Talking of barbarians, the Chick-a-fil saga in the USA has been most instructive of late.

Theo starts the ball rolling:

Rahm Emmanuel manufactured a faux outrage target in Chicago when he announced that the Chick-a-fil restaurant chain would not be allowed to operate there, since they would not endorse gay marriage, or abortion, or something, or everything.

This was picked up by the media, and the huffing and puffing began. It always amazes me that those of a lefty disposition have an unshakeable belief that EVERYBODY, all right thinking people, think exactly like they do. i.e. in any disagreement with feeble minded knuckle-draggers like ourselves, they speak for the huge majority, and we are very much a recalcitrant minority. It’s one of the reasons for the constant dripping condescension.

In any event, it was decided apparently that the chain was to be boycotted, and that I think, yesterday, they would be inundated by lesbian welders and the like, for a ‘kiss-in.’

This was apparently a bust. Supporters of the chain organised a ‘buy-in’ on Wednesday, where people went out of their way to eat at the chain. The queues were round the block.

There is a message in there somewhere.

To round off the idiocy, some mouth breather with a room temp IQ decided he had to proselytise to the heathen. Beard the lion in his den etc. And record it, and put it on Youtube.

Oh, did I mention he was CFO of a local company? Was.

SDA on the subject, with links:

John C Wright on the subject

A knock em out the park article

House of E likewise

Further reading:

And still more:

16 comments for “Chick-a-fil

  1. dearieme
    August 6, 2012 at 09:27

    I thought it was Chick a fil A.

    The A is important. Think how Americans mispronounce filet steak.

  2. August 6, 2012 at 11:13

    Or even chick filler.

  3. Chrysalis
    August 6, 2012 at 16:08

    (Psst – did you know the corporation is actually called “Chik-Fil-A”? ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I just wrote a post on this myself, on Saturday:)

    As you know, I’m a Christian too, but I guess I just don’t understand why, with so many other truly evil “sins” in the world that spawn out of greed, deceit, hate and oppression, some Christians are primarily focused on worrying about what’s going on in other people’s marriages and sex lives – it just seems petty, to me, in comparison.

    Christianity is not just about “don’ts”, but the “do’s” as well.

    This corporation could instead be gaining notoriety for doing things much more positive things in the name of Christ/morality, rather than for condemning others’ sin…

    …like helping the farmers affected by drought, those who lost homes due to wildfires, aid and encouragement to the families of the movie-theater-shooting victims, providing support to the unemployed, underemployed and homeless.

    Instead, they are choosing to cast stones at other peoples’ sin as if above reproach; people that at the very least, apparently know something about longevity of relationships we don’t ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I’m not saying I condone their “sin”, but last time I checked, we all sinned and fell short of the glory of God.

    This was Christ’s point in Matt 7 – getting the speck out of your own eye before you condemn the log in others, as well as Paul’s point in I Cor 5 – “Why aren’t you in mourning, rather than puffing up with pride at the sin of others?”

    Thanks for posting,


  4. Chrysalis
    August 6, 2012 at 16:19

    Lol, never mind, I just got the joke – that’s what I get for skimming and multitasking – I hadn’t read the last paragraph of your post nor the comments, yet.

    But James, tsk – I live actually live here, in the U.S., and I’m not sure why you’re under the impression this is fueled by “femnazi lesbians”?

    The most vocal, at least in my community, are gay men, liberal male politicians, people who just don’t think corporations have any business in people’s personal sex lives, and Christians like me, who think we could be doing much more positive things in the name of Christ

  5. August 6, 2012 at 17:02

    Chrysalis, it’s not my post.

  6. Chrysalis
    August 6, 2012 at 17:48

    Wow, Chuckles – ya threw me!

    (I really didn’t expect one, like this, from the guy who usually provides comic relief! lol)

    Sorry about that, James – I’ll give this post proper attention when I finish work.

    Regardless, this point remains…this corporation could be gaining notoriety for providing much more positive messages, in Christ’s name, rather than focusing on petty side issues and condemning others’ on their private lives.

