Skip to content

Posts categoriezed as Chick-fil-A

But what was it actually like?

But what was it actually like? published on 1 Comment on But what was it actually like?
Now that I’ve made my strident post for the day, here’s one that will be much less so. I personally didn’t see any, but apparently there was some real misbehavior going on yesterday at Chick-fil-A restaurants, by both supporters and opponents, in various places on Mike Huckabee’s Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.

A CFO/Treasurer at Vante called Adam Smith no longer holds that role, having been being fired from the company after filming himself berating a Chick-fil-A drive-through employee.

Gay and lesbian employees at Chick-fil-A have had a rough time of it from all directions– they were hit with a barrage of homophobic speech from supporters of Dan Cathy, as well as accusations of supporting it themselves from customers/protesters/protesting customers who assume that working for the company means accepting the beliefs of its owners wholesale. Cathy himself has expressed how very much he would like for this to be the case, but it isn’t. And it isn’t fair to punish workers, especially low-level workers, for what Cathy’s family has said and done:

One gay employee who works at Chick-fil-A headquarters in Atlanta, Ga., and asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, says he is getting it from both sides. On the one hand, there is the customer who came in and said he supported Dan Cathy and then “continues to say something truly homophobic, e.g. ‘I’m so glad you don’t support the queers, I can eat in peace,'” the employee, who is 23 and has worked for Chick-fil-A since he was 16, wrote in an email. On the other hand, he continued, “I was yelled at for being a god-loving, conservative, homophobic Christian while walking some food out to a guest in a mall dining room.” He disagrees with Cathy’s views, but the reaction from the public has been just as hard to swallow. “It seems like very few people have stopped to think about who actually works for Chick-fil-A and what those people’s opinions are,” he wrote. “They are putting us in a pot and coming to support us or hate us based on something they heard and assume we agree with.” Gabriel Aguiniga, a gay employee at a Chick-fil-A in Colorado, also said the hardest part hasn’t been hearing Cathy’s comments. Instead, “[it’s] constantly having people come up to you and say, ‘I support your company, because your company hates the gays,'” Aguiniga, 18, wrote in an email. “It really takes a toll on me.” . . .”Now, anyone that works there is stuck with a stigma of being homophobic, even when many of us are far from it,” K said. One of her coworkers, who supports same-sex marriage, has had people say things like, “Don’t give me that hate sh*t,” and “I hope you choke on that chicken,” while she was handing out samples. But for K, the hardest part hasn’t been the actions of customers and protesters, it’s the money the company gives to anti-gay groups. “At the end of the day part of our profits still go towards Dan Cathy, and subsequently, all the organizations he supports,” she said. K is now actively searching for work elsewhere. Many of her coworkers, she said, are looking for new jobs, too.

And then….we have this:

I always say I admire Ed Brayton for his ability to document so much political lunacy that requires actually hearing and seeing the words come from the horse’s mouth, because I can’t do it. It’s some combination of horror at the words themselves and a general sympathy for people who embarrass themselves publicly, perhaps, but it makes videos like this one extremely hard to watch. But at least I got to laugh at 5:22-5:30.

ETA: At the Daily Beast, A Gay Chick-fil-A Employee Speaks Out. Excerpt:

