Chicken vs Principles - a saga of homophobic chicken

**Anthony Williams** · 2nd Aug 2012, 2:01 PM

Some of you here may already be aware of the ongoing Chick-fil-A saga here in the USA. But for those who aren't, I will summarise.

Chick-fil-A is a fast food chain here in the Southern USA, which unsurprisingly sells chicken products. It is renowned for its fairly outspoken Southern Baptist beliefs and its emphasis on "family values". Most notably, its restaurants don't open on Sundays, for that is the Sabbath. The founder, S. Truett Cathy, said of this: "I was not so committed to financial success that I was willing to abandon my principles and priorities. One of the most visible examples of this is our decision to close on Sunday. Our decision to close on Sunday was our way of honoring God and of directing our attention to things that mattered more than our business."

Under most circumstances, people would be applauded for standing by their beliefs. But what if you don't agree with that person's beliefs?

A controversy has been brewing of late. It's turned out that Chick-fil-A donated $8 million to the WinShape Foundation in 2010. The WinShape Foundation, in turn, donated large sums of money to other organisations, such as Focus on the Family, which are politically active in opposing same-sex marriage. Strangely, at the time, this wasn't commented on.

But in June this year, Chick-fil-A's Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy, made a statement on a radio talk show, where he said the following: "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'. I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about."

Cue shit-storm. Suddenly, people are loudly talking about boycotting Chick-fil-A. Fair enough - that's within their first amendment rights. Just as Chick-fil-A's political views are within its first amendment rights. You don't like the way a company operates, so you don't do business with that company. That's free speech, and something I totally agree with.

But what about when government gets involved? Remember, free speech is protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution. The Mayors of Boston and Chicago, two of the larger cities in the USA, are proposing bans that would stop Chick-fil-A from being able to open any further stores in those two cities. This has drawn fairly widespread criticism from a lot of liberal pundits and legal organisations. Kevin Jones, a renowned liberal blogger said of this: "[T]here's really no excuse for Emanuel's [Mayor of Chicago] and Menino's [Mayor of Boston] actions... you don't hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway."

So, the whole thing has turned into a bit of a clusterf***, really. Those who know me know that I support same-sex couples being able to be joined in union and have the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples do with marriage, whether same-sex unions are called "Civil Partnerships" or "marriage" or whatever. Likewise, I totally support free speech - as I said earlier, Chick-fil-A are entitled to whatever political views they wish to have, just as every person/entity is perfectly entitled not to do business with Chick-fil-A if they disagree with those political viewpoints.

But I agree with those who speak out against the Mayors of Chicago and Boston. I don't believe that it's right (or indeed Constitutional) for those men to make that call. Rahm Emanuel, the Mayor of Chicago, has said that Chick-fil-A's values are not the values of Chicago. Fine. Allow Chick-fil-A to open as many restaurants as they like, and if that's the case, they will fail and close down. That's business. But I violently disagree that those two men have the right to grant business licenses based on whether or not they agree with a company. That's a dangerous path to go down.

Does anyone here have any thoughts?

**MinaHarker** · 2nd Aug 2012, 2:44 PM

I think when you openly donate money to hate groups that promote execution for homosexuals, you deserve everything you get.

**Anthony Williams** · 2nd Aug 2012, 3:21 PM

Originally Posted by MinaHarker

I think when you openly donate money to hate groups that promote execution for homosexuals, you deserve everything you get.

I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as that, Mina. Certainly, the team at the top may have some pretty unsavoury views.

But what about the employees? Chick-fil-A keeps thousands of people in employment. Do all of them have the same hardline views as the leadership of the firm? Extremely unlikely. And what about those employees for whom the company provides scholarships to go to University, and many couldn't do that if it weren't for Chick-fil-A. It also provides funding for homes for orphaned children and for foster care.

I don't think it's fair to put everyone who works for Chick-fil-A into the same bracket. If the company were to go under, there would be a lot people who would not only lose their jobs, but children who would no longer be cared for, and teenagers who would no longer be able to attend university.

