Why does Chick-fil-A avoid the Northeast

[Buffaboy]

The same can be said for Papa John's — I will call Domino's for a delivery over PJ's because their CEO has, on numerous occasions, made statements that I feel would be (personally) counterintuitive to how I view life, and that I would not want to feed my earned money into this system.

If you don't believe in conservative values and vote with your pocketbook, Domino's may not be a better choice than Papa John's.

In business, there aren't many other choices. I won't ask "why" as this isn't the forum for that. It's just the "what" that people want to avoid.

[SD Mapman]

You all do know that it's possible to be opposed to the redefinition of marriage and not be a bigot, don't you?

It's a pretty big leap to assume that Mr. Cathy and the Chick-Fil-A ownership are/were bigots because they opposed the redefinition of marriage. I oppose it, and if you call me a bigot, you're a liar.

Exactly.

[Pete from Boston]

If there is one successful way for restaurants to lose business, it's by killing your customers. 

(Hi, Chi-Chi's!)

In an ironic way, this isn't true for all lines of business.  Amusement parks are very good at weathering deaths.  And skydiving companies.  :-)

Umm, tell that to the owners of Action Park

That was actually part of the appeal.  I think insurance costs and lawsuits is what did them in.

Indeed.  Action Park should have closed 15 or more years before it did if deaths alone were inimical to its business.  Action Park's reputation was one of risk, a free-for-all.  Multiple people did die as a result, but this made the rides themselves legendary.


iPhone

[hbelkins]

Let me put it this way:  if I learned that Mr. Cathy (or one of his senior managers) was a participant on this forum, I would not air my views about Chick-fil-A here.  Commenting on a public figure is one thing; starting a personal quarrel on a Web forum is another.

There are many ways to bring about social change.  A boycott is one way:  sometimes it is effective, and sometimes it is not, but either way it relieves the boycotter of the burden on his or her conscience of financially supporting a cause he or she disagrees with.  Another is to keep up gentle sales pressure in hopes that hearts and minds change as people's experience expands.

You may have missed my point. I'm not speaking about personal quarrels with anyone on this forum. Would the fact that there are DOT personnel on this forum dissuade you from speaking your mind about their agencies if you had a negative opinion?

My point is that there are those who have said here and elsewhere, basically, that they don't patronize CFA because of the bigoted owners. Those people don't know what's in Truett Cathy's heart. There seems to be this common perception among those of a certain persuasion on moral/cultural issues that if you oppose the redefinition of marriage, you hate gays. That's a big leap to make and in many -- I daresay, most -- cases just is simply not true.

Ben & Jerry's IMO exemplifies the separation of a company and its executives. The company isn't in support of any one politician or political party (i.e. they don't donate their money), but the executives are (Ben and Jerry and Bernie Sanders supporters) politically aligned.

Chick-fil-A, AFAIK, in the past did the opposite. I don't know if they still do this however.

Corporate donations to political candidates are prohibited.

[J N Winkler]

You may have missed my point. I'm not speaking about personal quarrels with anyone on this forum. Would the fact that there are DOT personnel on this forum dissuade you from speaking your mind about their agencies if you had a negative opinion?

It has not.  There are KDOT employees on this forum and I have been very critical of some of KDOT's policies.  The difference is that DOT employees tend to avoid arguments about what their agencies do.  It is not really part of their job to defend their employers on their own leisure time, and they tend to operate under an expectation that they will coordinate with the DOT's public relations personnel in presenting the agency's side of any debate.  This is why I have never directed my criticisms at any specific employee, or asked him or her to justify his or her agency's policies.

Another consideration is that the agency personnel who choose to be openly identified as DOT employees on this forum tend to be relatively junior.  We don't have anyone at or above bureau head/district engineer level, unless he or she is U-boating.

My point is that there are those who have said here and elsewhere, basically, that they don't patronize CFA because of the bigoted owners. Those people don't know what's in Truett Cathy's heart. There seems to be this common perception among those of a certain persuasion on moral/cultural issues that if you oppose the redefinition of marriage, you hate gays. That's a big leap to make and in many -- I daresay, most -- cases just is simply not true.