We were so busy we nearly ran out of food. We did run out of some things, like nuggets, strips, lemonade, and waffle fries. Though we didn’t have to close early like we feared, by 10 p.m., we barely had anything left. Never before have I been so grateful that I have tomorrow off. Customers sang “God Bless America” in the dining room. They vocalized their support for “family values” in a way that made me want to vomit. We had two protestors outside, and I took five minutes to run out, hug them, and tell them: if I weren’t working here now, I’d be out here with you. They said, “It’s okay, we know what it’s like to have to work for a paycheck.” Hearing that was ten times better than hearing from my acquaintances on the other side of the coin: “How do you work there and still sleep at night, knowing their stance against equal rights?”  I sleep with a roof over my head, which is about all I can ask. I can’t tell you much more about the customers today, because of my limited contact with them. I work in the kitchen, so I don’t see much of the clientele.  What made today so difficult—more difficult than always being behind on food, running out of one thing or another, needing to be in two places at once, etc—was the attitudes of the other employees. No one really stopped talking about the reasons why today was as busy as it was. The people I work alongside kept going on and on about how powerful it was to be part of such a righteous movement, and how encouraged they were to know that there were so many people who agree with Dan Cathy. They went on at great length about how it was wrong not just for gays to marry, but to exist. One kid, age 19, said “I hope the gays go hungry.” I nearly walked out then and there. That epitomizes the characteristics of these evangelical “Christians” who are so vocally opposed to equal rights. Attitudes like that are the opposite of Christ-like.

ETA 2:  I have no comment on this, because nothing needs to be added. But do give it a read.

Bigotry Appreciation Day

Bigotry Appreciation Day published on No Comments on Bigotry Appreciation Day

Some photos from the event near me yesterday:

Some 200 people were standing outside in line, and I have no idea how many cars…they were winding around the block. Police officers were directing traffic. I parked across the street and walked over to have a look around, and noticed several people with the same idea– not just walking away with bags of Chick-fil-A food, but multiple bags. Each one looked like he or she was getting food for an entire family. My own appetite was gone– the sight of so many people happily, gleefully showing up to support the donation of over $5 million to groups that not only want to prevent gay marriage but make homosexuality illegal again turned my stomach. I’d thought I might go somewhere else and have a chicken sandwich, but even that didn’t sound like a good idea anymore. 
Every last person I saw was white and rather affluently dressed, and arrived in a nice car. Nobody looked as though a lightness of their pocketbook was forcing them to come here– quite the opposite, in fact. Poor Chick-fil-A has been “attacked” by people who believe in marriage equality choosing not to eat there anymore, so by golly it’s time to eat some chicken and show those non-homophobes what’s what! 
Two of my favorite tweets from yesterday:
But my favorite explanation of why the word “bigot” is appropriate for the people in those pictures above comes from Jen McCreight:

So you were just called a bigot I know your feelings are hurt. No one wants to be called a bigot, right? But before you do something silly like scream “FREE SPEECH” or say I’m the bigot, let’s rewind a bit. Chick-Fil-A has funneled millions of dollars toward certified hate groups in order to fund campaigns that depict gay people as pedophiles, fight against “gay behavior” and the legalization of same-sex marriage, and support dangerous “pray away the gay” programs. They also used their profits to support Uganda’s “Kill the Gays” bill. When I first found out about these atrocious things a couple of years ago, I stopped eating at Chick-Fil-A (despite how much I love their delicious chicken sandwiches). I did not feel right knowing my money could ultimately be used to hurt GLBT people. I could originally understand why someone wouldn’t boycott an organization that they disagree with politically. I bet there are things I buy that support things I hate, mostly because I don’t know any better, partially because I can’t financially afford to boycott everything. But now that Chick-Fil-A has been in the public eye, you know better. And if you drove to a Chick-Fil-A today to show your solidarity with the organization, you’re not just some random apathetic person who likes a chicken sandwich and doesn’t care about where their $5 goes. You are a bigot. You are saying “I agree with Chick-Fil-A’s anti-gay stance!” And your irrational hatred of gay people is bigotry at its finest.

No, it stemming from religion matters not at all. Religion-based bigotry is still bigotry.

No, Dan Cathy didn’t simply express support for marriage between members of the opposite sex (as if it needs supporting– who is trying to get rid of that, now?). His company has condemned gay marriage and actively fought against gay rights in general.

No, nobody said he doesn’t have the right to believe and say that. If you ate at Chick-fil-A out of some misguided belief that they did, and his right to free speech needs to be supported, your money would have been more appropriately donated to the ACLU.

No, you aren’t standing up for freedom, justice, and equality. You’re buying fast food to support a multi-million dollar corporation which opposes those things. Congratulations.

