Chik-Fil-A

[David W Pratt]

Evidently the owner is extremely, socially, conservative and has come out (inappropriate term) against same sex marriage.
Two questions spring to mind, are the stores owned by the company, or are they franchises? In the latter case, any boycott would hurt the (probably innocent) franchisees long before Mr. Cathy felt any pinch.
Second, do any of the stores have a record of refusing service to any of the LGBT community?
Surely the one in Manhattan, at NYU doesn't.

[hanleyclifford]

Everyone, including a businessman, is entitled to his opinion, so long as he is prepared to accept the consequences.

[Norman Bernstein]

As much as I despise the guy's views on homosexuality, Bloomberg and Menino were completrely wrong in trying to block their expansion plans based on those views...

[Gerarddm]

Indeed so, and I am not pleased that some have called for somehow banning them from their locales. What stuff.

[2MeterTroll]

why if the business is not suited for your city then it gets banned. happens all the time what's the big deal now? one day you want corporations to be corporations the next you want them to have the same rights as people.
these guys have out and out proclaimed they are bigots so they get to pay for being bigots, maybe we need more folks to stand up to bigotry.

[Kaa]

why if the business is not suited for your city then it gets banned. happens all the time what's the big deal now?

Well, there is that thing, called the First Amendment...

Kaa

[johnw]

This controversy resulted in the worst thing Matthew Yglesias ever wrote: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...your_city.html

I really don't think it's okay to ban businesses because you don't agree with the political views of the management. If you go in that direction, how long until some town bans a business for having the opposite views on gay rights to those expressed by Mr. Cathy?

If you want to show your disapproval, boycott the business. No one is making you give them money.

[BrianY]

why if the business is not suited for your city then it gets banned. happens all the time what's the big deal now? one day you want corporations to be corporations the next you want them to have the same rights as people.
these guys have out and out proclaimed they are bigots so they get to pay for being bigots, maybe we need more folks to stand up to bigotry.

Hey 2MeterTroll - Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Should a city be allowed to discriminate agianst business just because the mayor doesn't like what the business' CEO says?

I agree with Norman - as reprehensible as I find this guy's views to be, I do not think that it is right that his stores are banned. Consumers can choose to patronize the stores or not as their conscience dictates. This is one instance where I'm with the Libertarians - let the market decide. If a store fails becasue people decide that they don't want to patronize it, that's too bad for the franchisee (assuming that they're franchise store), but it was that person's decision to "hitch his wagon" to someone whose views are so controversial.

[John Bell]

Evidently the owner is extremely, socially, conservative and has come out (inappropriate term) against same sex marriage.
Two questions spring to mind, are the stores owned by the company, or are they franchises? In the latter case, any boycott would hurt the (probably innocent) franchisees long before Mr. Cathy felt any pinch.
Second, do any of the stores have a record of refusing service to any of the LGBT community?
Surely the one in Manhattan, at NYU doesn't.

Wikipedia is your friend:

Business model

Chick-fil-A uses a model significantly different from other restaurant franchises, notably in retaining ownership of each restaurant. Chick-fil-A selects the restaurant location, builds it, and pays the rent, while retaining ownership. Whereas franchisees from competing chains need about $2 million to operate a franchise, Chick-fil-A franchisees need only a $5,000 initial investment to become an operator. The company gets 10,000-25,000 applications from potential franchise operators for 60-70 slots they open each year. Chick-fil-A gets a larger share of revenue from its franchises than other chains, but the formula works well for operators - franchisees make an average of $190,000 per year. In 2010 Chick-fil-A took the industry lead in average sales per restaurant, making an average of $2.7 million per restaurant in 2010 (McDonald's was second with $2.4 million per restaurant).[8]

My admin assistant's daughter married a the son of a guy who operates a CFA franchise, and she's confirmed the wiki entry. Getting a CFA store is a big deal and they have very high expectations for their operators.

AFAIK, CFA doesn't discriminate who they serve. In my experience it's rather the opposite, they have a very service-oriented go-the-extra-mile-for-the-customer ethos in place at the stores. According to kids I've known who work there, they pay better than other fast food chains. In exchange they expect a very high standard of cheerfulness, work ethic, and customer service from their employees or else they won't work there very long.

Even though I don't happen to agree with Truett Cathy's viewpoint on homosexuality, there are a lot of other things he's done that I think are quite admirable. I'm telling people that my choice either to patronize or not to patronize a particular store is not a political act. There's enough politics going around, why insert it into everything we do?