I haven't spoken of specific bigoted owners.  I don't know Dan Cathy (it was actually he who was implicated in the donation controversy), nor do I know who moves in his circle.  For all I know, he may have an army of friends who are gay, just like Ian Smith (premier of Rhodesia 1964-1979) claimed to have many black friends; he may even sincerely believe conversion therapy works.

I do characterize Chick-fil-A's senior management as bigoted because it is a collective (consisting of people who make decisions for the company) that is known by its actions.  It gives money to anti-gay causes, including groups that conflate religious marriage with civil marriage and use that to argue a civil disability that uniquely affects gays should persist.

[empirestate]

You all do know that it's possible to be opposed to the redefinition of marriage and not be a bigot, don't you?

It's a pretty big leap to assume that Mr. Cathy and the Chick-Fil-A ownership are/were bigots because they opposed the redefinition of marriage. I oppose it, and if you call me a bigot, you're a liar.

I don't support the redefinition of marriage either, as I don't believe governments should be in the dictionary business. However, I do support expanding the range of couples to whom it's available.

But what nobody's stated yet is their position on ketchup. Restaurants generally favor marrying ketchup since it can save a buck, but ketchup manufacturers and public health agencies have come out against it. Still, since Chick-fil-A is a restaurant, but has also expressed concerns over who and what specifically may be married, I'm not certain which side of the debate they'd fall on. For that matter, do they even use ketchup bottles, or is it only packets?

[kurumi]

Chick-fil-A uses Heinz Dip & Squeeze (TM) packets, where you can dip your fries in a little tub, or squeeze it out onto your fries.

It's two things in one, and frankly, it's an abomination. You look at it, and you think to yourself, "That just ain't right."

(CFA does just fine in this section of blue state land. Their chicken's pretty good. Their fries--- well, good fries IMHO are skinny and hot. CFA just has different taste.)

[Thing 342]

Chick-fil-A uses Heinz Dip & Squeeze (TM) packets, where you can dip your fries in a little tub, or squeeze it out onto your fries.

It's two things in one, and frankly, it's an abomination. You look at it, and you think to yourself, "That just ain't right."

(CFA does just fine in this section of blue state land. Their chicken's pretty good. Their fries--- well, good fries IMHO are skinny and hot. CFA just has different taste.)

I, for one, oppose the unholy unification of a bottle and a squeeze packet. The two condiment paradigms shall remain separate, as God intended.

_{Is this joke tired yet? I can keep going.}

[berberry]

I believe that people who think straights should get special privileges that gays can't have are indeed bigots.

[english si]

I believe that people who think straights should get special privileges that gays can't have are indeed bigots.

There never has been a period of American history when homosexual people couldn't get married.

What recent years have done is to have created another right, specifically for gays (though I cannot see how 'straights' are excluded). These 'bigots' feel that gay people weren't excluded from marriage in the first place, and so didn't need the privilege of rewriting the definition of what 'marriage' is.

[berberry]

Oh sure, gays could have had marriage based on a lie. You know, the christian lifestyle.

[english si]

Oh sure, gays could have had marriage based on a lie.

No, not really - you are imposing a very time-bound and culturally-conditioned view of marriage - that marriage is only about satisfying your own desires - onto every marriage on a group of people that have a wide cultural and temporal range: people living in the USA since 1776.

Just as you shouldn't have to conform to other's view of what marriage is, you shouldn't impose your view on them.

And certainly I know openly gay men in loving marriages with women today (and oh the abuse they get from the 'you are living a lie' crowd). They (rightly) view it as very homophobic to suggest that their marriage is a sham one just because of their sexual orientation!

You know, the christian lifestyle.

Ah, as well as homophobia, you are going to double down on the sweeping assumptions and attacks on people who think differently to you.

[berberry]

Who is imposing their views on whom, si? The people who simply want to be able to marry and live peaceful lives, or those who actively campaign to stop them?

And I have never known any openly gay men married to women, although I have known many closeted gay men married to women. I suppose that's okay with you too? That sounds very suspicious to me. Kinda like the lie christians always tell: I have lots of gay friends...