Priorities

Priorities published on No Comments on Priorities

A couple of months ago I wrote about different categories I fit in, ideologically and politically. I was tempted to expand on it earlier this month when PZ Myers wrote a post asking people what kind of atheist they are– scientific, philosophical, political, or humanist. I understood what he was getting at, but my first impulse was to ask “Why is the ‘atheism’ part the constant? The most important thing?” Because when it comes to politics and ideology I am, first and foremost, a free-speechist.

If you’re not a free-speechist, whatever else you believe and whatever priorities you give those beliefs, you’re not on my side. That seems harsh, maybe, but I’ll explain why that is, and what a free-speechist is.

A free-speechist is a person who believes that a free market of ideas is absolutely critical to the maintenance of an educated and moral society, and as such the only real justifications for government censorship of speech are those related to safety and property rights– e.g. you can’t shout ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater, and you can’t make money off of someone else’s creative work by representing it as your own. I value private forums which cherish a relative freedom of expression also, but a) as private forums they don’t have an obligation to allow anyone at all to speak, let alone everyone, and b) an “anything goes” atmosphere is not conducive to ideas being exchanged freely and productively, so some amount of moderation in order to eliminate abusive content and commenters is arguably not just permissible but necessary. So if you’re one of those people who whines that any sort of moderation whatsoever on an internet chat site, blog, or forum is wrong because it violates commenters’ freedom of speech, you’re not only wrong (since the First Amendment does not apply to private fora, and couldn’t since that would violate the owner’s right to freedom of association) but probably a troll.

Briefly put, trying to defeat an idea by either silencing the person voicing it or causing damage to their person or property is the coward’s way out. It’s an act of aggression against a person because you dislike the content of their ideas; it does not refute the ideas.

And no, a boycott isn’t a form of that. A boycott is an individual refusal to contribute to someone’s livelihood because doing so amounts to contributing indirectly to something you wouldn’t support directly. Similarly to a private forum, not being allowed to boycott would mean abdicating your own freedom of speech by being made to support ideas you don’t agree with whether you like it or not.

This might seem like a rather long-winded way to get to the point that I’m livid about hearing that yet another government official has seen fit to wield unique power to prevent someone from doing business because he objects to the content of that person’s ideas:

District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray says he won’t support an expanded presence for Chick-fil-A in the district because the president of the fast-food chain is opposed to gay marriage. Gray, a Democrat, referred to the company’s product as “hate chicken” in a tweet on Friday. His statement referenced his “long-standing strong support for LGBT rights and marriage equality” and followed similar statements by mayors in Boston, Chicago and San Francisco that the company was not welcome.

You know what’s depressing? It’s depressing that Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, of all people, are pursuing the correct course of action with regard to freedom of expression by encouraging people who agree with their opposition to gay marriage to vote with their wallets and support Chick-fil-A. Of course, neither of them is actually in office and therefore in a position to use legal power to promote or inhibit a view by damaging the business of the person espousing it, so let’s not give them too much credit. Let’s not give them any credit, for that matter, except to note that what they’re doing does not violate anyone’s freedom of speech whereas blocking someone’s business simply because you don’t like the views they support absolutely does.

And I say this as a passionate advocate of LGBT equality since 1993. There is a right way and a wrong way to fight for these things. Silencing and intimidation are the wrong way.

That’s why I’m a free-speechist.

Chick-fil-A stuff that happened today, in increasing order of difficulty of predictability:

Chick-fil-A stuff that happened today, in increasing order of difficulty of predictability: published on 3 Comments on Chick-fil-A stuff that happened today, in increasing order of difficulty of predictability:
1. Rick Santorum jumps on Mike Huckabee’s bandwagon (if that sounds dirty to you, it’s not my fault) and declares that he too is going to eat at Chick-fil-A on August 1st– as well as today with his entire family, which took three tweets to explain– in support of that beleaguered Christian business which is just standing up for what’s right by doing their level best to prevent marriage equality. 
Predictability difficulty level: 0. Santorum never met an anti-gay cause he didn’t like.
2. Dan Savage decides that Chick-fil-A totally sounds like a euphemism for the act of a woman rectally penetrating a man with a strap-on. 
Predictability difficulty level: 1. You know that Savage was the force behind the re-definition of “Santorum,” right? 