As far as the mayor's pledges to block CFA, pox on them as well. It's just another example of venal politicians pandering to their bases. Glenn Greenwald had a tweet the other day aimed directly at Rahm and decrying the whole kerfuffle: "It's naive, but whenever there's a free speech controversy, I'm always surprised by the number of people who don't actually believe in it."

[David W Pratt]

Thanks, John

[2MeterTroll]

he's got all the freedom in the world to say whatever he wishes. along with that comes the freedom to take the consequences. same with any other freedom folks forget the second part or blame it on someone else.

[johnw]

Thanks, John

And good on Glenn Greenwald. Free speech means people you disagree with have a right to conduct their lives and their business without government intervention because of the things they've said.

[2MeterTroll]

Well thats his take on it. personally its no bother to me that the guys was refused and i would like to see where city governments sit in that law. cause if this proves true then there going to be a whole lotta folks suing real soon. it doesn't sound to me like this was a store it sounds like it was an operations node. and its not very unusual to see a big business being refused for its impact on the city or town.

[Flying Orca]

Sounds like a boycott is in order.

[Paul Pless]

Sounds like a boycott is in order.

How many Chik-Fil-A locations are there in Winnipeg?

[Glen Longino]

I'd rather be gay,
than eat at Chik-Fil-A!

Call me a poet!

[John Smith]

Everyone, including a businessman, is entitled to his opinion, so long as he is prepared to accept the consequences.

The principle of free speech means you can state your opinion and NOT suffer consequences. If there are consequences, the speech is not free.

I would like to know this man's position on the Muslim Community Center a couple of years ago.

If he was opposed to that being built there, then he's just wearing the old "shoe" now.

He should have the same right as any other similar business to do business in any city.

[Kaa]

I'd rather be gay,
than eat at Chik-Fil-A!

Umm... go for it? :-D

Kaa

[John Smith]

he's got all the freedom in the world to say whatever he wishes. along with that comes the freedom to take the consequences. same with any other freedom folks forget the second part or blame it on someone else.

As I've said, the first Amendment is frequently miscontrued. If the speech has consequences, it is not free. Freedom of speech means speech free from consequence. Everyone has the right to his opinion, and to voice that opinion, and no consequences should be suffered.

Remember the old, "I don't agree with what he said, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it."?

[Glen Longino]

Umm... go for it? :-D

Kaa

You're not the first person who's ever told me that.
All of them were gay!

[John Smith]

And good on Glenn Greenwald. Free speech means people you disagree with have a right to conduct their lives and their business without government intervention because of the things they've said.

I think it goes further than that and people tend to knee jerk reactions. Why, for example, would you not listen to the music of someone who's music you enjoy because of his political opinions? Where do you draw the line? If a guy finds a cure for cancer and holds views you don't like, do you keep his cure out of your hospital?

Would the Mayor of New York be able to keep a duly elected Representative of Congress out of his city because that member of congress holds the same views as this guy holds?

[Kaa]

You're not the first person who's ever told me that.
All of them were gay!

...and all in the name of saving you from the horrible horrible fate of eating at a Chik-Fil-A! So, were you saved? :-)

Kaa

[2MeterTroll]

sure i would do the same. anyone has the right to say anything (almost) they want and be heard. that ga-ron-teed. but getting popped in the mouth if someone dont like it is also a freedom of speech. it the freedom to take the consequences.

Sorry but if i follow what you say then i have no complaints about the republicans, democrats or anyone else cause all of them are acting out there freedom of speech. since i am not supposed to enact consequences than not only can i not complain i cannot boycott, demonstrate, vote, choose, or anything else. sorry you get to say your piece and i wont let anyone stop you but i will let someone knock your teeth out after you have spoken. that too is freedom of speech. So where do we draw the line? when one moves there lips? when a company puts out a statement? when a guy hits another? when we go to war? its a call that needs to be made cause freedom with no consequences is not freedom.

As I've said, the first Amendment is frequently miscontrued. If the speech has consequences, it is not free. Freedom of speech means speech free from consequence. Everyone has the right to his opinion, and to voice that opinion, and no consequences should be suffered.

Remember the old, "I don't agree with what he said, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it."?

[Glen Longino]

...and all in the name of saving you from the horrible horrible fate of eating at a Chik-Fil-A! So, were you saved? :-)

Kaa

I was saved,
Oh happy day,
from Chik-Fil-A,
and being gay!

[Kaa]

So where do we draw the line?

The line is pretty clear-cut and well explained in even the most basic civics course. Sure you don't want to go educate yourself on how the First Amendment works in the US?

