Huckabee to GQ: Gay Marriage Will End Civilization

^^^

this is a fast-food franchise people

benefits are probably a 25% discount off their shitty food

chick-fil-a actually offers kinda crazy benefits, i know many ppl who chick-fil-a paid for their college for example, fwiw they do walk the walk in terms of being fundie xian beyond hating gays, not being open on the sabbath, etc., until recently i actually used their being much better arguably more progressive employers than their competitors as my get out of jail free card for still giving them business despite the knowledge that any examination into their politics would definitely reveal some sickening shit (boycotted them during the terri schiavo endgame though). tbh i'm still not sure it's not an adequate reason - chick-fil-a's influence is certainly greater there than in whatever soon to be lost cause it throws money at. at the same time though fuck 'em and fuck mike huckabee and fuck rick santorum.

don't know what kind of presence they have in 'blue' states but they are HUEG around here and i suspect all this flap is going to do is increase their profits.

Not that my twitter/facebook feeds are representative samples, but when the gay Oreo thing was posted I noticed a lot of people making fun of people for saying they would never eat Oreos again because now Oreos are gay, but then suddenly! many of those same people will never eat Chick Fil A again.

in the short term definitely - this isn't whole foods coming out as conservative - but in the long term this hurts them, not that the cathys care at all, these fuckers live to leave money on the table for the greater glory of the lawd.

interesting old forbes article: The Cult of Chick-fil-A

Danielle Alderson, 30, a Baltimore operator, says some fellow franchisees find that Chick-fil-A butts into its workers' personal lives a bit much. She says she can't hire a good manager who, say, moonlights at a strip club because it would irk the company. "We are watched very closely by Chick-fil-A," she says. "It's very weird."

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

http://images.forbes.com/media/magazines/forbes/2007/0723/Forbes_0723_p080_f1.jpg

fuck rick santorum.

― balls, Thursday, 26 July 2012 00:49 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

loved this guy rushing to his local branch as soon as he heard it was bigoted the way other people rush to the buffet when there's a meal deal

schlump, I don't know, it's kinda hard for me to articulate, but it's like . . . I'm sure the mayor of Boston could do through the membership roll of the local Christian Businessmen's Association and find 100 locally owned businesses giving money to the exact same outfits Chick-Fil-A is, is he going to have them shut down? I know, I know, slippery slope, but it just smells a bit to me. Like, all the shit you can flex your political muscle about and you're going to do it over a chicken place and its attitudes about gay marriage? I can't even really explain it.

xxp well, see,there, if there's employment discrimination going on then that's a horse of a different color. As it were.

no, thanks for that, that's what i was after. i think the principle's very true - that meaningful across-the-board improvements would trump visible grandstanding - but it's almost impossible to work out what grandstanding is going to be significant, & what quantity of it will need to happen to effect change; the chronologies of legislation and public attitudes are separate but obviously feed into one another. it's like if you looked through the history of important supreme court decisions & considered them in proportion to the actual cases they discussed, which are p often small in scale or not necessarily entirely representative of a certain issue in microcosm. seeing some picture of the muppets respectfully publicly disagreeing w/these guys, & knowing that, at some slight risk, in cost-benefit terms, of overstepping & alienating, government figures are coming out to stand up for what's right feels good to me. & maybe that's it - feels good - but it's something (& something feels like more and more the older i get?, idk). alfred otm, too, re: benefits.

i think i see more & more noble value in doomed, small-scale holdouts. like individuals boycotting places, as a moral act. what i was saying before, about how automatically separating the opinions of a company from customers' attitudes towards that company is a sad deferral to the stature of corporations is about how you're kinda fucked, now, as a consumer - i don't know that we ever were, but it doesn't feel like we are able to directly influence behaviour by granting or refusing our support - you almost might as well go to the place you hate for all the tangible effect it's going to have, your $3 unlikely to tip a balance in McDonalds staying open or WalMart kicking its employees around any less. someone saying no cheers me up, like as a necessary human outlet for disapproval in spite of its futility.

i often have students whose solutions for major world problems amount to "you should all stop shopping at walmart" and it's like, oh you beautiful well-meaning naive young man....