However, I highly doubt it'll ever come to that - the fundamentalist Christian community would ensure that the company remains in business.

I'm certainly not arguing over whether or not people are within their rights to boycott this chain of restaurants. I wholeheartedly believe that they are. I won't say that I'm boycotting Chick-fil-A, because I only eat there very occasionally (about once every 6 months, really) - I feel it would be pretty dishonest to say that I was boycotting it when I probably wouldn't eat there anyway! But if you don't like the way that a company does business, then don't do business with it. It's that simple.

But what I feel is wrong is what the Mayors of Chicago and Boston are trying to do. That goes against everything that the American Constitution stands for. Indeed, I would certainly call THAT illiberal, and goes against people's freedoms. IMO, that's dangerous. What would be next? Could the government force Chick-fil-A to not donate to certain causes? Would the government tell people how to think?

Ultimately, while I may not agree with Chick-fil-A's senior management's beliefs, I feel that this really exemplifies several things. Firstly, business practice. I've already harped on about that here. Secondly, free speech. Again, I've harped on about that. Thirdly, the role of government. Again, harped on about that. I feel that this will be an interesting case study, with regards to how things pan out in Boston and Chicago - I suspect that this could go to court.

What I feel is the real danger here is that a further line will be drawn between the Christian community and the LGBT community. There's already a feeling that Christianity is unwelcoming to the LGBT community. Yet, there are plenty of gay Christians. There are plenty of Christian denominations that have no problem with people who identify as gay. But we're seeing some pretty hard reactions on both sides here. I've seen people saying that the government should shut down Chick-fil-A. I've also seen people post photos on Facebook of them with huge amounts of Chick-fil-A food and some nasty comments to go with. The divide is growing because of these reactions, and it's just going to take a lot more work in the future to fix that.

**MinaHarker** · 2nd Aug 2012, 3:45 PM

I said nothing about the employees of the company, I don't know where you are getting that from.

**Anthony Williams** · 2nd Aug 2012, 3:50 PM

Originally Posted by MinaHarker

I said nothing about the employees of the company, I don't know where you are getting that from.

By implication, if you're saying that the company (i.e. it's senior management) deserves everything that it gets, then the employees are included in that, as whatever happens to the company, happens to the employees.

For example, I'd heard that people were trying to organise events where people would go into branches of Chick-fil-A and demand free food for the stance that the senior management have taken, for example. This will have no impact whatsoever on the senior management (who don't have to deal with people turning up and demanding free food), and will only effect the employees who have to try and remain polite in the face of this.

**MinaHarker** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:08 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Williams

By implication, if you're saying that the company (i.e. it's senior management) deserves everything that it gets, then the employees are included in that, as whatever happens to the company, happens to the employees.

For example, I'd heard that people were trying to organise events where people would go into branches of Chick-fil-A and demand free food for the stance that the senior management have taken, for example. This will have no impact whatsoever on the senior management (who don't have to deal with people turning up and demanding free food), and will only effect the employees who have to try and remain polite in the face of this.

I disagree with you. You have inferred incorrectly.

I do not agree with people who are targeting employees of this company at all, but when I say "they deserve everything they get" I mean that the company deserves to have problems opening new branches due to their large donations to groups which promote hate and violence.

**Anthony Williams** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:14 PM

Originally Posted by MinaHarker

I disagree with you. You have inferred incorrectly.

I do not agree with people who are targeting employees of this company at all, but when I say "they deserve everything they get" I mean that the company deserves to have problems opening new branches due to their large donations to groups which promote hate and violence.

Then I apologise for misunderstanding what you meant.

However, I feel that government should not get involved in this. The first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (along with freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition and freedom to assemble). This protects the senior management of Chick-fil-A and their views. They may even be able to claim freedom of religion here, although if I were them, I'd be going for freedom of speech.

If the Mayors of Chicago and Boston persist with this, then I suspect that we may see it played out in the courts over here in the USA. As things stand, I feel that the stance being taken is unconstitutional. Even though I disagree with the stance of the senior management of Chick-fil-A, the rule of law must come first.