3. Eugene Volokh patiently and calmly explains why banning Chick-fil-A from establishing a business in a city because you disapprove of their support for a political cause is not only an unconscionable abuse of power but also un-freaking-constitutional:

But denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996). It is even clearer that the government may not make decisions about how people will be allowed to use their own property based on the speaker’s past speech. And this is so even if there is no statutory right to a particular kind of building permit (and I don’t know what the rule is under Illinois law). Even if the government may deny permits to people based on various reasons, it may not deny permits to people based on their exercise of his First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if the applicant expresses speech that doesn’t share the government officials’ values, or even the values of the majority of local citizens. It doesn’t matter if the applicant’s speech is seen as “disrespect[ful]” of certain groups. The First Amendment generally protects people’s rights to express such views without worrying that the government will deny them business permits as a result. That’s basic First Amendment law — but Alderman Moreno, Mayor Menino, and, apparently, Mayor Emanuel (if his statement is quoted in context), seem to either not know or not care about the law.

Predictability difficulty level: 2. As Popehat remarked,

4. The Jim Henson Company severs their relationship with Chick-fil-A as a consequence of the latter company’s support for anti-gay causes. Chief Executive Lisa Henson opts to affirm the company’s standpoint on this issue by donating their payment to GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation).  Jim Henson toys are pulled from Chick-fil-A kids’ meals. George Takei posts the following on his Facebook wall:

Predictability difficulty level: 5. That’s a pretty decisive move for the muppet makers, and cements the understanding that Chick-fil-A’s actions are anything but personal and simply supportive of “traditional biblical marriage.”

5. Roseanne Barr tweets that Chick-fil-A customers deserve to get cancer.

Predictability difficulty level: 7. Of course, I don’t know if Barr has a habit of wishing mortal illness on people who decide not to protest businesses which oppose civil rights, or if she simply has a bet with Thomas Menino on who can make those businesses seem most sympathetic. Note: there certainly are ethical and health concerns to be had in eating meat from animals who were fed antibiotics, but a) that kind of meat sure as hell isn’t exclusive to Chick-fil-A, and b) it isn’t likely to give you cancer. 
6. Chick-fil-A claims that the Jim Henson toys were pulled from kids’ meals for safety reasons. But apparently they’re concerned about being believed in this claim, because it sure looks like they created a profile on Facebook for a non-existent teenage girl to defend their honor. “Abby Farle” turns up on a post made on Chick-fil-A’s wall doubting the reasons given for pulling the Jim Henson toys, quoting bible verses and claiming that the toys were pulled long before the company divorced itself from the pushers of biblical-marriage-only. Only thing is…it turns out “Abby Farle’s” pictures are actually of a redheaded teenager in Shutterstock stock photos. 
I dunno. It could, of course, still be legit….
Predictability difficulty level: 9. This seems like a desperate move, or a move made by someone particularly unfamiliar with the Streisand Effect. 
It’s hard to say what wackiness remains yet to come. 

Persecution complex tastes like chicken

Persecution complex tastes like chicken published on 5 Comments on Persecution complex tastes like chicken

Wishing I’d stop blogging about Chick-fil-A? Yeah, so am I. But you see, the ridiculousness just keeps on coming, and I can’t help but remark on it. Two items today, neither of which is remotely surprising, but each is actually rather fascinating in its predictability. Let me show you what I mean:

Item #1: Conservative Christian politician labels criticism of contributions to a bigoted cause “attacks,” asks people to stand up for God by helping the bigots out. 