  7. Chrysalis
    August 6, 2012 at 18:13

    P.S. – I’m afraid Dearie Me missed the joke too, as well as this aspect, regarding Americans and the word “filet” – it’s tongue-in-cheek.

    Chik-Fil-A’s absurd ad campaign consists of not-so-bright, Southern cartoon cows, asking us to “eat more chicken filets”, rather than beef – only they misspell the slogan” “Eat Mor Chikin Fil A’s”

    Are we all on the same page now? lol

  8. August 6, 2012 at 19:36

    I wouldn’t say Americans mispronounce “filet.” It just retains its original French pronunciation, like “ballet,” “beret” and “valet.”

    Chick-fil-A does make some tasty sandwiches though.

  9. August 7, 2012 at 01:35

    Chrys: The owner of Chik-fil-A didn’t condemn anyone, he didn’t point any fingers, he didn’t do anything but state what he believed (to a Baptist questioner).

    Mayors (aldermen and others) in various gov’ts (New York, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco) decided that since they are all ‘tolerant’ and ‘inclusive’ that they can’t have anyone with those kind of thoughts (seriously, does anyone on the left actually know what those 2 words mean?) so they attempted to strong-arm the corporation.

    Millions of people decided to eat at Chik-fil-A’s on appreciation day and stores sold out of food (1 near me sold out, 1 almost did) and the company made a 10-fold (or so) increase in sales. Almost everyone I know went to eat because they believe in the 1st amendment (and about half of the ones I talked to were gay marriage supporters) and that the owner has every right to believe what he wants.

    And why do you put sin in “”? either you think it is or you don’t, do waffle it ๐Ÿ™‚

  10. August 7, 2012 at 06:41

    This one’s gone over my head. I saw this in the editing phase with Chuckles and didn’t delve too much but I’m not sure – still – who was pro-gay and anti-gay in this.

    I got this from SDA:

    This isn’t about gay marriage it’s just a bit of pushback from people who are tired of being lectured to and threatened by fanatics on the left. This is a warning shot and you can be sure it’s being noticed by the White House.

    As EBD has pointed out in the tips thread, this issue has essentially nothing to do with gays and lesbians.

    ‘Social ‘rights’ and I’ll include marriage in these are social decisions and are not fundamental human rights. The only fundamental or natural rights are those of life, liberty and the freedom to pursue happiness. Period. Then come the political rights that enable the above fundamental rights: freedom of speech, belief, association, religion.

    It is these natural rights that are under attack by these mayors and the left. Essentially, Emanual and the other in government and the media are saying that you, a citizen, may hold only one belief, in order to have the freedom to participate in this society.

    Notice that the CEO of Chick-fil-A isn’t refusing to hire gays or serve them. No, he’s just defending his belief against same-sex marriage. That’s his right.

    But for a government to declare that your beliefs must match theirs – is unbelievable.

    Are – got it, got it. So the restaurant owner asserted his [first amendment?] right to hire and fire whom he chooses but Obama is forcing gay marriage down everyone’s throats?

    That’s how I read it. If that’s so, then yep – of course I would have eaten at Chick-fil-A’s restaurant that day and will ask Chuckles if we want to correct the heading to the correct spelling. Can’t alter the url though as that’s what went out.

    Coming back to “But for a government to declare that your beliefs must match theirs – is unbelievable” – absolutely. Yet this is the situation in the UK as we speak/write. One must have the government opinion and if one goes for anything, signs up for anything, there are pages at the end where you must accept the diversity and equality legislation or your application lapses.

    That is criminal, the government and the left are gangsters.

  11. Chrysalis
    August 7, 2012 at 16:52

    Hi Lord Nazh ๐Ÿ™‚

    Point well taken – but I didn’t say I had a problem with the company owner expressing his first-amendment right to free speech and opinion, did I?