And christians are not just people who think differently than me. The only christian in my family is my dad, and he's the one who could never keep his dick in his pants when I was growing up. He's the one who broke up the family. So that has been my experience, right here in the christian hell-hole of Mississippi. You can pass judgement all you want, that's the only thing you christians ever do except break promises and try to screw over anyone who doesn't subscribe to your crap. I know you people and I know what you're like. Not one word you've written is the least bit surprising.

People should be able to live their own lives however they want, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. If a woman wants six husbands, why is it your concern? Beyond specifying only one as legal next-of-kin (and that only because, in case of accident, one can't very well expect the authorities to convene a conference of spouses to make medical decisions) there should be no restriction, because it isn't hurting anyone. Neither is gay marriage hurting anyone. Nobody is being forced into it and nobody is forcing their views on anyone else. That's just more christian bullshit!

Try to stick to facts, k?

[empirestate]

Chick-fil-A uses Heinz Dip & Squeeze (TM) packets, where you can dip your fries in a little tub, or squeeze it out onto your fries.

It's two things in one, and frankly, it's an abomination. You look at it, and you think to yourself, "That just ain't right."

(CFA does just fine in this section of blue state land. Their chicken's pretty good. Their fries--- well, good fries IMHO are skinny and hot. CFA just has different taste.)

I, for one, oppose the unholy unification of a bottle and a squeeze packet. The two condiment paradigms shall remain separate, as God intended.

_{Is this joke tired yet? I can keep going.}

Humorous, but not a joke to me. I actually use the ketchup analogy quite seriously to point up the foibles of the "redefinition" argument. Since "marriage" is already defined to mean such things as "man + woman", "car body + chassis", "piece of theatrical rigging + other piece of theatrical rigging", and "ketchup bottle + other ketchup bottle", I can't see how including "man + man" or "woman + woman" amounts to a redefinition. If anything, it would require redefinition to limit marriage to just one of the various things it already means.

But in any event, "redefinition" is a problematic argument because it only appears on one side of the debate, the opposing side. Nobody on the supporting side discusses the issue in lexicographical terms, so there isn't any meaningful discourse to be had, and thus resolution hoped for, by framing the issue in those terms.

Of course, since we're not supposed to be talking about that here, I kept my remarks confined to inoffensive condiments. But, since the lid seems to have blown off and the thread's days are clearly numbered, might as well at least explain myself. :-)

[Brandon]

I believe that people who think straights should get special privileges that gays can't have are indeed bigots.

There never has been a period of American history when homosexual people couldn't get married.

Exactly.  No state has ever had this a condition of entry.  Now, that said, one state did have marriage come up as a condition of entry, Utah.  Utah was told to specifically make polygamy illegal as a condition for entry into the Union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Manifesto
http://www.ilovehistory.utah.gov/topics/statehood/index.html

[1995hoo]

Hmmm. On the previous page of this thread I bemoaned the "either/or" attitude and the "if you don't support homosexual 'marriage,' you're a bigot"/"if you support homosexual 'marriage,' you're a pervert*" style of discourse. That sort of sniping accomplishes nothing. Too bad reply #112 engages in exactly that sort of thing. I don't like to attack other posters, but I have to say reply #112 contains one of the single most irrational juxtapositions I've ever seen in this forum in the post's ranting and raving about so-called "christian [sic, should be an uppercase "C"] bullshit" followed by the utterly incongruous request "Try to stick to facts, k?" A person who calls the other side's opinions "bullshit" is in no position to demand that other people refrain from expressing their opinions, though one would hope the other people would do so in a more reasonable and polite fashion–as, indeed, everyone else in this thread has done!