A new Chick-fil-A franchise opened up recently near me. They built a two-lane drive-through with ample room for long lines of cars, but additional security was still necessary in the first week or so they were open, and every day (except Sunday, of course) those long lines continue to form for lunch, dinner, and yes, breakfast too. They don’t seem to be hurting for business at all, but former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is nevertheless concerned that Chick-fil-A might be hurting financially from the relentless horrible bullying of people expressing their displeasure about Chick-fil-A’s ownership donating millions of dollars to anti-gay-rights causes. So by golly Mike Huckabee is doing something about it, and that “something” is declaring that Wednesday August 1st should be a day of appreciation for Chick-fil-A, when everyone who wants to “affirm a business that operates on Christian principles” will get themselves a chicken sandwich and waffle fries for Jesus. Thus far, Huckabee’s Facebook campaign for this purpose has attracted more than 38,000 people who forgot that their savior condemned divorce but said nothing about homosexuality followers.

Item #2: Self-proclaimed “irreverent raconteur,” forgetting that he has roughly half the intellect and none of the wit of H.L. Mencken, non-ironically condemns those who have “attacked” Chick-fil-A (by refusing to dine there for ethical reasons) while at the same time maintaining that his own reasons for choosing to eat there are beyond reproach. 

Requisite caveat: It is entirely possible that this guy is a Poe. I am forced to conclude that the column is legitimate since it didn’t appear in The Onion or Landover Baptist but an actual community blog section for The Washington Times, but it’s…well, honestly hard to believe. Let me give you some examples:

When I decide to buy something I have only one criterion: Is it the best quality at the best price to satisfy my needs or desires?  I do not believe in social compacts, social responsibility, or any other idiotic political mumbo jumbo. I only believe in getting the best product or service at the lowest price. . . I only care about getting a tasty meal fast. That is all that counts. My wants and needs trump social-moral-economic-political-justice equine excrement every single time. . . He just believes that marriage is defined as a partnership between a man and a woman. For that he must be tarred, feathered, and lynched.    To the lynch mobs and exploding heads, his belief about marriage is an egregious, heinous crime. Expression of beliefs that run counter to the lynch mob is not to be allowed.  The spiteful screechers and scribblers came out with the usual false accusations of hatred and homophobia – whatever that is.

And it goes on, and on, and on like that.

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such a spectacular display of someone declaring that he doesn’t give the tiniest shit about anyone else while simultaneously claiming that their slightest objection to anything he considers important amounts to…well, you saw it. A lynch mob. People who boycott an eatery because they dislike the political contributions of its owners are just like a group of rabid racists who torture and kill people for being the “wrong” color. In other words, people who object to bigotry are just like bigots themselves.

What?

Leaving aside the immediate concern of why a person who professes to not even know what homophobia is should be heeded when making proclamations about when boycotts in response to it are or aren’t legitimate…you can understand my confusion and refusal to take this seriously. Social responsibility is “idiotic political mumbo jumbo.” Social justice is “equine excrement.” Bigotry against homosexuals is apparently not even comprehensible as a concept. Poe, American from 1954 or modern day Saudi Arabian? Your guess is as good as mine, but suffice to say…do not want.

How not to protest Chick-fil-A

How not to protest Chick-fil-A published on No Comments on How not to protest Chick-fil-A

Yes, I strongly support boycotting Chick-fil-A because of the large amounts of cash they’ve donated to anti-gay causes. But Boston’s mayor Thomas Menino has gone way, way beyond that by declaring that he intends to block Chick-fil-A from opening any branches in his city because of their political leanings:

“Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino told the Herald yesterday. “That’s the Freedom Trail. That’s where it all started right here. And we’re not going to have a company, Chick-fil-A or whatever the hell the name is, on our Freedom Trail.”

Dear Mayor Menino,

Chick-fil-A does not discriminate, to my knowledge. They do not forbid gays from working for them or mistreat gay employees, and they do not forbid gay patrons or treat them any differently than they treat any other patrons. You are both mistaken in that regard and rather hilariously unaware of the irony of declaring that you’re an “open city” in the same breath as you proclaim your opposition to a restaurant conducting business there because you disagree with the ideology of its owners.

