming the object of a smear campaign and boycott.
> Free speech is a constitutional right!
You are right about the smear campaign (and any other legal repercussions), but wrong about the boycott.
Yes, just because a CEO is an intolerant religious extremist, no one has the right to discriminate against his business for the purpose of commercial permits or other legal affairs.
However, EVERYONE has the right to personally boycott his business in protest. That is THEIR free speech.
A company owner said he was for traditional marriage, and to be fair, implied he disapproved of non-traditional marriage i.e. gay marriage. He broke no laws, he does not discriminate in hiring nor does he discriminate among his customers.
He just expressed an opinion.
The Gay Movement, in contrast, launched personal attacks on him, his company and his staff (perhaps slanderous and libelous) launching a boycott of his business.
They are attempting to harm.
So who looks more Un-American? Some guy who expressed an opinion on a moral issue or a bunch of people who are demanding something be done to punish him for his speech?
I don't go to Chick whatever, in fact I don't know where one is. But I'm going to find out and go eat a sandwich there and push my way past every boycotting gay that is metophorically reverse bashing.
Denying rights is un-American, certainly, whether it's the right to free speech, or the right to marry the person you want to.
I don't think the quote was "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free -- BUT DON'T LET THE GAYS MARRY!!! BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!!!" I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what it says.
Your moral ideology is based upon Leviticus. Since you and the CEO of Chick-fil-a appear to be caught up in biblical text from an outmoded and outdated era, why doesn't he stop serving pork on his breakfast sandwiches? And for you, if you borrow or lend money to your fellow citizens you too are in violation of Old Testament law.
I don't expect either of you change the menu or usury so your morality is selective, therefore situational.
A husband, his wife and their children, "the traditional family unit", are the brick and mortar that holds our society together. Traditional parents do society much good by sacrificing their time in this endeavor. Society should shower many more special rights upon those traditional parents that re-populate the earth and give up a good part of their life in the rearing/nurturing of children instead of living their lives just for the next anonymous sexual encounter, as most homosexuals do.
The Cathy family knows that humans can't improve upon God's plan for the family. It's unfortunate the average homosexual, and many non Christians as well, can't grasp that humans can't improve on one's life by departing the many good principals the Bible (KJV) has to offer us here on earth and life after death. Life would be so much better for them and our nation.
http://www.cdc.gov (Statistics abound here on health issues related to the sexual behavior of homosexuals)
http://www.pfox.org (A resource for gay men and women who want to leave the homosexual behavior behind them and those who have)