*In my previous comment I used the word "pederast" and one reply objected to it. My point was not to call anyone a pederast, but rather to make a generalized comment on the tenor of "debate" epitomized by reply #112, that is to suggest that some of the more animated "debaters" on this topic would equate support for homosexual "marriage" with support for outfits like NAMBLA–in other words, I was trying to make a caricature of sorts of the more extreme elements of the discussion: "If you support homosexual 'marriage,' you obviously also support the rights of adults to have sex with children or farm animals or [fill in the blank with any particular form not generally accepted by society]." Clearly there are plenty of people who don't feel that way, but my point was simply to note the useless aspects of the "either/or" conversation that seems to have taken over American politics.

[empirestate]

Agreed that an "either/or" approach to any argument will, in almost all cases, lead to a wrong conclusion (and not just in politics). That, of course, doesn't apply to concrete, verifiable facts–we very often make the mistake of giving equal weight to erroneous assertions as we do to factual ones.

The other biggest obstacle to reasonable discourse, as I've said, is that we often don't even agree on the identity of the argument, let alone its merits.


iPhone

[english si]

You can pass judgement all you want,

After beginning in this thread by passing judgement on those who think differently to you as 'bigots', it is nice that you give others permission to judge too.

that's the only thing you christians ever do except break promises

Oh, OK, that was just preamble to another bit of sweeping prejudiced judgement based on your blinkered view of the world.

I'm sorry that your father was an asshole that made you an asshole, but Christians are not all like that. You do seem to love defining the world into groups and then assuming that they all behave according to your own narrow experiences - eg you not knowing any out gays that are married means that they don't exist and that I'm lying because of it.

PS - while I am a Christian, I don't know how you could have come to that view without sweeping generalisations, etc. In fact, on this forum, I believe I am 'coming out' now, so to speak.

and try to screw over anyone who doesn't subscribe to your crap.

It's your hate campaign against those who don't subscribe to your crap that I'm attacking. I would have done the same if it was someone from the other side doing it.

I'm personally fine with people holding whatever view of marriage they want. What I'm not fine with is sweeping accusations about those holding differing opinions and an outright refusal to attempt to understand. Nor am I fine with the hypocrisy of the bigotry of calling people bigots for disagreeing with you.

[J N Winkler]

The trouble with using pederast to illustrate an extreme position is that it looks like an attempt to resurrect the tired, incorrect, and homophobic assumption that gays (especially gay men) are looking to have sexual relations with children.  This impression is only reinforced by using marriage in scare quotes in relation to gay people in the straight text, i.e. that which is not represented as coming out of the mouths of extremists.

It is certainly true (as Empirestate notes) that how a person frames a debate is often revealed by the terms he or she chooses to use.  It also seems to me that it has gotten harder to choose terminology for any given debate that does not disclose a person's stance on a particular issue and therefore allows him or her to try to function as a honest broker.

It is commonplace that political debate is more polarized than it used to be, and relies more on demonization of the motives of the other side than it used to.  I don't really disagree with either assertion, though as a person with scientific training I am somewhat troubled by the fact that neither is readily amenable to objective testing.  Further, I don't see an easy way out of either circumstance.  Media silos are well-established now since the prevalence of Internet and cable news means that there are no large, hegemonic media organizations that establish a common basis of understood facts for political discourse, the way the Big Three TV networks used to.  We now live in a political landscape where single-issue lobbies duke it out with slick operators who wait for their opponents to defeat themselves by coming out with over-the-top rhetoric that has an antipersuasive effect.  To cite just one example:  does anyone on either side of the gun-control debate think it will be resolved on a technocratic basis?

[vdeane]

To me, marriage has always been about mutual love.  I don't understand other views (especially since my spiritual views don't match any human religion or set of beliefs).

To make this more fun, I'm gonna throw in the element of romantic orientation.  A gay male could theoretically be in a mutual love marriage with a woman if he's bi/panromantic.

[Scott5114]

Chick-fil-A has some of the best quality fast food out there. Their quality is consistent. They also have very good and fast service, despite their resteraunts being very busy. Their employees are more polite and higher caliber than other fast food reseraunts.

If forcing their employees to operate on script is your idea of polite, then sure. Personally it creeps me out whenever I say "Thank you" and invariably get back "My pleasure" from every single employee. It's very Stepford. I always start wondering what their training must be like and feel sorry for them that they can't even be trusted to choose their own response to customers.

