Ryan Price

This conversation is closed.

Is the Firestorm Against Chik-Fil-A Justified?

With Chik-Fil-A's recent announcement that they support a traditional marriage they have under a firestorm of serious proportions. It was surprising to see that so many people were unaware that a Christian company, that is closed on Sunday's, is a proponent of traditional marriage.

However, with that aside, are the attacks warranted? Does Chik-Fil-A deserve such harsh actions against them. The mayor of Boston has banned them from the city. Boycotts have been planned. People have taken up arms against Chik-Fil-A. Do they Deserve this?

  • Aug 4 2012: I don't think that the mayor has the power to ban a company in Boston, but if he can then I don't think it's justified by Chick-Fil-A's comments.
    However, all other instances of anti or pro Chick-Fil-A demonstrations are completely warranted. Chick-Fil-A has become a conduit for people to express their opinions on marriage equality. In my opinion the CEO of Chick-Fil-A made a very bad business decision by expressing his opinions to an audience (his customers) in which at least 50% disagree with him.
    On another note this is a truely beautiful example of the freedom of speech. Even someone like me who is strongly opinionated on this issue can see that.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2012: Andrew Wiggin from Ender's Game??? :O

    It's really hard to say for me, so it's yes/no for me.

    Yes, because people are realizing that if they go eat at Chick-Fil-A, they're basically giving more money for the company. The company is then using that money gained to support no gay marriages, which is something that people are against. So in their power, people decide to boycott Chick-Fil-A and cut off their power supply.

    No, because I wanna simply go to a restaurant for its food, not for its political beliefs. Chick-Fil-A has good chicken sandwiches, and I should support them for making good chicken sandwiches.

    However, here's what I think will happen. I went to Wendy's the other day. I noticed they had a Chicken Sandwich on their menu that looks JUST like the Chick-Fil-A one, though not nearly as good. So if other restaurants out there start having the same stuff as Chick-Fil-A, Chick-Fil-A will be screwed. Because these other restaurants support gay marriages AND they offer the same food. So why should people go to Chick-Fil-A anymore?
  • Jul 31 2012: It seems most people have pretty much the same idea.

    Can he believe and say what he wants? Yes
    Can a city stop them from coming there based on this? No.

    It kind of seems like it has been blown way out of proportion.
  • Jul 30 2012: Well, I think as from an economic standpoint, it was very unwise. I'm not sure if it was the company which came out with a statement or a high up employee which does make a difference. I thought the company's latest response was a very diplomatic response that resembled "we are not getting involved in this; let the politicians fight this one out." The company received much criticism and a lot of bad publicity. That is just bad for business.

    That being said, the company can think what it wants. If they support a traditional view of marriage, no one can really change that. A company, like an individual, can think what it wants to. If it expresses its views and angers customers, then its profits will probably suffer. The idea that the company could be banned from a city is rather absurd. As someone already points out, the city isn't going to ban the company. A company can express whatever view it would like, but it will have to deal with the public's reaction.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: It's fully justified against the owner yes, but if this ends up hurting the employees then it may need rethought, surely not every employee agrees with the owner.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: This is a difficult question to answer. I'm not sure what grounds for being "justified" is. A lot of people feel very strongly about this issue. Those who support traditional marriage (disclaimer: I am guessing here) feel that their religious/moral values are being threatened by the possibility of same-sex marriages. Those who support marriage between any two humans not presently married and greater than some age (trying to be as board but specific as I can with this categorization) feel that basic human rights are being violated. Given those feelings, any national organization is bound to be under a firestorm from one side or the other. If the reasons behind those feelings are true (and people on both sides think that they are backed by some truth), then such demonstrations are completely justifiable. I would imagine that where you fall on this issue affects how you answer this question (whether or not the firestorm is justified).
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2012: The only problem is that one side isn't backed by truth at all on this issue. The idea that someone else's definition of marriage somehow impacts your own is complete and utter nonsense, and the people spreading this nonsense know it, they just want to drum up anger and hatred.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: I certainly agree that one side (being against "gay marriage") is wrong. However, someone from the other perspective may believe that we are inviting G-d's judgment / condoning a grave sin if "gay marriage" is allowed. I highly doubt that anyone spreads an idea that they don't believe just because they want to drum up anger and hatred. That may be the outcome of their behavior, but I disagree with what you charge as the motivation. If that is an expression of frustration on your part with what you perceive as obstinacy from those against "gay marriage", I can sympathize. However, I don't think such misplacement of motivations is productive, they just stoke further "anger and hatred" from those that disagree with you.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2012: Fair point... I think what I really meant... is that... One can only spend a limited amount of time on TV and in the media. One can only spend so much time on political causes. To call yourself Christian, and then dedicate time to those issues, rather than other much more pressing concerns of the poor and the unfortunate, is pure hypocrisy.