**Rob McCow** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:20 PM

Selling processed chicken has nothing to do with homosexuality!

Chick-fil-A's Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy shouldn't use his position as a platform to preach his views. Firstly, his views are abhorrent, secondly it's bad for business.

**MinaHarker** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:22 PM

Originally Posted by Anthony Williams

Then I apologise for misunderstanding what you meant.

However, I feel that government should not get involved in this. The first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech (along with freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition and freedom to assemble). This protects the senior management of Chick-fil-A and their views. They may even be able to claim freedom of religion here, although if I were them, I'd be going for freedom of speech.

If the Mayors of Chicago and Boston persist with this, then I suspect that we may see it played out in the courts over here in the USA. As things stand, I feel that the stance being taken is unconstitutional. Even though I disagree with the stance of the senior management of Chick-fil-A, the rule of law must come first.

I don't know how US law works, but could it be argued the other way? That these Mayors are protecting their gay citizens from a company that seeks to hurt them?

**Anthony Williams** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:24 PM

Originally Posted by Rob McCow

Chick-fil-A's Chief Operating Officer, Dan Cathy shouldn't use his position as a platform to preach his views. Firstly, his views are abhorrent, secondly it's bad for business.

Ultimately, I agree with you on all points. However, his views are currently protected by the first amendment (and I can't see that changed). I definitely agree that it's bad for business.

To an extent, I've been playing devil's advocate in this thread. I absolutely disagree with the views of the Cathy family - I think that they're vile.

To play devil's advocate once more - what if the Cathy family had made their donations to these companies in their own name, and not in the name of Chick-fil-A? Would the current shit-storm still be happening? Or would that be slightly more acceptable?

**Anthony Williams** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:25 PM

Originally Posted by MinaHarker

I don't know how US law works, but could it be argued the other way? That these Mayors are protecting their gay citizens from a company that seeks to hurt them?

Well, Chick-fil-A itself doesn't actively seek to hurt them. Chick-fil-A made donations to one charity, which then made donations to other charities which do seek to hurt gay citizens. It's not directly Chick-fil-A.

Now, I'm not saying that that's okay. By any means. But it does mean that Chick-fil-A have effectively protected themselves against that argument. The views of the senior management would still be protected under the first amendment.

**MinaHarker** · 2nd Aug 2012, 4:26 PM

I guess I just find it hard to understand. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to empathise with that mindset.

**Zbigniev Hamson** · 2nd Aug 2012, 7:47 PM

I don't know how far the free speech defence holds, as because the right to "free" speech is full of so many caveats about incitement to this, or defamation of that, that free speech is never really as free as people seem to think it is.

But, having said that, the company doesn't seem to be directly discriminating against anyone in who it employs or who it will supply chicken products too, these are just the words of an individual who happens to be running the business, and some donations that may have eventually filtered down to some other organisation that isn't even illegal anyway*. How can a government body take action against a company for indirectly donating to a charity that supports the idea of that government's own laws remaining as they already are? Gay marriage ISN'T legal in the US (barring some minor exceptions) so what sort of bizarre mixed-message are they trying to send out here? "You have to abide by our legislation, people are even allowed to set up organisations to vocally support said legislation, but if you donate money to any of these organisations then we will crush you!"

I can't see the slightest justification for the political involvement.

More importantly though, what an utterly horrible name for a fast food restaurant. That alone would put me off eating there.

(* - also I think that describing the opposition to gay marriage as "seeking to hurt" gay people is somewhat hyperbolic)

**MinaHarker** · 2nd Aug 2012, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Zbigniev Hamson

(* - also I think that describing the opposition to gay marriage as "seeking to hurt" gay people is somewhat hyperbolic)

That's not all they fund. They appears they are also funding pressure groups that are lobbying the American govt to ignore Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals.

I don't think that "seeking to hurt" is hyperbolic at all.

I also think denying someone basic rights and treating them as lesser humans is pretty damn hurtful.

This link is good: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

Or how about this guy, who wants to criminalise and deport homosexuals? http://www.glaad.org/cap/peter-sprigg

His group (the Family Research Council) has been classed an "anti gay hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. CFA donates to them, too. Hurtful? Yes. Hyperbole? No.

