Chick-fil-A supporters plan appreciation day
ATLANTA (AP) — Supporters of Chick-fil-A are planning to eat at restaurants in the chicken chain as the company continues to be criticized for an executive's comments about gay marriage.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared Wednesday national "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press last month that the Atlanta-based company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family." That unleashed a torrent of criticism from gay rights groups and others, who have called for boycotts and efforts to block the chain from opening new stores.
Opponents of the company's stance are planning "Kiss Mor Chiks" for Friday, when they are encouraging people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country and kiss each other.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared Wednesday national "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day."
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press last month that the Atlanta-based company was "guilty as charged" for backing "the biblical definition of a family." That unleashed a torrent of criticism from gay rights groups and others, who have called for boycotts and efforts to block the chain from opening new stores.
Opponents of the company's stance are planning "Kiss Mor Chiks" for Friday, when they are encouraging people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country and kiss each other.
Great marketing ploy by the company...and look how many suckers fell for it...
Amazon CEO donates 2.5million to support gay marriage and the opposition does not care. Chicken guy donates to oppose gay marriage and the opposition calls for boycott. My vote for bigger cry baby------------>gay supporters
Everybody needs to chill.Â
Â
The CFA CEO expressed a personal opinion and the nature of free speech allows for opposing views.
Â
The GLBT community's combative position on this is a waste of their time. By staging their "Kiss-in" they could be removed from the premises if they are being disruptive or interfering with service to other customers. CFA is not denying them service or descriminating against them. So why choose provocation? You can't protest for respect, you have to earn it.Â
Â
 @Smokin Bear No, nobody needs to chill, both sides can continue doing what our Constitution guarantees them the right to do. You ask why provocation is the tool being selected by the GLBT community and that is actually not a bad question. I guess there are not just too many tools available to them out there. If Americans followed the law, gay marriage would have been accomplished decades ago as there is simply no Constitutional basis to prohibit gay marriage given the provisions of the 14th Amendment. However, we both know that elected representatives abuse their position daily and substitute the tenets of their religion for American law. Given that the GLBT community is placed in a position that they have to fight for what is rightfully theirs and since there is not realistic chance of swaying legislators who must pander to a religious population, there just ain't a whole lot left to do other than misbehave and draw attention to the issue. There is also j something just plain perverse about the whole situation where one groups abuses their authority to deny rights and then gets a bit histrionic when the other group starts getting cranky about being denied those rights.Â
@kennewickman @Smokin Bear Unfortunately the point was missed. People get over emotional and lose their sense of logic, hence the need to chill.Â
Â
The fact that the CEO of CFA expressed his constitutional right to an opinion shouldn't bring about such a vitriolic response from anybody.Â
Yes, CFA contributed funds to the anti-gay marriage cause, but lest we forget, Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com gave 2.5 million in support of same sex marriage. Were heterosexuals up in arms to boycott Amazon? No.Â
Having seen a lot of one-sided behavior among GLBT, its time they apply more diplomatic and mature options than self-indulgent tantrums. No one is denying them service at the CFA restaurants nor are they being descriminated against. Â
Â
The CFA CEO made a comment. Thats it. Don't like it? Don't eat there. By creating a public fuss over opinion, the GLBT are imposing their issues on people who may not wish to be involved, thereby stomping on everyone's rights.Â
@kennewickman Your reasoning makes no sense whatever. Frederick Douglass was a hero and a brave man opposing slavery. Equating the gay marriage issue with slavery is simply obtuse and insulting to decendants of slavery. No gays have been owned and  forced to pick cotton or work the fields or watched their families torn asunder to serve others. Best to stay on topic. I never said anything degrading about gays. Yet, you are so hyper sensitive that any logical discourse appears to you to be a slam. That is a shame and sad that you cannot step back, consider that other people are not going to agree with every syllable of your rhetoric and either walk away or treat it with the agreement to disagree.Â
 @kennewickman So then you would have no problem with those who disagree with you boycotting gay businesses? No problem if the millions of Christians in this country quit buying Amazon?  Glad we cleared that up. How about you hypocrites practice REAL tolerance. I don't personally agree with gay marriage, but could care less if they get married. I don't personally agree with a gay lifestyle. I do however attend Storm games and cheer alongside my lesbian friends and support the Storm even though they had Sheryl Swoopes on their team. I even sent my daughter to her camp! You see, I could care less who or what you sleep with, that is your business, what I care about is that she can play basketball and can teach my daughter to! I have no problem that Jeff Bezos is supporting gay marriage, I love my Kindle, he has made a great product! I can disagree with your politics and seperate that from the service or product you provide! Liberal hypocrites like you evidentily can't? You would sream like a little girl if Christians boycotted the 1000s of companies that support liberal campaigns, yet get up in arms when one old man sends some money to James Dobson! It is your way or the high way, your morality or nobody elses! Once again and as always...you are a hypocrite! I was just as insensed when some silly Christians wanted to not go see the LIon King because Elton John sang the opening song. He is an awesome singer, I will go see him anytime he comes to town, I could care less what is going on in the hotel room after I enjoy his concert!