          Chik Fil A could have spent its time and energy, feeding poor people chickens, or giving free bibles out at a homeless shelter. They could have organized a charity event, for something productive, and gotten good press... Instead they chose this issue.

          In doing so they have proven that this is not about their faith, which would suggest much more productive means of helping one another... It's an outlet for anger they already experience with a group growing in self respect, that they don't like. This anger may also stem from gods wrath and judgment, but it is anger nonetheless.

          Spending time, money, and energy, on the gay rights issue, is not an act of faith, it's an act of anger. There are much more positive, and healthy ways someone can influence their community, and the bible is a book that will suggest a few.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: Boston Mayor Tom Menino has no such authority and has made no such attempt to ban a legal business from his city. All he has done is written a letter to Chick-fil-A expressing is opinion.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2012: The way I read the story he was attempting to block their attempts from starting a Boston branch. However, I may have misinterpreted. Thank you for pointing out that error.
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: Anyone, who has spent millions of dollars opposing same sex marriage... While people starve... Should read the bible. I'm not even a fan of the book, but it has better morallity in it than that.

    "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to get into heaven"

    Chik-Fil-A is stupid, and it should spend the money it makes selling chicken... making and raising... better chicken.

    That said. It's a free country, if they want to misinterpret a 2000 year old book to justify being judgemental pricks, who watch children starve... That's their right.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2012: Your argument defeats itself, while you yourself misinterpret the actual text.

      Indeed the Bible states as you say, "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into heaven" (Matt. 19:4). However, the actual meaning of this passage is that the pride and a love of riches that the typical rich man posses makes it very difficult for him to give fully their lives to Jesus.

      Furthermore, your assertion that, "Chik-Fil-A is stupid, and it should spend the money it makes selling chicken... making and raising... better chicken" is in itself a judgement. Also, I fail to see the evidence that they have "spent millions of dollars opposing same-sex marriage". Do you perhaps have evidence of this? Assuming that they have spent those "millions of dollars", are not advocates of same-sex marriage guilty of the same crime? With what I believe, millions of dollars spent on advocating same sex-marriage, children are starving. In your own words, "While people starve... Should read the bible. I'm not even a fan of the book, but it has better morallity in it than that".
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2012: That is exactly how I meant the quote. I think it is very difficult for any human being to use their wealth in an efficient way, in order to truly help the least among us. If I believed in heaven that would be the path to it, in my book, and, in my interpretation, the book of Jesus.

        Spending said money on same sex, or anti same sex marriage, is an inefficient use of resources for being a good human being. Ignorant, may have been a better word than stupid. They don't seem to understand what they are, and what people come there for.

        They admitted to donating to numerous organizations which then ran ads against prop 8 here in California. I think "Speaker for the Dead" is a better book than the bible personally... but I don't understand how people who call themselves "christians", spend so little of their money feeding and helping poor people. I mean, especially if you own a chicken restaurant, there has to be easier ways for you to use your money to feed the hungry... Hint... Think chicken.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: I can agree with you on one point. I cannot believe that there are so many people who call themselves Christians, yet do so little to live up to the standard. That being said, traditional marriage is a Christian value. Again your argument is a contradiction. You criticize Christians for not following their beliefs then criticize them, yet again for standing up for their beliefs.
      • thumb
        Jul 30 2012: I do not criticize them for standing up for their beliefs, I criticize their non sensical and self destructive priorities. Every dollar a christian spends fighting gay marriage while children starve, makes the entire christian faith look weak, petty, and childish.