(they usually recommend that you shop at e.g. target instead to which it's hard to respond with a :facepalm:)

hard NOT to respond

i feel you but i think it's easy to go too far the other way. i stopped shopping at tesco, here, a while ago. i just don't go there: i go to sainsbury's: sainsbury's is probably as bad. but it isn't tesco! tesco doesn't get my money. it doesn't notice & it is doing okay without me. but it is a tax evader, & does not even iirc sell tilda thai jasmine rice, so i do without it, even if i just am out & wanna buy cashew nuts & there is nowhere else around. i am hungry out of righteous spite. as soon as you start on the road of the other place is just as bad you keep in check at least the impulse to not support somewhere. you have to pick your battles, & stores are an interesting choice because the idea of forgoing their auto-selective selling point of convenience is going to impinge on other areas of your life (drive further/more time in car/less time at home/children screaming your name/why must father drive across the border for a kitchen sponge). i guess i am reluctant, even though it is wrong, to totally discard the value of the small moral choice that people are making. even if it makes no quantifiable difference, like it's good practice. i know this is stupid, & worse that it facilitates a whole model of feeling good without doing anything, or feeling good without earning it (there are maybe a lot of contemporary models of this - supermarkets that let you 'donate' to a charity w/a token, petition-signing, who knows). but it can't quite be nothing because it's part of your attitude towards the world & it informs other decisions you make. i'm trying not to exclusively justify all these things as MORAL GRAINS OF SAND, ultimately vindicated by their accumulation. or the mayor guy's righteous stand as awesome because it strikes a blow for equality, necessarily. but that's some of it. it's trying at least. vegetarianism is funny because as soon as you get one foot in it you are at the bottom of a ladder, compromised by your leather shoes & egg-glazed bagels & a million other things. but a little something is better than nothing, & people saying fuck chick-fil-a & through a weird domino effect inflicting Time With Dad on Rick Santorum's poor not even hungry children feels worthwhile to me.

i'm not saying its not worth doing but the idea that it is a real solution is a little naive

sure

I like Target's chicken spinach sausages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2m4qDUycQ4

Rahm Emanuel seems to want to block C-f-A from expanding in Chi, Greenwald calls bullshit.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/rahm_emanuels_free_speech_attack/

As my Salon colleague Mary Elizabeth Williams noted when writing about the controversy in Boston: “Aside from the fact that Chick-fil-A is always closed on Sunday, there’s no evidence those beliefs have been institutionalized in any way. There’s no record of refusing service to gay patrons, or unfair hiring practices, or a hostile work environment.”

This has been my reason for staying quiet about it.

Rahm Emanuel seems to want to block C-f-A from expanding in Chi, Greenwald calls bullshit.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/rahm_emanuels_free_speech_attack/

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, July 26, 2012 12:12 PM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah greenwald is completely OTM as he is so often.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/26/589841/memo-to-the-media-and-the-ambivalent-chick-fil-a-condemns-discriminates-and-campaigns-against-lgbt-people/

that article still doesn't demonstrate any outright employment discrimination.

i mean the CEO can say he's a nazi and hates jews but unless his company is shown to be discriminatory in their policies it remains a free speech issue.

"shown to be discriminatory" = someone actually can claim to have been harmed

I agree that this whole debacle/situation has been light on actual antigay discrimination in CfA policies/treatment of gay customers, but it is worth remembering that they were just sued by a Muslim employee for religious intolerance

which is not to say "obv they hate gay ppl too and are treating them the same way", but rather to say "let's not pretend that this is a welcoming-to-all PR image being fucked up by a dumb corporate head a la Target"

I had my own personal boycott going because there aren't any more of them in my vicinity (lol) and I hate their name (double lol). I think, in academic terms, it is a terrible precedent for city officials to openly single out establishments and proclaim they are unwelcome in their cities due to the CEO's personal beliefs; I also think, in practical terms, that every single city discriminates in this manner all the time, with the discrimination couched in soft terms of "oh you missed a filing" or "oh, that process changed and now the window of opportunity is gone" and it's super fascinating to me that the social climate has swung to the point where you have elected officials openly stating "we don't want people who think like this to do business in our city".