Kaa

[Kaa]

I was saved,
Oh happy day,
from Chik-Fil-A,
and being gay!

...do I sense anti-gay bias here? :-P

Kaa

[Glen Longino]

...do I sense anti-gay bias here? :-P

Kaa

If you're gay, it's okay by me!

[Kaa]

If you're gay, it's okay by me!

But it's your happy day! :-D

Kaa

[hokiefan]

The principle of free speech means you can state your opinion and NOT suffer consequences. If there are consequences, the speech is not free.

I would like to know this man's position on the Muslim Community Center a couple of years ago.

If he was opposed to that being built there, then he's just wearing the old "shoe" now.

He should have the same right as any other similar business to do business in any city.

That is not at all what the Bill of Rights says. It says the government may not infringe on your freedom of speech. There is no restriction on market consequences. In fact market consequences may be construed as free speech by the consumers.

Cheers,

Bobby

[Flying Orca]

How many Chik-Fil-A locations are there in Winnipeg?

None, but I did get subjected to a truly excruciating webcast that featured their business once...

Anyway, I don't need to live somewhere to realize that a boycott may be appropriate.

[Paul Pless]

None

Figured. They are primarily a southern company. I sometimes wish there was one near Hell, but I think the closest one is south of Louisville. . .

[Flying Orca]

Why, for example, would you not listen to the music of someone who's music you enjoy because of his political opinions?

I wouldn't support, by purchasing his product, someone who espoused views I consider to be toxic to humanity. That includes musicians, though I'm not aware of any whose music I like and who are openly anti-gay.

[Flying Orca]

Figured. They are primarily a southern company. I sometimes wish there was one near Hell, but I think the closest one is south of Louisville. . .

When I first heard about them, I was intrigued because their food sounded reasonably good for fast/convenience food. On the other hand I was put off by their name, which didn't make any sense to me in print because I mentally placed the emphasis on the second syllable and shortened the "A"... Anyway, I had thought I might look for one next time I was in the US, then realized I wouldn't find one anywhere I was likely to go.

Now I'm not so interested in supporting them.

[Flying Orca]

Who subjected you to that awful thing? Were you unable to turn it off and therefore traumatized?

It was a work thing. I had agreed to go, despite the Christian content in this particular event, because a researcher whose work I like was supposed to appear. His appearance was insufficient compensation for the rest of the day, which was quite hideous.

[Flying Orca]

How horrible! I'm surprised that you are able to rise from your bed to use a keyboard!

The stupid, it burns.

[Flying Orca]

Is that some sort of Canadian lingo? I've not heard that phrase here among educated people. Or undecuated ones for that matter.

I'm not surprised you're out of touch with current idioms.

[John Bell]

Stick a fork in this thread, it's done. Forty posts and we're well into the ad hominem attacks. Might as well end it now before someone invokes Godwin's Law.

[Flying Orca]

I don't feel out of touch with the educated simply because I don't use silly idioms or social network speak.

The gap has less to do with education than it does with age. O tempora o mores and all that.

Many people use such to avoid a real discussion.

I suppose you'd like me to believe that it was a sincere desire for a real discussion that led you to snark all over my comments? Pull the middle one, it's more fun for me.

[Kaa]

Pull the middle one, it's more fun for me.

Snort :-)

Kaa

[Phil Y]

There's a certain irony in the name methinks.

[2MeterTroll]

oh darn i suppose citizens united had it right all along.
damn i am sure glad your so smart all them judges over the years should have consulted you.

The line is pretty clear-cut and well explained in even the most basic civics course. Sure you don't want to go educate yourself on how the First Amendment works in the US?

Kaa

[Kaa]

oh darn i suppose citizens united had it right all along.
damn i am sure glad your so smart all them judges over the years should have consulted you.

Um, could you go and sort it out with wardd? He thinks I'm pretty dumb. You tell him I'm smart!

:-D

Kaa

[johnw]

Stick a fork in this thread, it's done. Forty posts and we're well into the ad hominem attacks. Might as well end it now before someone invokes Godwin's Law.

Yeah, Godwin's Law. It's like something Hitler would have thought of.

[johnw]

I don't feel out of touch with the educated simply because I don't use silly idioms or social network speak.

Many people use such to avoid a real discussion.

Oh, it has nothing to do with education or even age. Failure to get the joke is like failure to know the score, it's a measure of how much you're paying attention, or not.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

As I've said, the first Amendment is frequently miscontrued. If the speech has consequences, it is not free. Freedom of speech means speech free from consequence. Everyone has the right to his opinion, and to voice that opinion, and no consequences should be suffered.

