Recently, Chick-Fil-A has been on the hot spot because of the CEO’s position on traditional marriage. Boston’s mayor attempted to legally ban Chick-Fil-A from their city, despite their desperate need for jobs. The CEO has received a lot of flack from celebrity pot heads and butt kissing politicians. The amount of idiocy and bigotry just astounds me. Whoever said SSM would have no affect on others is seriously mistaken. The right to free speech is being removed, and it is only getting worse. No business should be banned from a city in the name of being politically correct and it just annoys me to no end to see people advocate this kind of political oppression as freedom.
Thankfully, there are people out there who don’t buy into their crap and have set up what they have called the “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day”. Giving them more business is a perfect way of spitting on the faces of these liberal fanatics. If I had more in my area, it would certainly be my primary fast-food restaurant. Every other company seems to have some involvement in the destruction of traditional marriage, so it’s just refreshing to see a company that refuses to do so. While I’d love to go to Chick-Fil-A today, I do not think I’ll be able to. But if you can, let’s burn this liberal boycott to the ground by purchasing food from them as often as possible.
7 Responses to In Apprecation of Chick-Fil-A
Robert August 1, 2012
I really don’t understand how this Chick-Fil-A issue got to be such a big deal. What happened to the good old days, when you decided whether or not to eat at a restaurant based on the quality of their food? The boycott is dumb, and so is the counter-boycott. The faces you should be spitting on are those of politically-motivated restaurant choices.
That being said, that sandwich looks gross. I’ll stick to homemade.
Gio August 1, 2012
^This.
Gil Sanders August 1, 2012
It shouldn’t be a big deal, but this is what liberal fanatics do. I agree, except that’s not what is being done here. First off, Chick-Fil-A was already a well-regarded restaurant for its food. If this were not so, it would not be expanding the way it has. For that reason, I think we should consider this as a token of appreciation for both their food and their religious/political views. There seems to be nothing wrong with this, as long as it functions as a sort of supplemental reason to eat there. Secondly, I personally do not object to individual boycotts, at least in principle. It seems to be perfectly reasonable to individually boycott a company that is specifically involved in some morally objectionable activities. Furthermore, even if these considerations are to be ignored, we must remember that the liberals started this political boycott. There seems to be nothing wrong with retaliating as a means of neutralizing their effects.
That being said, that sandwich looks gross. I’ll stick to homemade.
WHAT! BBQ with chicken? That looks delicious, yo.
Jumanne Langston September 20, 2012
As a gay man my issue isn’t with CFA’s anti-gay/anti-gay marriage stance my issue lies in the fact that they support organizations that have been complicit in compelling foreign nations to enact harsh, sometimes fatal, penalties against homosexuality.
You Christians can hate me all you want but once you go abroad and encourage legislature’s to enact the death peantly against gay people then you’ve gone too far. Also, I take offense to you labeling me as a ‘liberal fanatic’ simply because I want the same rights as you.
Here is a link to the story:
http://thetruthpursuit.com/society/society-blogs/chick-fil-may-have-more-just-chicken-blood-its-hands/11304
Justin August 2, 2012
“I’m not saying America has an obesity problem, but our civil rights debates now hinge on fried chicken.” -Ben Kuchera
Lerrrr August 3, 2012
Hang on hang on Gil…….you’re not trying to say that the “removal of free speech” which you believe is happening is a consequence of same sex marriage are you? I would need to see some pretty nifty argumentative gymnastics to prove a logical (or any kind of) connection between the two!
Gil Sanders August 4, 2012
No, I just think it fits with the liberal “package” so to speak. For them, rights are more or less a social contract, not a natural right. Thus you can redefine them however you please to include or exclude certain types of people. They could attempt to say it is a natural right but then it would refute the very notion that SSM is a right.