I can't eat there anymore since the big gay marriage controversy anyway. It is tasty food but once I start eating it I think about what my money is funding and begin to feel uncomfortable. So I eat elsewhere. Norman has a Chicken Express, a couple Raising Cane's, and just got a Zaxby's, so there's no end to good chicken restaurants in town.

The times are that you are told to say "Welcome to X" instead of your own "Good Morning, Good Afternoon, etc" like in the past.  Yes we live under scrutiny where the president, CEO, and Executive VP's now see what the low paying hourly employees do via camera and paperwork that the supervisors must log to give to their bosses, who give it to their bosses, and so on.  Plus with computer entries, you have the big guys looking in as they now have access to all computer files associated with their companies at all levels.

As far as boycotting I think you are going to far, but if you feel that you do not want to be part of funding programs that go against your beliefs you have that right.  However, how many businesses I patronize give money to causes I hate or go against my personal, religious, and political beliefs. 

The way  I look at it I am not giving money to that cause, I am paying for a service.  What that person does after with my money is their transgression and not mine.  Believe it or not Scott, I have people from Church tell me to boycott certain places, but I do not.  I have them tell me to not buy music cd's because the artist supports a specific charity or group they do not believe in which I do buy.  In fact I know a lot of people who tell me that they won't buy a Linda Ronstadt album because of her political views, feeling that they are supporting the political party they feel is not for them.  I could care less what a person believes, if I like their music unless they state in advance, that all proceeds generated go to this charity then I will not give.

That is my take on this whole thing.

I work a customer-facing job in a casino and we have no such stipulation on us. I am free to say "Hello ma'am" to an older lady and "Hey, what's up" to the younger man in line behind her if I feel that's appropriate. I think that's much better service than having a uniform "Hi, Welcome to X Casino" because it acknowledges there are differences between the customers. Likewise, if either of them said "Thank you" I would say "You're welcome" to the older lady and "No problem" to the younger guy because those age groups respond better to each of those responses.

Part of the thing that makes the "My pleasure" thing so obvious is because that's not a response most people will give naturally. It is very obviously forced and comes off as the employee having been programmed rather than naturally interacting with me as a human and thus makes the whole encounter feel a little off. It would be like if you went to Walmart and the cashier said the sentence "Use PIN pad to complete transaction"; it's perfectly fine for the self-checkout to say and communicates the thought well enough, but it's not worded in the way an actual human would phrase it in casual speech.

As for the choice to not eat there, that's no one's choice but mine. I don't go to a church and nobody is telling me I have to boycott it (although my fiancee is like-minded and will comment if I do eat there). Chick-Fil-A is the furthest west of the available options in town anyway, so it's more of an inconvenience to go there than any of the other options.

[Scott5114]

That being said, the subject of this thread is Chick-Fil-A, not the politics or religion thereof, so let's return to that topic, if you guys don't mind.

[1995hoo]

That being said, the subject of this thread is Chick-Fil-A, not the politics or religion thereof, so let's return to that topic, if you guys don't mind.

Sounds good to me.

To answer a question posed in the very first post in this thread, I seem to recall reading somewhere that it took a relatively long time for McDonald's to open their first New York City location–I believe the first one in Manhattan opened in 1973, but I don't know about the other boroughs. My parents said neither of them had eaten at a McDonald's until they moved to Virginia after getting married in 1969. Perhaps it's not so much anything to do with any individual chain so much as it is with the cost of doing business and the need to plan expansion carefully.

One could just as easily ask why Tim Hortons hasn't expanded south of a few northern-tier states.

The chain whose rapid expansion I found surprising was Five Guys, simply because I've seen them grow from a tiny local chain in Northern Virginia as recently as 15 years ago.

[J N Winkler]

Often changes in the rate of expansion reflect alterations of corporate growth strategy.  There is a chain based in my city (Freddy's Frozen Custard) which has expanded very aggressively in the last couple of years and now has locations in southern California.  I actually wonder if they are overextending themselves.

[empirestate]

And we all remember what happened to Krispy Kreme...


iPhone