Huh? So we're free to speak as long as it's inconsequential? Doesn't seem worth it. Of course there can be consequences. They shouldn't, generally, be imposed by the state. Mr. Obama has significantly undermined this principle, about which hardly anyone gives a rat's ass.

sure i would do the same. anyone has the right to say anything (almost) they want and be heard. that ga-ron-teed. but getting popped in the mouth if someone dont like it is also a freedom of speech. it the freedom to take the consequences.

Sorry but if i follow what you say then i have no complaints about the republicans, democrats or anyone else cause all of them are acting out there freedom of speech. since i am not supposed to enact consequences than not only can i not complain i cannot boycott, demonstrate, vote, choose, or anything else. sorry you get to say your piece and i wont let anyone stop you but i will let someone knock your teeth out after you have spoken. that too is freedom of speech. So where do we draw the line? when one moves there lips? when a company puts out a statement? when a guy hits another? when we go to war? its a call that needs to be made cause freedom with no consequences is not freedom.

Pretty incoherent, but aside from the mouth-popping, I think I agree.

[John Smith]

sure i would do the same. anyone has the right to say anything (almost) they want and be heard. that ga-ron-teed. but getting popped in the mouth if someone dont like it is also a freedom of speech. it the freedom to take the consequences.

Sorry but if i follow what you say then i have no complaints about the republicans, democrats or anyone else cause all of them are acting out there freedom of speech. since i am not supposed to enact consequences than not only can i not complain i cannot boycott, demonstrate, vote, choose, or anything else. sorry you get to say your piece and i wont let anyone stop you but i will let someone knock your teeth out after you have spoken. that too is freedom of speech. So where do we draw the line? when one moves there lips? when a company puts out a statement? when a guy hits another? when we go to war? its a call that needs to be made cause freedom with no consequences is not freedom.

Popping someone in the mouth is not free speech.Going to war is not speech.

Expressing an opinion is speech. If you believe it is a proper consequence against a spoken opinion to take an action designed to cause financial harm to the one expressing that opinion, I submit you misconstrue the concept of free speech.

I also would ask you to seriously consider where you draw the line. If this guy didn't make chicken sandwiches, but produced a medication that cured cancer, would you think it a proper consequence to prevent that drug from being used in your city?

[John Smith]

That is not at all what the Bill of Rights says. It says the government may not infringe on your freedom of speech. There is no restriction on market consequences. In fact market consequences may be construed as free speech by the consumers.

Cheers,

Bobby

It makes no difference: freedom of speech is an accepted principle. If your speech has consequences, it is not free.

Please address my question of not letting a medication into your city because the guy who owns the company holds an opinion you don't like.

A very basic tenant of free speech is your right to say something I might find offensive. Being offended is part of the price we pay for our freedom.

I think this entire knee jerk reaction is stupid. And it sets a dangerous precident. What other litmus tests might we put on businesses before we allow them a permit in our city? Which, incidentally is the government creating consequences for speech.

[John Smith]

I wouldn't support, by purchasing his product, someone who espoused views I consider to be toxic to humanity. That includes musicians, though I'm not aware of any whose music I like and who are openly anti-gay.

They could be and you not know. I think you cut your nose off to spite your face if you enjoy the music and choose to boycott it.

We confuse speech with actions. If a man is anti-gay and that is reflected in his hiring practices, it might serve some purpose to impose a consequence. However, let's look at the big picture and maybe avoid any energy products the Koch Brothers are associated with.

This could get complicated. Actions are one thing: speech is another. Speech itself is not free if there are actions taken in response.

He has the same right to voice his opinion as you do, whether you like his opinion or not.

[hokiefan]

It makes no difference: freedom of speech is an accepted principle. If your speech has consequences, it is not free.

Please address my question of not letting a medication into your city because the guy who owns the company holds an opinion you don't like.

A very basic tenant of free speech is your right to say something I might find offensive. Being offended is part of the price we pay for our freedom.

I think this entire knee jerk reaction is stupid. And it sets a dangerous precident. What other litmus tests might we put on businesses before we allow them a permit in our city? Which, incidentally is the government creating consequences for speech.

Everything has consequences, even free speech. My right to boycott your business is my free speech.

Bobby

[David W Pratt]

So, a gay guy goes into a Chik-Fil-A and orders a sandwich, the counter man says "Aren't you gay?",
the gay guy says "Don't tell",
after he finishes the counter man says "So, how was it?"
the gay guy says "Don't ask"