Ken at Popehat lays it out:

I haven’t seen any evidence that Chick-Fil-A discriminates in hiring or service. Rather, they give money to a cause I despise, one that promotes social discrimination. But the government doesn’t get to pick and choose what social causes are permissible, and any government actor who aspires to that power is a lowlife thug. What’s particularly alarming about Menino’s thuggery is how openly his referencing to licensing “difficulties” reveals how things really work in government: whatever rights you think that you have, practically speaking some bureaucrat can punish you for exercising them on a whim, and there’s very little you can do about it. Menino represents the ethos of government actors who think quite frankly that this is right and just and how it should be — that they, our masters, should be able to dictate what we think and do and say if we want to do business in their fiefdom. Menino could use his bully pulpit to call on Bostonians to reject Chick-Fil-A if they come to town. He could call for social opprobrium on Chick-Fil-A and its affiliates and even on its patrons. He could organize protests and marches and letter-writing campaigns. He could carry a sign in front of Chick-Fil-A saying “BE LES BIGOT” if it opens. But if he says he’ll use the coercive power of government to retaliate against Chick-Fil-A for views he doesn’t like, he’s totalitarian. If you support him because you agree with him (and with me) that Chick-Fil-A’s stance on gays is worthy of condemnation, then you’re a damned fool, and don’t let me catch you whining if some other government actor retaliates against an individual or business because of a political stance you like.

Gay rights or chicken sandwiches?

Gay rights or chicken sandwiches? published on No Comments on Gay rights or chicken sandwiches?

From what I know, there’s no ethical case to be made against Chick-fil-A’s food or business model in particular. They use pretty much the same quality chicken as any other fast food place, many of their meals are actually pretty healthy compared to most similar establishments, and they apparently treat their employees well. That makes it especially unfortunate that over the past several years they’ve been donating millions to groups which oppose gay rights, and they’re proud of it:

Its president, Dan Cathy, said this week that his company was “guilty as charged” in response to a question about whether it opposed the concept of same-sex marriage—a forthright admission that surprised even those who have pointed out the fast food chain’s financial ties to groups fighting equal rights for gays and lesbians. “We are very much supportive of the family—the biblical definition of the family unit,” Cathy told the Baptist Press. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.” In the past, Chick-fil-A has given millions to WinShape, a group that donates regularly to anti-gay organizations like Focus on the Family, a fact that has drawn increasing scrutiny from pro-LGBT rights consumers of late.

I’ve written on this topic last year, so this isn’t news to me. I do however wonder how many happy Chick-fil-A customers haven’t heard a word about this before.

They are a family-owned, family-led business, who are married to their first wives, and they thank God for that. Fine, great. I don’t imagine anyone begrudges them that. They’re supportive of only the biblical definition of the family unit– fine, and I won’t ask for clarification on which biblical definition of the the family unit they’re talking about. But that’s obviously not all– they’re also very much opposed to anything other than what they believe to be the biblical definition of the family unit to be, and are trying very hard to legally prevent it. So Mr. Cathy, you should be honest about that. If a company run by a gay couple who had never been married before, and declared how supportive they are of the same-sex family unit, they would be drastically remiss in failing to note it if they also donated millions to outlawing marriage between a man and a woman.

You aren’t just grateful for what you have. You don’t just support what you have. You condemn what other people have and want to have, and are doing your best to make sure they don’t get it. That goes beyond religious commitment and into bigotry, and we should make no bones about saying so. 