**Zbigniev Hamson** · 2nd Aug 2012, 11:33 PM

I was going simply on the information on this thread I'm afraid. I'd never heard of any of the organisations or Chicken-u-like before.

**MinaHarker** · 3rd Aug 2012, 4:50 PM

I do have a few questions for Dan Cathy:

Presumably the "biblical principles" he feels he is sticking to refer to Lev 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

Therefore:

1. Why does Chick-fil-A sell pork products? (Lev 11:7-8, "And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.")

2. What are your clothes made of? (Lev 19:19, "You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.")

3. Do you, or any of your family, need glasses or have bad skin? Does that mean you don't then go to church? (Lev 21:20, "or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles" [may not approach the altar of the LORD])

Obviously there is a whole bunch more stuff that could be mentioned, but I find it hard to see how someone can use a single verse of the Bible to condemn others and yet pretty much ignore the others (even in the same book).

All quotations are from the English Standard Version of the Bible, via www.biblegateway.com.

**Si Hunt** · 3rd Aug 2012, 4:59 PM

Is it not odd that "crushed testicles" is singled out as a specific ailment which the Church are keen to disassociate themselves from.

No love for careless carpenters who didn't respect their vice, then. As if getting your testicles crushed wasn't punishment enough in itself!

Si.

**Dirk Gently** · 3rd Aug 2012, 5:36 PM

All Church people should be clean of vices, Si.

**MinaHarker** · 3rd Aug 2012, 6:20 PM

Originally Posted by Si Hunt

Is it not odd that "crushed testicles" is singled out as a specific ailment which the Church are keen to disassociate themselves from.

No love for careless carpenters who didn't respect their vice, then. As if getting your testicles crushed wasn't punishment enough in itself!

Si.

*snerk*

**Stuart Wallis** · 4th Aug 2012, 3:59 PM

Originally Posted by MinaHarker

That's not all they fund. They appears they are also funding pressure groups that are lobbying the American govt to ignore Uganda's plan to execute homosexuals.

I don't think that "seeking to hurt" is hyperbolic at all.

I also think denying someone basic rights and treating them as lesser humans is pretty damn hurtful.

This link is good: http://www.owldolatrous.com/?p=288

Or how about this guy, who wants to criminalise and deport homosexuals? http://www.glaad.org/cap/peter-sprigg

His group (the Family Research Council) has been classed an "anti gay hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. CFA donates to them, too. Hurtful? Yes. Hyperbole? No.

Here lies an interesting viewpoint on the First Amendment. Let's take it at face value and say that people have a right to say this, that and the other about homosexuals and homosexuality. (Voltaire gives all people the benefit of the doubt as well - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.")

Should these individuals that Mina mentioned say the things they have been credited with, then on the face of it, under the First Amendment they have every right to say whatever they like.

Should they get into power, then they change the levelness of the playing field, since they would therefore stop gay and lesbian people from saying "I am gay", and simultaneously staying in the USA. The Owldolatrus page states that there are already 17 states banning openly gay folk from living within their boundaries, and quite possibly me as well. In other words, face reprisal or else keep schtumm about parts of your personal life: the latter option is against their basic human rights because it's restricting their choice of area of domicile; the latter is against their basic human rights under the First Amendment.

Voltaire had something to say about that as well: "Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices."

**WhiteCrowNZ** · 5th Aug 2012, 6:52 AM

Originally Posted by MinaHarker

I do have a few questions for Dan Cathy:

Yeah - bravo. It's funny how the Bible can be used as a smorgasboard of principles. I remember Caesars quote about people moaning about taxation was "render to Caesar that which is Caesars". So I assume he goes with the Bible and never moans about any taxes he pays?

I think the problem I have with this is that this guy's "right to free speech" is all about him restricting the rights of another group. That to me is monsterously wrong.

As some might have seen on my Facebook, I feel disgusted he's even allowed to call it Principles, as bigotry seems closer to the mark.