 @whoareyou Wow, how dense can a human be? Both are practicing freedom of speech as I said but apparently you don't have the wits to comprehend. However, some speech deserves social condemnation. You know, if there was a business saying that blacks should be denied the right to vote, you would be all over boycotting that business. Imagine if some group said Christians should be denied the right to marry, I wonder how you would take that.Â
 @Smokin Bear Nope, never said that CFA doesn't have rights, they do. I am saying that being against freedom should and likely will trigger a citizen backlash. By your reasoning Frederick Douglass should be afforded no more respect than Stonewall Jackson, both just simply had differing views on what could be considered human.Â
C'mon now, that's over the top.  Cathy said that he believes in the biblical definition of marriage over same sex marriage. I'm no fan of organized religion but I was speaking of a person's right to expression.
Your position appears to be that if anyone disagrees with the gay marriage issue they no long have any rights as provided under the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Like it or not, everyone has the right to support issues of their conscience. Taking revenge by creating a public scene is simply immature and embarrassing to the GLBT community.Â
I'm saying be smart about it - use your vote and encourage others to vote in favor of gay marriage. Adopt a model of respect for others regardless of their personal orientation or identity. Acting out only drives people away who might have been supportive. Cutting off one's nose to spite one's face is self defeating.
 @kennewickman So Jeff is practicing free speech and shouldn't be boycotted, but Cathy is to be villified for his free speech? I see...once again and as always...hypocrite!
 @Smokin Bear I appreciate the tenor of you comment but I am a bit befuddled by "The fact that the CEO of CFA expressed his constitutional right to an opinion shouldn't bring about such a vitriolic response from anybody. " I don't know about that, some comments, while certainly protected, deserve heaps of vitriol. Throw in some venom and vituperation while you are at it. On the other side of protected comments is the right of the public to go ballistic. Will going ballistic help? No freakin' idea but if I had to guess I would say it is likely more akin to some group labeling a book obscene only to then watch sales spike. There is one concept that I hope folks can grasp though that makes the two sides different. One side seeks to limit rights, the other to get out of the way and let people have their rights. The two opinions are not equal sides of the same coin. Giving $2.5 million to promote freedom is not the same as giving money to oppose freedom.Â
@kennewickman @Smokin Bear
In other words morality has no bearing on law?
There are thousands of laws against immoral activities and as our opinions differ on the definition of morality it still must be weighed by the law process.
As a reference to a morality law one needs to look at indecent exposure.... try walking around with willy swinging in the wind and see how far you get.
 @kennewickman Way to not answer the question! What is your basis for deciding what we can force others to do or not do? How do we make "secular" decisions. What is the secular purpose for marriage at all, let alone gay marriage? The only secular reason I can think of for any kind of marriage is to make more tax payers, all other reason to get married are nothing other than emotional or religious on a personal level. The fact is if you remove religion from the equation, there is no basis what so ever for any talk of morality. You either have to go Utilitarian or you go to anarchy. Anything other than that requires one side to place their morality on the other. Either you are putting your morality on me or I am on you!