Oh look, another reason not to patronize Chick-fil-A

Oh look, another reason not to patronize Chick-fil-A published on 2 Comments on Oh look, another reason not to patronize Chick-fil-A

They’re suing a t-shirt artist for having the nerve to market shirts that say “Eat more kale”:

A folk artist expanding his home business built around the words “eat more kale” says he’s ready to fight root-to-feather to protect his phrase from what he sees as an assault by Chick-fil-A, which holds the trademark to the phrase “eat mor chikin.” Bo Muller-Moore uses a hand silkscreen machine to apply his phrase, which he calls an expression of the benefits of local agriculture, on T-shirts and sweatshirts. But his effort to protect his business from copycats drew the attention of Chick-fil-A, the Atlanta-based fast-food chain that uses ads with images of cows that can’t spell displaying their own phrase on message boards.  In a letter, a lawyer for Chick-fil-A said Muller-Moore’s effort to expand the use of his “eat more kale” message “is likely to cause confusion of the public and dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A’s intellectual property and diminishes its value.”Chick-fil-A, which trails only Louisville, Ky.-based KFC in market share in the chicken restaurant chain industry, has a long history of guarding its trademark, and the letter listed 30 examples of attempts by others to co-opt the use of the “eat more” phrase that were withdrawn after Chick-fil-A protested. The Oct. 4 letter ordered Muller-Moore to stop using the phrase and turn over his website, eatmorekale.com, to Chick-fil-A. Muller-Moore, 38, of Montpelier, says he won’t do that. “Our plan is to not back down. This feels like David versus Goliath. I know what it’s like to protect what’s yours in business,” he said. So he has enlisted the help of Montpelier lawyer Daniel Richardson and the intellectual property clinic at the University of New Hampshire School of Law’s Intellectual Property and Transaction Clinic. “Bo’s is a very different statement. It’s more of a philosophical statement about local agriculture and community-supported farmers markets,” Richardson said. “At the end of the day, I don’t think anyone will step forward and say they bought an ‘eat more kale’ shirt thinking it was a Chick-fil-A product.”

Original reasons not to go to Chick-fil-A here and here.

Muller-Moore’s shirts can be found at eatmorekale.com

Hat tip to Dr. X

Follow-up: Jesus Chicken edition

Follow-up: Jesus Chicken edition published on No Comments on Follow-up: Jesus Chicken edition

I wrote before about how the conservative Christian-affiliated chicken chain Chik-Fil-A has received some very negative feedback about their contributions toward anti-gay political causes.  Here’s the latest on that:

Focus St. Louis and the Clayton Chamber of Commerce said today that they are canceling a planned presentation by Dan Cathy, president and COO of Chick-fil-A, following complaints that Cathy and his company are involved with anti-gay organizations. . .  The decision to cancel Cathy’s March 18 presentation here was made after PROMO, a statewide organization that advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, protested his appearance and asked Focus and the Chamber of Commerce to reconsider. Ellen Gale, the head of the chamber, said today that when the groups agreed to co-sponsor Cathy’s appearance, they had no idea he held controversial views.  “We are a pro-diversity culture here and certainly don’t want to offend anyone,” Gale said. “We didn’t know anything about this when he was booked.”  

Equality Matters replies (I paraphrase) “Damn skippy,” and lists extensive documentation of everything they dug up on Chik-Fil-A’s contributions and communications.

The problem with “Jesus chicken”

The problem with “Jesus chicken” published on No Comments on The problem with “Jesus chicken”

Those familiar with the Chik-Fil-A restaurant chain have known for quite a long time that the ownership is explicitly conservative Christian, which hasn’t meant much for people who like to eat there except that they must remember it’s closed on Sundays.  But recently it has come out (pardon the expression) that the company also contributes significantly to anti-gay causes.  The New York Times says:

Nicknamed “Jesus chicken” by jaded secular fans and embraced by Evangelical Christians, Chick-fil-A is among only a handful of large American companies with conservative religion built into its corporate ethos. But recently its ethos has run smack into the gay rights movement. A Pennsylvania outlet’s sponsorship of a February marriage seminar by one of that state’s most outspoken groups against homosexuality lit up gay blogs around the country. Students at some universities have also begun trying to get the chain removed from campuses. . . Over the years, the company’s operators, its WinShape Foundation and the Cathy family have given millions of dollars to a variety of causes and programs, including scholarships that require a pledge to follow Christian values, a string of Christian-based foster homes and groups working to defeat same-sex marriage initiatives.

