Recently, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy told the Baptist Press that the company values families, and tries to embody a family-values culture. He said:
We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.
Cue the liberal boycott and subsequent conservative buycott. It seems like the fastest way to boost a business’s sales is for liberals to try and boycott it for espousing conservative ideals. Remember Whole Foods? CEO John Mackey published in op-ed in 2009 saying that he did not support Obamacare and that it would raise the cost of doing business. Liberals boycotted, and then all of a sudden the health food stores were jammed with freedom (and deodorant!) loving people trying to figure out the difference between 'organic' and 'hormone-free.'
So liberals decided that Chick-fil-A hates the gays, even though that’s not even close to what Dan Cathy said, and therefore must be made to pay for their intolerant ways! Conservatives, eager to stand up for Dan Cathy and his first amendment right to freedom of speech, organized a buycott for Wednesday, August 1, at Chick-fil-A franchises across the country.
It worked. The restaurants in every corner of the nation were packed. Because tasty chicken and free speech are awesome.
As I perused Facebook yesterday, I saw several posts from apolitical friends saying that they were ‘sad’ or ‘scared’ for the future of this country when so many people would go out of their way to support ‘hate.’ It occurred to me that too few people understand what this is about, because it really has very little to do with gay rights.
Chick-fil-A has never refused to serve, or even hire, someone based on his or her sexual orientation. The company does not have an official position on gay marriage; they just value traditional marriage. Having an opinion that marriage is between one man and one woman is nothing new, and in fact is a position held by Barack Obama until very recently. Let me repeat: Chick-fil-A has never, ever discriminated against the homosexual community.
Dan Cathy dared to express a completely valid opinion, and liberals tried to vilify him for it, with the goal of shutting him up. Conservatives rallied around his right to speak his mind in the best way they could: Boosting his business.
Now here’s your feel-good story of the day ... how did the supposedly intolerant Chick-fil-A employees treat protesters accusing them of hate? They passed out cold water to them. Oh yeah, Chick-fil-A is totally evil. Or something.
Do you think Dan Cathy was out of line or within his rights by expressing his opinion on marriage?
Image via Randy Son of Robert/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Vacuum Your Rug
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
KStew Refuses to Shower
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
Comments 64
Here's what makes me laugh though: If this were switched around, say, he said he supported gay marriage. Say there would be flocks of people against gay-marriage calling for boycotts for them being heathens or sodomites or "the reason our country is going to hell", or whatever (and there would be because look at JC Penney and Ellen). None of you would say a word against it.
None of you would say a word against it.
Flat out lie. When the JCP/Ellen thing went down, plenty of "none of you" voiced their support for JCP/Ellen.
rightside - I didn't say nobody stood up for them so nope, not a lie. I wondered how many of those who are now complaining about the Chick-fil-A boycott would be the boycotters if Cathy's beliefs were reversed. I'm sure there would be many of you. And guess what? That would be fine.
Too bad those who are boycotting (people/companies, not cities) aren't being shown that respect. That is my point.
Hockey - I have no idea why people didn't boycott Covergirl. I'm not one who gets up in arms over homosexuals in advertisements. You should ask the people who do get riled up about it. Whether it was about Ellen or a gay couple in the ads, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't change my point. As for whether JCP knowing what they were getting into, that they should have expected a backlash, that should go for Cathy as well, don't you think? I understand he answered the question in an interview with a religious magazine, but he should not be surprised that it came out and is now causing an uproar. He absolutely has the right to say whatever he wants and believe whatever he wants and run his company however he wants. However, he does not have the right to be free from the criticism or consequences of sharing those views. Just as JCP should have expected their backlash, Cathy should have expected the same. I supported the people's rights to boycott JCP. It didn't jive with their values, they certainly don't have to spend their money there. The same goes with the boycotters of CFA. They don't have to spend their money supporting a company that donates to groups they are against. I do agree with you that it has been blown up to ridiculous levels by both sides, but yes, many people have been boycotting them for years and it has been because of their donations. That's not something that just came out as public knowledge. It's just that more of the public knows about it now.
And I also agree with you on the mayors. I have never once defended what they were trying to do. It's on a different level than the individuals/companies.
Jaga, you didn't "wonder" about the outcome - you said:
None of you would say a word against it.
So, explain to me how this is a truth? Are you in everyone's head, and/or able to predict the future? Because that's the only way it's not a lie.
So, explain to me how this is a truth? Are you in everyone's head, and/or able to predict the future? Because that's the only way it's not a lie.
Yep.