    I mean I don’t support the company holding an “appreciation day”, then, for the restaurant and it’s owner, on the heels of it – and I’m exercising my right not to attend in dissension:)

    I put “sin” in quotes because Christ (our actual Messiah) said nothing about homosexuality, Paul did. Paul was his disciple, a human, and very political – doing many things to gain the acceptance of the Jewish community – including having Timothy circumcised for purification from sin, though he very clearly stated previously that this was Pharisee/Jewish law and was not sin.

    You cannot take the bible out of historical and personal context, sorry. It was divinely inspired, like a movie stating “inspired by actual events”, but every word is not God or Christ’s own – some human got in there too:)

    I also put the word in quotes because the English word “sin” is simply an archery term that means to “miss the mark” – which we all do, and therefore have no business involving ourselves in others.

    Gentlemen, wasn’t Chuckles’ overall point that Leftists often blanket people into the same grab-bag?

    With all due respect, I haven’t labeled or blanketed anyone, people are individuals – it’s YOU gentlemen, here, throwing ALL Leftists into giant grab bags of “gangsters and fanatics”.

    In fact, I agree with Higham, in part – I don’t think anyone should receive special rights BECAUSE they’re gay, but I don’t think they should be excluded from them either.

    Most gay couples stay together longer than homosexual ones – and they can’t legalize this situation because …why again?

    And you gentleman are ignoring WHY gay marriage is such a hot issue in America – it’s not really about being gay, it’s about the lack of benefits and healthcare available in domestic partnership.

    Here in America, we don’t have public insurance like you do – healthcare is a luxury.

    For example, though my fiance has health insurance, I do not – and we are to be penalized because we’re not married? We’re not worth as much as those that are?

    I actually think there should be legalization of any partnership for tax purposes, not just the unmarried and gays.

    Let’s say you are taking care of your uninsured or underinsured sister with breast cancer – we should have the right to claim domestic partnership in those cases as well.

    Everyone has the right to healthcare – their lives are every bit as important as those who can afford it:)

  12. Chrysalis
    August 7, 2012 at 18:39

    P.S. – Point of interest and further evidence the bible is overly humanly influenced, at times, and we are to use discretion and wisdom when reading it ๐Ÿ™‚

    Paul states in Rom 1:26-30 that the following sins were outcroppings of the sin of homosexuality (verse 28-30), as if they didn’t exist on their own without being homosexual?

    Romans 1:24 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorโ€”who is forever praised. Amen.

    26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. ”

    There is absolutely no biblical support of his theory that sins such as greed, murder, envy, gossip and slander are the direct result of sexual immorality – Paul is alone in this line of thinking.

    In fact, the rest of the bible says these sins stand alone and we know they do – not everyone who commits the other sins is gay.

    In fact, since Paul has admitted to most of the sins listed in verse 28 prior to his conversion (greed, slander, murder of Christians, God-hating, pride), many biblical scholars have wondered if perhaps Paul himself was a homosexual and falsely attributing his other sins as being an outcropping of it.

  13. August 7, 2012 at 22:30

    The company didn’t have an ‘appreciation day’ the people did (independently of the company) so that point of the company doing something is moot.

    (YOU gentleman), I was referring to actual leftists (the ones I mentioned and then I pointed to the fact that leftists in general talk about being inclusive, yet they won’t include anyone that believes differently than they do (about ‘major’ issues).

    The bible states that to lie with a man as to a woman is sin; not being homosexual, but the act itself is the sin.

    And it is suspiciously absent on female/female (stating that it is unnatural, but nowhere stating that it is in fact a sin)

    Paul isn’t saying that homosexuality is the cause of those sins, simply that G-d left them to those sins after the sin of homosexuality copulation…

    Everywhere that civil unions have been offered (with the same exact benefits) it has been turned down or derided by gay people.

    And btw, gay people that do marry (where legal) are much more likely to divorce.

    A gay non-marriage compared to a traditional marriage is an apples to oranges comparison. Compare gay relationships versus traditional relationships (ie dating) and you’ll find that assholes everywhere even out the rate of infidelity/break-up (although gay men seem to be more of an infidelity risk than other groups)

    The only point I was trying to make in this thread was to most people that went to Chik-fil-A the issue was the 1st amendment and ‘big brother’ trying to stifle business because of it.