Hence a certain amount of outcry from gay rights groups.  Change.org has created a petition asking Chik-Fil-A to stop funding anti-gay groups such as Focus on the Family which has so far received over 25,000 signatures, and many individual gay rights supporters have decided not to patronize the restaurant chain any longer.  Alvin McEwen writes at Pam’s House Blend that “lgbts also have a right to decide where NOT to spend our money. Furthermore we and our allies have a right to make a stink in regards to a company who wants us to buy its product, but not afford us respect.”

In other words, a boycott. It’s a time-honored concept– a way for people to express their disagreement with the ethics of a company by refusing to do business with it.  Otherwise known as “voting with your wallet.”  The idea is that financial support for an institution enables it and therefore can be construed as an endorsement of its policies, therefore revoking such support while saying “Hey everybody!  I’m revoking my support!” means that you’ve both ceased enabling that institution and attempted to make others aware of your reasons and encourage them to do the same.  It’s a legal and peaceful way of making your views known.  Right?

Not to Michelle Malkin, apparently.  In these efforts the conservative columnist sees an “ugly war” waged by a “left wing mob”:

Progressive groups are gloating over Chick-fil-A’s public relations troubles exacerbated by the nation’s politicized paper of record. This is not because they care about winning hearts and minds over gay rights or marriage policy, but because their core objective is to marginalize political opponents and chill Christian philanthropy and activism. The fearsome “muscle flexing” isn’t being done by innocent job-creators selling chicken sandwiches and waffle fries. It’s being done by the hysterical bullies trying to drive them off of college grounds and out of their neighborhoods in the name of “human rights.”

Gosh, you’d think that people were crowding the streets screaming and trying to use the law to prevent Chik-Fil-A from erecting a new establishment purely out of objections to its ideology!  Oh wait, that’s what people did in reaction to the proposed so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.”  What’s happening in this case is an objection to ideology, yes, but not just that.  It’s an objection to political efforts on behalf of that ideology to oppose equal rights for a segment of the American population.  And that objection is not taking place through violent means or legal enforcement– it’s taking the form of voluntary boycotts, and student efforts to encourage their universities to stop using Chik-Fil-A as a vendor.  Essentially, they are asking universities to participate in the boycott as well.

During the protests in New York at Cordoba House, many of us were asking conservatives who opposed the Islamic community center why they oppose the property rights of the building’s owners.  Now as gay rights advocates are boycotting Chik-Fil-A, I would ask Michelle Malkin why she doesn’t support the right of individuals to do business with whom they please.  It’s one thing to say that while boycotts in general are fine, this one in particular is misguided and inappropriate because of x, y, and z.  Then we could have a discussion on the merits of x, y, and z and would probably still disagree, but the basic understanding that everyone has a right to speak their mind both verbally and with their wallets would be there.

But that’s not what she wants to do.  The objections Malkin is making could be applied just as easily to any boycott by conservatives of liberal businesses.  The next time an organization like the American Family Association declares that it will boycott a automobile manufacturer or food producer for so much as advertising in a gay-friendly way, I wonder if she will call them “hysterical bullies,” or instead support them in speaking out against the fearsome left wing mob of…people who are okay with the idea that there are gays who want to do things like drive cars and eat soup.

Trying to decide who do business with can be tricky for people who care about the political involvement of companies and corporations (and trust, they will go on being involved in politics whether we care or not).  The most important part of minimizing that difficulty is freedom of expression.  We have to be able to find out, to research, to exchange ideas, to act, to let others know of our actions, and to hear about theirs.   The way to influence an entity whose primary concern is its profit margin is indisputably through our business choices– it’s the only power we as individuals have, which makes it sacred in a way.  It shouldn’t be treated lightly, and it should never be denied.