        Also... traditional marriage in the eyes of government, is not a christian value. Jesus didn't say anything about government interaction with sexual relationships. Marriage, in the government sense, is a simple contract, which has nothing to do with the sacred union between a man and wife in the religious sense. That is why the argument is petty and childish.

        Finally... fighting to opposed the rights of an individual based solely on your perspective of their behavior... Is called a judgment. I don't remember JC being a big fan of those things.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2012: I do agree that there should be more done for the children, but you are merely using it as a distraction and moving away from the actual topic at hand. If you want to talk childish, let us talk of the hypocrisy that is occurring. For a group of people who demand tolerance they are sure intolerant of others. It is incredulous to believe that the same people who want that freedom of choice are infuriated when another group uses their freedoms.

          My argument is not whether or not homosexual marriage is acceptable, but rather is this uproar appropriate or not. The childish response has left me baffled. If they want to stand up against real intolerance, then stop buying oil. Some countries that make up OPEC put homosexuals to death. If someone wants to protest, protest that. I will join that fight. I will go to the streets for that fight. I will not condone an attack upon a group who decided to speak their views.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: It's not a distraction it's a matter of identity. If Chick Fil A, was actually a Christian organization, it would have better things to do with its money than fight gay marriage. There are much greater tragedies in the world. It infuriates me that these people call themselves Christian while being horribly judgemental pricks who waste their money helping no one.

        It would infuriate me even more if I actually considered myself a Christian. Of course people stopped shopping there when they decided to waste screen time talking about this nonsense. Why would you shop there? Why wouldn't you buy a chicken sandwich somewhere else? There's plenty of places that sell chicken and don't waste their time telling you gay people are going to hell. What they did was legal, they have a right to do it... and it was stupid, and it's going to cost them business. Capitalism baby, stupid companies are supposed to go out of business.

        People don't protest OPEC because oil gets them to work every day, or their family starves... A chicken sandwhich is easier to resist.
        • thumb
          Aug 7 2012: "There's plenty of places that sell chicken and don't waste their time telling you gay people are going to hell". This statement has revealed your ignorance on the subject at hand. Please provide an official picture/link of Chick-Fil-A saying that homosexuals should go to hell.

          "People don't protest OPEC because oil gets them to work every day, or their family starves... A chicken sandwhich is easier to resist." So in effect this statement means that those protesting Chick-Fil-A are not real activists. It is easy to protest Chick-Fil-A, that much is true, but to what end? What have they accomplished, but to be able to say to themselves that they did a good deed for the year. Roark was right, altruism does not exist. If it did, Chick-Fil-A would probably do more for the impoverished than they already do, and these so called protesters would be fighting the real evil, not some pseudo evil that they have constructed to feel good about themselves and not inconvenience themselves.
      • thumb
        Aug 8 2012: I can happily meet you there. That's true, they don't specifically say homosexuals are going to hell. They do support a church that does, so in some ways I would suggest you're arguing semantics. I on the other hand, did say that as emotional propaghanda, simply because I don't understand what anyone thinks they have to gain from this issue.

        I could not reconcile a belief in Christ with what these people are doing... and so the issue really pisses me off. That's not a valid rationed argument though. "Really pissing me off", is not always objectively incorrect, though I may wish it was.
        • thumb
          Aug 8 2012: Well seems we found some sort of common ground here. If you would like my view on the homosexual marriage debate here it is: As a Christian I cannot support homosexuality, however that being said, it is ludicrous for churches to say God hates homosexuals. The majority of Christians believe those people who claim that are actually insane. Leviticus 19:18 says “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." Thus any Christian who says otherwise is not a real representation of Christ and lack the understanding to go out and proclaim his name.
      • thumb
        Aug 9 2012: I just think we can both agree that there are better causes that a Christian can direct their time and money to fighting, than homosexuallity. Correct?

        I can definately agree that there are much better causes for human rights activists to fight for, than putting Chik Fil A out of business.
        • thumb
          Aug 10 2012: Sounds good enough to me. Glad we reached some sort of agreement here!