 @whoareyou I can't imagine going through life with your inability to distinguish differences. As well, you obviously have no idea what secular means, in what you call a brain it apparently is equivalent to nihilism.Â
 @kennewickman If we are going off a strictly secular notion of law, then why can't I kill you, take your wife and put your kids to work for me? If the only goal on this Earth is to perpetuate MY genes then what is wrong with that? If we are just animals, then isn't it my duty to do that and your duty to try and do the opposite? It cracks me up, because you are trying to impose your idea of morality on those who disagree with you in the same way. Secular ideas of morality is anything goes, the strong survive the weak get trampled on.  There is no right and wrong in a secular world. How do you justify any morality?Â
 @toadaway Now I don't care who you are..that was funny!
@toadaway You made me spit juice! Too funny!
How did you come up with an inference to morality laws from my comment? You're introducing a whole different agenda from the topic.
 @Patriot Well, maybe the problem is that the religious have been demanding laws against what they deem "immoral" rather than strictly limiting ourselves to laws that demonstrably protect the population. Not allowing gay marriage does nothing to protect the population, the only thing it does is to perpetuate some outdated and intrusive set of morals that some religious folks think everyone needs to adhere to. And as to morality and the law, the two may correspond but only if there is a secular reason. For example, it may be immoral in some religions to eat before sundown on Saturdays but since there is no secular reason for such a law, no such prohibition can be part of our law. As well, murder is considered immoral in religions but there is a secular reason to enact protections against murder. Basing laws upon "morality" is never going to work because "morality" just mumbo-jumbo
@Patriot  I was arrested for that once,but it was thrown out for lack of evidence.
 @Smokin Bear Because they fake being offended. If they really cared about gay rights they would stop buying gasoline because OPEC Nations stone to death Gays! Little bit of hypocrisy don't you think? Also it the Gay community want to have tolerance they have to become tolerant to other peoples views and standards! It is not a one way street!
you make a somewhat valid first point, but your second point is off target. For your first point, i think the reason people are protesting is because it's closer to home and you have a US business owner come out and basically state his "intolerance" and that it has been widely reported. To your second point, it really doesn't make sense, are you saying that they hate straight people and therefore straight people are intolerant of them, or if everyone was tolerant of everyone then everyone would get along? Not quite reality you are living in, the fact is, the country is still majority straight, white, christian, etc.  The intolerance usually stems from the majority in most societies, the minority will react to these intolerances, sometimes in a positive way or sometimes in a negative way, but nonetheless a reaction to the initial intolerance.Â
@wynooheeman @Smokin Bear In order to advance their agenda, Liberals create an atmosphere of crisis and fear that is used to justify their collectivist oppression.
I have to disagree and I'm not a fan of labeling. Hate the term "Liberal" because it has been overused and in the context of ad hominem discourse. The fact that I'm not an extremist could label me a liberal but it doesn't define me as a person.Â
I guess my original point is that if people expect tolerance, they need to model it as a matter of personal conduct a long with basic consideration for others.
The mayors are pandering. Chick-fil-a will where ever they choose. This is now a culture war. Another on the right showing he is a true American and saying only people like him have the right to pursue freedoms. And that is his right. His tune will change if sells goes down-god bless the free market, money trumps values.
Also take note at Form Ark Gov and Baptist mnister and current over paid FOX talking head Huckabee declaring a ""Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." as Dan Cathy speaks to the Baptist Press about the bibles defenition of family. They careful not to use the bible's defenition of marriage, after all arranged marriages for capital gain does not sound all that great.
@snoopy84
If his sales do go down it will only hurt the state as his precious sales create tax revenue..... Like shooting oneâs self in the foot.... Liberals worship the state and taxes in order to achieve a utopian government controlled society.
When did the owners of Chick Fil-A stop having a constitutional right to their beliefs? Why are government officials trying to impede on people's religeous beliefs and the way they run their company? Next the mayors of Chicago and Boston will say that they won't permit any Catholic hospitals or clinics. Or maybe they will keep the LDS church from building new churches too.
