Chick-Fil- (Page 2)

My guess is, "you're right". CFA is based in Atlanta. There is one on every corner in every major city in the south (also known as the bible belt). I could tell you where 4 are located within my city. This would make sense.

As far as the donations go, that makes sense. I'll step up and say "I didn't think of that". I guess our money goes to make the food, pay the wages, and support someone elses agenda and beliefs.

Thanks Kido!

In a free market, capitalist society, the only way we can 'vote' is how and where we spend our money.  If I know a company actively supports something I am opposed to, I wont go.  Conversely, if a company supports something I believe in, I will go out of my way to support it. 

I havent been to an Exxon is 23 years.

On June 25th, I went out of my way to buy a pack of Oreos.

I have never eaten there and I see no reason to start now.

Put me in the who cares camp.  Eat there if you want, or don't.  I love their food and eat there frequently.  

I don't base my patronage on political stances.  If I did that I probably couldn't shop or eat anywhere.

I support peoples right to believe what they want and choose not to force my beliefs on others.  If more people (on both sides of the issue) did the same I think we'd be a lot happier as a society.

I love the sandwiches. But I was winding them down due to the nutrition sitchyation - it is, after all, fried chicken, french fries and sugared-up lemonade. And I dare you to try the 'chargrilled' chicken breast. It's terrible. They were even more on the outs due to the way they source their chicken - which is to say, they have no policy on anything related to animal sourcing. Now I doubt I'll go back. It's not so much a boycott as it is just moving toward things that are better, on the whole. And that will pain me, but it's right.

And if you couldn't get enough, check out 1) the Urban Dictionary word-of-the-day is pertinent, and the Mayor of Boston is pissed that CFA is making a move toward the Chowds. See the letter from the mayor.  

You had me up to this point, because of your liberal use of "I."  Now, if Chick-fil-A, its owners and its charitable arm choose not to force their beliefs on others through their charitable donations to these various groups, you wouldn't see a protest.  However, Chick-fil-A (and its owners and its charitable arm) did chose to be involved in this issue. This is, of course, their right.  But, in my opinion, they deserve every bit of backlash they receive and really shouldn't be that surprised.  In my opinion, the protest sort of restores balance to the force.  In other words, I understand that some people don't care, but I also understand that some care very strongly.

That is a very 'ionic' letter that will go down in Boston history like "Varitek splitting the uprights"

http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/bruins/articles/2010/05/11/fans_get_no_kick_out_of_menino_flub/

We are still deciding whether or not to boycott "God's chicken". Yes, we have known that they are a christian organization, hence no sales on Sundays. But the problem I have with them at this point is that they seem to be going out of their way to make an issue out of this, when there is no reason to do so. They make delicious chicken sandwiches. No reason to jump into this unless they are trying to force people to choose sides.

This has nothing to do with their being a christian organization. There is a local car wash that also does not open on Sundays, and often has bible verses or religious aphorisms on their sign. I generally patronize them because they do a good job at what they do. And other then what I described, I never see anything that is particularly polarizing, unless one is a militant atheist who hates on religious people just because.

And to further illustrate my thinking:

I'd be interested in knowing why a fast food chicken restaurant has any formal opinion at all about gay marriage, frankly.

I generally do vote with my wallet.  I'm pretty conscious of where I buy from.  It's a strong enough issue that I would pull money away, but with so many degrees of separation from the actual company I don't know how much I'll take this into consideration.

As far as fast food restaurants go, their service is always above that of other fast food joints, their restaurants (not talking mall food courts here) are always clean, they have really good extras (ever hear of "Mommy Valet"?), and they have better healthy choices than the other fast food joints. 

It's a private company.  So, the company is just an extension of the owner's own wealth.  If you don't like what he/they support, you are free to vote with your feet and your pocketbook.

The original article in which this started is posted here for some context: http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=38271  Nothing to change anyone's mind in there, it's just interesting is all.

Question for the boycotters: If someone said they were boycotting Omaha Steaks because of Buffett's support of Barack Obama, would you call them crazy? 

If I understand correctly, CFA has a charitable arm called WinShape.  WinShape is, in some part, funded by CFA corporate money.  WinShape is the organization that gives to the various groups that raise the concern.  This seems to make it more of a corporate action, to me.  Someone please correct me if this is incorrect.

I would agree if this was simply the executives or owners personal money - understanding that they are paid by CFA.  This would be more of an individual action, to me.

I'm not a boycotter, but no.

Well, given that Omaha Steaks is owned by the Simon family, I would call that confused, not crazy.

I have no idea what the political stance is of the Simons (which is as it should be - the only things I should know is whether their meat is delicious and reasonably priced), but if they supported a cause I disagreed with (and I was a current customer), I would indeed boycott them. And if they supported a cause that I believed in, and it required them to take a risk to do so (e.g. - I am not talking about supporting the "be nice to kittens" cause), I would become a customer.

To be honest I never really had there sandwiches.  When I ate there almost every day I had there chargrilled garden salad which was very good.

Since I should not really eat there anyways boycotting or not really is the same thing for me.

Nope -

if thats the way they want to spend their money b/c the corporation supports something they are opposed to, it's their choice.   For example, I know someone that wont shop at Staples.  I know families and Holocaust survivors that wont buy German cars.  I even know someone that wont go to Eagles games anymore b/c of Vick.

NOT RELATED AT ALL TO THE OPINION OF THE PRES...  Just the food.

What are you guys smoking that don't like Chick-Fil-A?  Crack? 

That stuff is delicious!  At least it was in all the Denver locations I had it at.  I wish they put one in Vegas, but again, that won't happen because we are too sinful for the conservative views of the president.

My bad, you're correct and had an astute response.  I should replace "Omaha Steaks" with "Pampered Chef" but the comparison seems to match-up nicely actually, if I change Buffett for Simons and say "hypothetically" at the beginning. 

We have no idea what Mr. Simons believes.  And people will continue to buy or not buy based solely on the product (and based on how little they enjoy the follow-up sales calls during dinnertime...). 

But if he pipes-up with any political opinion, he'll get blasted. Cathy's point in that article is that "this has worked for us to follow our beliefs and so we'll continue to follow our beliefs."  For Simons, keeping a low profile has worked for him. 

Juxtaposition.  I like words with "x" in them.

AMEN KIDO!  (there goes that jeebus talk again....the chick fil a is WORKING on me!)

There's more to the story.  CFA has a history, through it's charitable arm, of donating to groups that actively work against same-sex marriage initiatives (as I understand it).  The CFA boycott stuff has come up before, but these recent comments seem to have reignited the issue with a bit more momentum this time.  I don't think you need to figure out who is being less tolerant.  CFA is expressing its opinion, as are the boycotters.