  14. Chrysalis
    August 7, 2012 at 23:41

    Lord Nazh – wow, I think we’ve opened a real can of worms, here, but I’ll try to address each point as best I can ๐Ÿ™‚

    First, here’s where I think we both could concede and agree ๐Ÿ™‚

    Regarding the Chik-Fil-A issue, just as “the people” organized their own “appreciation day”, some other “the people” decided to abstain, on that day.

    So in that case, neither the corporation nor “big brother” had anything to do with it, did they? ๐Ÿ™‚

    As for “Big Brother” governing our marriages, I can tell you for an absolute fact that the only vote on our ballots, thus far, was when living in Florida, when during the 2004 election, I had the following asanine question on my ballot: “I believe marriage is between and man and woman” … and I was forced to answer “yes” or “no”, there was no abstention.

    Now, who do you think put that on my voting ballot, the Leftists?

    I think not:)

    As for the “YOU gentlemen” phrase, clarification, LN – my fault – I meant Chuckles and Higham, using derogatory adjectives to blanket all people from the left, which seemed hypocritical. Further, though I lean left more than right, I personally was not doing that:)

    However, I DID understand that you personally were NOT doing that – so I’m sorry I left that unclear:)

    As for sin of homosexuality, by “the bible says” – again, do you mean God or Christ themselves? Or other humans adding their contributions for their own purposes again?

    For instance, let’s look at the 10 commandments, which were given to Moses directly from God – thou shalt not commit adultery.

    However, Mosaic law then allowed men to marry several wives anyway, as well as allowing men to “put away” their wives in divorce.

    In fact, Jesus confronted the Pharisees on this very law as going against God, banning divorce, except in cases of sexual immorality.

    If it is argued there were more women than men and marrying many was social insurance, I think 100 wives is a bit much,don’t you? (Don’t answer that lol)

    So why did they bend the rules? Because they needed to increase in number, at the time. In fact, speaking from a cultural anthropologic perspective, cultures that are underpopulated tend to regard homosexuality and abortion as taboo; cultures that are overpopulated do not.

    I’m not stating I agree with these things; I’m saying we have to keep in mind the historical context of the group goal and the laws in place concerning them, for the time period. At that time, the Jews were trying to increase in number and set up laws to towards that purpose, even twisting God’s law to their personal advantage.

    As for your statistics on gay relationships, would you mind citing your sources for those statistics? Because I’ve seen statistics to the contrary:)

    Regardless, back to my original point. there are many, many other sins than sexual ones; sins that have a victim and harm others.

    Further, we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Even Apostle Paul says not to condemn others on sexual immorality that you are not guilty of with pride, but in love and mourning for their fall. (I Cor 5)

    On that note, I’d like to end with this, which most people forget – ALL commandments aren’t just rules God made to be a jerk, they were made to keep love between one another – who who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law:

    Romans 13:8

    “8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, โ€œYou shall not commit adultery,โ€ โ€œYou shall not murder,โ€ โ€œYou shall not steal,โ€ โ€œYou shall not covet,โ€ and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: โ€œLove your neighbor as yourself.โ€ 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law

  15. Chrysalis
    August 8, 2012 at 01:19

    James, I’m not sure my response to LN was received, it appeared to time out?

    Regardless, a quick, reassuring P.S.

    I want you all to know that I DO understand your point about the liberal lefties assuming everyone believes like they do & excluding those that disagree with them.

    I believe the lefties feel the same way, in many ways, but it’s even more hypocritical of liberals, considering we’re “supposed” to be so “tolerant” of everyone.

    I.e., Nancy Pelosi really frustrated by locking-out the Republicans in Congress, when she became House Speaker.

    Regardless, I don’t think anyone should “blanket generalize” entire groups of people or parties, in any form or fashion. Agreed?:)

  16. August 8, 2012 at 09:39

    This really does seem to be the proverbial storm in a tea cup American priorities: Chick-Fil-A and Faith vs Works | Khanya

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *