In response to this thread, I would like someone who is against Chick Fil A to explain something to me. As far as I know, thepresident expressed a viewpoint: that he does not support gay marriage. I am 100% in favor of gay rights, but I also realize that not everyone shares that view. Doesn't everyone have the right to express their views, even if you may not agree with them? As far as I know, he wasn't banning gays from eating at his restaurants or anything. He simply has a view. So because you don't agree with his view, you won't eat at any chik Fil a restaurant?

Someone explain this to me as I am not very informed on this issue. Because, to me, refusing to eat somewhere because the president of the company does not agree with you on an issue seems a little ridiculous.

It wasn't a problem with comments made by the owner as much as it was with company policy. The biggest issue was that Chick-fil-A was donating a lot of money to anti homosexual groups.

No, although it can certainly be principled to choose not to patronize businesses when you disagree with public positions of the owners/CEOs. Of course he has a right to his opinion; others have a right show their disagreement with those views by not patronizing the business. Free speech works both ways. (And yes, to be clear, I know we're not talking about Free Speech in the First Amendment sense.)

But the boycott had/has to do with the fact that money was going from Chik-Fil-A to the Winshape Foundation to organizations like Exudos International. Those who chose not to eat at Chik-Fil-A did so because they didn't want their money going (indirectly) to organizations with goals and agendas they don't support.

Well, I think that's part of the point -- Windmeyer says that they had stopped giving money to the problematic groups before the furor of this past summer. ("Even as Campus Pride and so many in the community protested Chick-fil-A and its funding of groups like Family Research Council, Eagle Forum and Exodus International, the funding of these groups had already stopped.")

Aside from where the money is or isn't going, though, what I really appreciate about the article is the story of how people can disagree -- even disagree vehemently -- but still listen to each other, try hard to understand each other, and find a way to honor both their own convictions and yet respect and value the worth of those who hold different convictions so as to move toward, in the words Windmeyer says Cathie used, a "blessing of growth."

I am convinced that this kind of dialogue and these kinds of relationships, both in our neighborhoods and our nation, are the only way this diverse society of ours can move forward together.

/cockeyedoptimistsoapbox


There's no help for crazy.

I agree on all points. I will watch with cautious optimism. And once a mind is expanded, it never goes back. There is hope for everyone!

Ah, I see. Thanks for the information, it makes more sense to me now.

Why? A boycott is a tool of peaceful resistance. In this case, it worked. The CEO came around to changing his views. I don't see anything ridiculous about that.

Because everyone has a right to their views, and boycotting somewhere ONLY because the president of the cooperation does not share your view seems a bit close minded.

However, I didn't know that the cooperation was giving money to anti-gay groups. In that case, I wouldn't want any of my money to go to those groups either.

We don't have chik Fil a where I live, so I guess the point is moot for me.

Stop bumping this thread. Every time I see the words, "Chik Fil-A," I gain 5 pounds. Great. Now, I can't stop thinking about their handspun milkshakes.

Except again, according to Windmeyer, the funding had stopped before the boycott started -- though there had certainly been protests for a number of years.

It seems to me from the article that the way in which the boycott and the controversy surrounding it really worked was by serving as an impetus for Cathie to contact Windmeyer and seek dialogue with him, and by encouraging both Cathie and Windmeyer to see each other "as people with opposing views, not as opposing people."

I agree completely about the potentional effectiveness of boycotts, but in this case it seems to me that the boycott didn't lead to a change in views. Rather, it seems to have led to a relationship that changed how people with different views see each other. To me, that is actually a much better result in many ways.


And sorry adpiucf. :D

I feel the controversy about CFA, particularly the idea that Dan Cathy shouldn't have been allowed to say he was against gay marriage, has been wildly blown out of proportion.

Though I couldn't disagree with Dan Cathy more, he has the rights to his beliefs and the right to express his beliefs, just like I do. I am grateful to live in a country where we are allowed the right to free speech; not everybody is so lucky to live in a place where that is tolerated. I also have the right to choose to not eat at CFA anymore. It's not because he expressed his belief against gay marriage. I chose to boycott CFA simply because my money (though obviously a very small amount) indirectly supports organizations against gay marriage. I give money to groups that are looking to legalize gay marriage... if I was a CEO of a company, I would understand why those against gay marriage may not want to support my establishment.

You would think that the people who supported Dan Cathy and showed up to eat at CFA on that day would understand and support that I also have the right to take a stance and stand up for my beliefs. But, for the most part, that's not what happened.

On certain opinion programs on news stations, it was not only insinuated, but flat-out stated that those who chose to boycott CFA were unconstitutional, unpatriotic, and didn't believe in the right of free speech. I honestly can't remember who said this, and since it was many months ago, I can only paraphrase, but one man specifically stated that liberals were trying to suppress his rights and were against Christianity. (Why he felt that ANY political party was unconstitutional and unpatriotic, I don't know. And why he felt liberals were against Christianity is simply crazy! I know many liberals that are Christian. I know many conservatives who are not. One's religion is certainly not defined by his or her political beliefs. Besides -- just because a person is a member of a political party or a religion doesn't necessarily mean they share the same views of gay marriage as their religion/political party.) Another opinion show host even said that the rest of the media was using propaganda tactics to get their viewers to boycott CFA.

These statements, of course, were all on opinion shows and those people did have the right to say what they wanted. However, they didn't speak a lot about the REAL reason why people wanted to boycott the establishment. People weren't EVER looking to silence Dan Cathy or take away his constitutional rights. And to be honest, the insinuation that I'm not a true American because I chose to no longer eat at CFA was very hurtful. (To be fair, I'm sure the media also said hurtful things about those who supported CFA that I just didn't hear.)

Why is it that people who came out in support of CFA were called true patriots and those who decided to not support a company which donated to groups against gay marriage are acting unconstitutionally? That's what I really want -- for those who feel that way to explain the difference to me. I feel gay marriage is a civil rights issue, and I will stand behind my beliefs just like Dan Cathy and those who supported CFA that day did. What is so wrong about that? (I very highly doubt that most people actually believe this... but a lot of my friends on Facebook do!)

The media took Dan Cathy expressing his beliefs and made it into a huge controversy which never needed to happen... because it was never even about his right to free speech.

This post started in August. The fact that people are still commenting in February just proves that what started out as a man making a statement turned into such a huge and divisive issue -- one where some, though certainly not all, people still adamantly believe was about suppressing free speech... when it was only about people standing up for their beliefs, on both sides of the issue.

I honestly can't understand why both those who supported CFA and those who chose to boycott it are STILL calling each other names for taking a stand for what they believe in. Maybe it's time for all of us to move on and start being mature adults instead of insulting people who don't believe the exact same things as we do.

You're all buying me a chicken sandwich.

Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A
Chick-fil-A

Happy adpiucf?

This is exactly the issue. For those who knew more of the back story, it wasn't about free speech it was about corporations funding hate groups. If CFA had REALLY wanted to get ahead of this they would have aggressively come out on the right side of this issue. Instead they chose to let Fox News have a heyday about the left wing media being against freedom of speech when they don't agree, which had NOTHING to do with it.

Now that they've used up all their good will with the hard right, they're trying to come around and get people like me back. And I will not so easily be swayed. And I really do put my money where my mouth is. The good news for me is it is a lot of fat and calories best avoided.

I read the article a week ago and was heartened by it. I, like DubaiSis will watch and see the future direction of CFA when the scrutiny has been turned off.