CHICKEN BRUHAHA GETS BIGGER

chick fuh who...?

hahahahaa! Thanks for that jc. I needed it

It certainly seems like some in the LGBT are stooping to the level of these anti-gay marriage dicks. This makes me think of two things...

-The saying, "Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" applies here.

-You guys are becoming more like us breeders every day. Maybe the conservatives were on to something after all when they made the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage...

but I can't be responsible for the over-defensiveness of some people.

Methinks you missed Thack's tongue tickling his ear, Hawk.

I uninterestedly assumed hawk was using my post to further whatever the devil he happened to be on about at that moment. But thanks nonetheless for noting my jocular tone.

Just pointing up the truth, Thack.

Is there really any other way?

more here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-in-draws-smaller-crowds-than-appreciation-day.html

Huge crowds showed up to offer support to Gov George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Ross Barnett, ... .

It's deja vu all over again.

Not having read all of the posts in this thread there may be some redundancy in the following:

What is actually quite encouraging is that in terms of the two public reactions, there wasn't a bruhaha at all.

By all accounts both group actions were civil and without ugly incident.

It's true though that the numbers involved in "supporting" Cathy were far greater than those "opposing" him.

I intentionally focused on Cathy rather than Chick fil a, because it's really pretty ridiculous to link Cathy's comments to his chain of food joints and all the people who work at them.

It's also fairly pointless to boycott Chick fil a because of Cathy's remarks since any appreciable loss of business will hurt his employees, suppliers etc far more that it hurts him.

The remarks, by Cathy, by-the-way, (and I hope someone has pointed this out before me) that sparked the faux outrage of a handful of Democrat Mayors expressed essentially the same position held by President Obama, before he evolved into a right thinking individual.

From what I can tell, for a great deal of the "supporters" of Cathy who lined up around blocks to buy his product it wasn't an issue of same sex marriage, it was an issue of free speech, and a negative reaction to the bombastic thuggery of the mayors of Chicago, Boston and DC.

Those mayors are equally free to express their personal opinions about Cathy and his comments, but what disturbed so many people was their implied threat that they would use the power of their offices to punish him for comments of which they did not approve. (Some fools in the city governments made the threat explicit).

I found one Media report on the "oppositions" demonstration to be quite interesting as they interviewed a very reasonable seeming woman who said that she had no problem with Cathy expressing his personal opinion on the subject of marriage, but that she was there to oppose his efforts to infringe upon her rights. These efforts being defined as contributing to groups who oppose same-sex marriages.

Again, I've no problem with her doing what she did to register her displeasure with the way Cathy chose to spend his money, but if he has a right to express his opposition to legalized same-sex marriages, why doesn't he have a right to spend his money supporting organizations that attempt to influence the legal process in the way which he prefers?

I was glad to see another gentleman interviewed who told the reporter he respected Cathy's right to voice his opinion and spend his money on advancing that opinion, but he was there to register his firm disagreement with both.

The aforementioned mayors were attempting to coerce Cathy (and that's putting it mildly), but I don't think the woman was. I just think she has been programmed to think of our basic rights in a way that favors her opinions, which is unfortunate and which can lead to much worse than a bruhaha.

It is amazing to me that these offending mayors chose to make such a heavy handed response.

Not simply because it was clearly wrong, but because I can't, for the life of me, see the political advantage I am absolutely certain they thought they were garnering.

Maybe I'm way out of touch with Big City demographics, but is same-sex marriage really such a red meat issue in Boston, Chicago and DC that these mayors felt that there was nothing to lose and everything to gain by such an extraordinary reaction?

I doubt I'm more cynical than I should be and that these guys were speaking from the heart; without regard for political ramifications.

The bruhaha, such as it was, was created by these mayors. Again, it was very encouraging that the people, on both sides of the underlying issue, didn't take the bait.

There is definitely a brouhaha--this is still front burner stuff for news media. That may change, and reporters may rush off to the next big thing sometime soon. The reaction of big city mayors and of universities, however, were evidence of the brouhaha getting bigger, and so the title of the thread. It may well be tempest in a teapot stuff by now--if so, we should see that in the next few days.

I don't think it's going away anytime soon either.

We have the right to denounce them. They have free speech, so do we. And if it were a company that was supporting the KKK or the Jewish Defamation league, this company would be publicly lambasted across the nation.

This is a few weeks old now. Compare that to when the President came out in support of gay marriage - a couple of days of news. I saw one article today that says there is also a regional component to it where northeastern mayors look down their noses at Southerns, etc. One thing I think is certain is that CFA isn't going to change regardless of pressure. It is a privately held company and its owners are very anti-gay. If this hurts their growth, they don't care. If they have to look a little longer for licensees who follow their beliefs, they will. They are the Koch brothers of food.

In 1979 Anita Bryant in her anti gay crusade had advocates suggesting she deserved a "Gay Unity Award" for bringing people together to fight for their civil rights.

Well Dan Cathy I think you deserve that award too, Ive never seen so many neutral gays wake up. THAT IS SUCCESS!

TRUE...............

I think the gys oughta become prt of the chik filet cutomer base and stockholders an exercise their opinions that way.
Unless the product really sucks then a boycott usually peters out after a few days and then the backlash takes over until all the recent customers decide that Chik Filet really does suck as a food group.

I am not sure one way or another but I was under the impression this was a privately own company.

Of course it is. That's not the same as saying it's a closely held corporation. It may well be, but being privately owned doesn't state or imply that it is. I suspect it is closely held.

Closely held corps can be quite large, and still be closely held, at least in most states of incorporation. I believe Cargill, the commodity trading company, is still the largest in the US.

I work for s family own medical/electronic business for most of my career that was worth well over a billion dollars and did sales worldwide

I seriously doubt that any of the backlash of the mayors was motivated by regional prejudice. I know from life-long experience that there is a deep-seated contempt of southerners among northerners, but i've never seen it affect business.

I agree that this has more "legs" than other such stories lately. I started the thread to discuss whether or not "liberals" were going to shoot themselves in the foot over this one, and whether or not conservatives would be able to exploit this to their advantage. I acknowledge, of course, that these things cannot be controled--threads go where the participants want to take them. But some broad trends seem to show up here, and one is that people's positions are hardening. Another is that despite what the commentator i mentioned in the first post has said, it doesn't seem that "liberals" have shot themselves in the foot. (I keep putting liberals in quote marks because there are gay Republicans, and there are conservatives who love their gay children and friends. Perhaps this has not worked out exactly as the commentator suggested across the polemical divide for just that reason.) Finally, it seems that people who don't like Chick-fil-A's food, nor the owner's expressed opinions also don't like the thought of restraint of trade which they see as violating his first amendment rights.