 @Magic 8 Ball Let's try and calm down here. Chick-Fil-A still has their constitutional rights, no one has been arrested. As a patriot and valiant defender of our Constitution surely you understand the out 1st Amendment protects the speech rights of the citizenry from government sanction but does not protect the speaker from public disapproval. Right?At this point the mayors of Boston and Chicago has stated their opinions that Chick-Fil-A is not welcome in their cities. Their is no legal problem with that anymore than there would be a legal problem with a mayor saying that Chick-Fil-A is welcome. See how easy that is? If these cities start denying zoning permits based upon the political positions of Chick-Fil-A then we have a completely different ball game and an interesting one at that.Â
Except that they mayors have stated they are going to do anything in their power to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities because of their religious beliefs. That is discrimination based on religion. And that is exactly what the founding fathers are addressing in the constitution when they said that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 @kennewickman I wonder if the mayor was conservative and the business was Planned Parenthood if you would apply your same "logic"? Man I don't know why you use the word "logic"?
???
@Sid Vishess @WARevolution Sid strikes again!
@T H I S @Fooey Patooey! Of course gays have human rights. But they don't take precedense over everyone elses constitutional rights. Do they?
@T H I S Not opposed to a Muslim Civic center being built anywhere EXCEPT at 9/11's ground zero. That would be like they are raising their flag and saying "Look, we won!".
 @Sid Vishess And don't forget the governor's "there is no deficit".
@T H I SÂ So much for liberals being higher educated than conservatives...
Â
What is a capitolist?
 @WARevolution Clinton owned up to perjury? When did that happen? Ted Kennedy admitted to manslaughter? Barney Frank put his boyfriend on the public payroll and admitted wrongdoing? Dodd admitted to that shady deal with Countrywide? Pelosi and her insider deals? Reid with that phony land deal in Nevada?
Â
Again, I wake up in the Parallel Universe...
"You see that is what libeals do. When we make a mistake, we own up to it."
Â
That's liberals, and your statement made me LOL. Since when do politicians of ANY party own a mistake?
Â
What's worse is that you believe what you said.
 @Fooey Patooey!Â
bwahahahaha
you're talking to a conservative. They don't think gay people have human rights.
Â
Human rights are reserved for white christian capitolist.Â
 @Magic 8 BallÂ
The mayor since recanted that statement.
You see that is what libeals do. When we make a mistake, we own up to it.
Â
And I am sure you were oppose to all those people fighting to stop the Muslim Civic center from being built in New York.
And I am sure you are equally opposed to all the people in the South who have actually used their local government to keep Mosques from being built
 @Magic 8 Ball Please, let's apply some logic. If they are going to do "anything in their power" I don't see a problem. Discriminating based upon religion would not be "within their power" so they wouldn't be doing that would they?
 @Magic 8 Ball How is that any different from the mayor who says he will do anything in his power to bring a company to his city?
And it's not because of his religious beliefs... it's because of his stand on human rights.Â
Â
 @Magic 8 Ball They absolutely have the right to their beliefs.  People also have a right to patronize or not patronize their business for any reason they choose.  Their rights aren't being impeded in any way.  When you take a controversial stance, you might suffer consequences.
@WhatAPickle I agree with you. You don't like their gay marriage stance, don't eat there. But wouldn't you agree that it is not right for the government to impede their business or beliefs because of that stance?
 @WhatAPickle Great, so when a conservative mayor attempts to keep Planned Parenthood out of their city you have no problem with it! Glad we cleared that up!
@WhatAPickle Go back and read the articles. There are official stances being taken. I wouldn't be surprised to see some law suites coming out of this.
 @Magic 8 Ball I see plenty of "stances" being taken, and no official actions in motion.  Looks to me like the system is working as it's supposed to so far.  I have no problem with elected officials taking stances.  It gives you a chance to know what they stand for, so that you can make an informed decision when it is time to vote.  If Chick Fil-A ends up being evicted from the NYU campus or actually banned from a city for religious reasons, then they will have been wronged, but not until then.  Freedom of speech is for everyone, not just the people you agree with.
No, I'm talking about official stances by government officials. See these articles...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/01/nyc-council-speaker-christine-quinn-asks-nyu-to-evict-chick-fil/http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/01/us/us-chick-fil-a-controversy/index.html
 @Magic 8 Ball Are you referring to the letter that the mayor of Boston wrote voicing his beliefs that Chick Fil-A wouldn't fit into the culture of Boston very well?  There's nothing legally prohibiting Chick Fil-A from locating there anyway.  The mayor of Boston merely voiced his beliefs -- he doesn't have the power to ban a chain from relocating there.  For some reason the media is making that letter out to be something it's clearly not.