yeah i agree.

idk i'm just cynical about this. doesn't every city contain enterprises run by some fucko? for whom the red carpet was run out? i mean, what's at stake here? really seems like some internet-democrat culture war bandwagoneering by these two big city mayors, immediately struck me as gross.

i mean, fuck chik-fil-a and all, but that's for me to say as a citizen, not for the chief administrator of a city.

djp otm

which is not to say "obv they hate gay ppl too and are treating them the same way", but rather to say "let's not pretend that this is a welcoming-to-all PR image being fucked up by a dumb corporate head a la Target"

i'm not saying that. i'm just saying that until the company is convincted of employment discrimination, rahm emanuel etc.'s attempts to "ban" them from their cities will remain largely a free speech issue. if chik-fil-a gets slammed by an employment discrimination verdict then it's a different matter, potentially.

well... http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0723/080.html

Chick-fil-A, the corporate parent, has been sued at least 12 times since 1988 on charges of employment discrimination, according to records in U.S. District Courts. Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston, sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn't participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

ok. that's reason to question whether they should move into chicago. but rahm emanuel didn't explain his decision on the basis of employment discrimination, but rather on the basis of the CEO's statements about homosexuality.

I am not disagreeing with you in terms of rhetorical strategy

i imagine lots of large companies are sued for employment discrimination, tho. 12 times in 24 years doesn't seem overwhelming, particularly if there's no mention of the company's culpability.

^think so too

I never heard of this joint til the last couple years cuz, u know, New York. Certainly wouldn't eat there now. But...

doesn't every city contain enterprises run by some fucko?

How about pharmaceutical giants? Munitions makers? Telecoms that give to Romney, Focus on the Family etc? If you're going to start banning 'evil' businesses how far do you want to go?

That Forbes thing is likely damning, but if there was no verdict against them in any of those 12 cases they have a fig leaf to employ. "Never Been Convicted."

I tend to be absolutist about the First Amendment so I get instantly discomfited when a person voted into office makes statements about what is permissible speech.

i imagine lots of large companies are sued for employment discrimination, tho. 12 times in 24 years doesn't seem overwhelming, particularly if there's no mention of the company's culpability.

― mookieproof, Thursday, July 26, 2012 2:26 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah, esp. for a huge chain like this. mcdonald's has probably been sued 100s of times. doesn't mean chik-fil-a doesn't discriminate, but there's not quite a smoking gun.

i mean the antipathy to this company is heartening but i wish people could get as angry at big oil.

most people in this country have more of a need for gas for their cars and plastics for their everything than they do fast food fried chicken from one specific chain

iow, oil companies are actually holding us hostage, CfA is not

most people in this country have more of a need for gas for their cars and plastics for their everything than they do fast food fried chicken from one specific chain

one exception: college students

yeah i know dan, it's just unfortunate isn't it?

it's more than unfortunate but it's also understandable

there's also a relatively simple exit plan for most ppl if they detest CfA and don't want to support them; it's not quite as easy to live in the first world without plastic

It's fantastic.

I dunno, I kinda like this!

http://gawker.com/5929341/openly-gay-internet-celebrity-antoine-dodson-upsets-fans-by-expressing-support-for-chick+fil+a

srsly cannot believe how stupid some of the comments on greenwald's twitter are. it doesn't seem like such a hard thing to get: boycotts, protests, and withdrawing advertisements are all legit and laudable ways to protest a business. using government power to BAN that business isn't legit or laudable.

I think he's getting more trolls than usual

one exception: college students

ha, this is the fucking truth. in my experience, chik-fil-a is always, always the most popular option in a campus food court where it is available.

I dunno how to post tweets but

Edwin Lee ‏@mayoredlee

Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer.

the sad thing is i haven't been to chik-fil-a since graduating and every single fucking time i've seen it mentioned in the last week i've felt the overwhelming urge to go there