http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/26/us-usa-gaymarriage-chickfila-boston-idUSBRE86P1AT20120726

Quote :

Boston mayor to anti-gay-marriage Chick-fil-A: stay away



By Ros Krasny
BOSTON | Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:34pm EDT

(Reuters) - Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has waded into the national controversy surrounding fast food chain Chick-fil-A, whose president has publicly opposed same-sex marriage, urging the chicken sandwich sellers to stay out of Boston.

Even as the chain took heat from Menino, gay rights activists and even the Muppets, conservative politicians, including former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, pushed back.

A letter from Mayor Menino derided Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy for recent "prejudiced statements" against same-sex marriage, which has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004.

Posted on a Boston community page on the social media site Facebook on Wednesday, the letter has gone viral. It has been "liked" by more than 131,000 users and shared more than 46,000 times.

"In recent days you said Chick-fil-A opposes same-sex marriage, and said the generation that supports it has an 'arrogant attitude,'" Menino wrote in the letter, dated July 20 and addressed to Cathy at Chick-fil-A's Atlanta headquarters.

"Now - incredibly - your company says you are backing out of the same-sex marriage debate. I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston."

The fast-food company has reportedly been shopping for sites in downtown Boston, including spots along the city's well-known Freedom Trail, a pathway that winds past many of the city's Revolutionary War landmarks, and even within sight of Menino's City Hall office.

Menino, noting that some of the first same-sex couples to wed in the country came to the Boston City Hall to get married, said: "It would be an insult to them and to our city's long history of expanding freedom, to have a Chick-fil-A across the street from that spot."

Chick-fil-A did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Menino's letter or its plans for Boston.

Last week, the chain said its culture is "to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect - regardless of their belief, creed, race, sexual orientation or gender."

The Chick-fil-A controversy hit the headlines after Cathy's comments to the Baptist Press citing "prideful" supporters of same-sex marriage and defending the company's support of "the biblical definition of the family unit."

KISS-IN PLANNED

Same-sex couples around the country plan a kiss-in at Chick-fil-A restaurants on August 3.

The Jim Henson Company, whose Muppet characters like Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy are hugely popular, announced it will no longer work with the chain.

It said it will donate a payment received from a promotion with Chick-fil-A - which featured "Jim Henson Creature Shop Puppets" in kids' meals - to the gay rights group GLAAD.

Santorum, known for his opposition to same-sex marriage, struck back by suggesting a counter-protest.

"Simply have a meal at Chick-fil-A on August 1 for ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day' and our support for traditional values will be heard loud and clear," Santorum, a former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, wrote in an email to supporters.

Privately held Chick-fil-A was founded in 1946 by S. Truett Cathy, a devout Southern Baptist who is still the company's chairman. The company is known for its mix of religion and business as well as its fried chicken sandwiches and waffle fries.

The company's website says that Dan Cathy, the founder's son, is driven by a "personal passion" to see the fulfillment of Chick-fil-A's corporate purpose: "To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us."

All of Chick-fil-A's roughly 1,600 locations - including two outlets in suburban Boston shopping malls - are closed on Sundays, Christmas and Thanksgiving.

I dont care what chick fil a's position is. I think people get all up in arms over nothing. Let them build in Boston. If Bostonians are offended, they will not frequent the establishment, and will close. If bostonians are not offended, then the business will not be affected.

The "Kiss in" is ridiculous though in my opinion. If they are not buying anything, but sitting in the chairs (or even on the property) then the prostestors are loitering and should be kicked out. Not to mention the fact that I don't want to seee anyone kissing public--- gay or straight.

The bill of rights is so outdated anymore--- if you are not totally PC, then you are evil. From my understanding, CFA is a privately owned company, not a publicly traded one. Therefore what the owner wants/does is his right. If patrons do not like it, do not go there

Political grandstanding

Dah well. They're missing out on some good tasting chicken.

That mayor looks like he's been sneaking some on the side. Ah well. I guess at least people in Boston can still buy 32 oz Cokes.

I'm not gonna pretend to know the law but wouldn't it be a violation of some kind? If people dont like CFA's politics they're free to not eat there.

So now if a town's mayor doesn't agree with what a company's president believes, he can keep them out. Talk about bigotry. lol

I agree. If you have a problem with Chick-Fil-A or what its president believes, you are free to go elsewhere to do it. (And please, there's no need to troll their Facebook profile announcing it again and again. It sorta makes your credibility go down if not truly severing ties with the organization.) I don't do public boycotts for this very reason. It's stupid, pointless, and often counter-productive. (As it seems to be here.) But hey, don't go back if you don't like it. It's your right. But mayors shouldn't be able to tell a company that they can't expand into their city unless they conform their politics to what the mayor believes. Chick-Fil-A doesn't turn people away, and yet these politicians are. Seems to me that the politicians are the intolerant ones.

SMH. This whole debacle is a good laugh. lol

wants2laugh wrote:

... Let them build in Boston. If Bostonians are offended, they will not frequent the establishment, and will close. If bostonians are not offended, then the business will not be affected.

femme fatale wrote:

I'm not gonna pretend to know the law but wouldn't it be a violation of some kind? If people dont like CFA's politics they're free to not eat there.

That is true. There is nothing a government official or office can do to prevent their opening a business. The mayor was just giving his opinion as a representative of the ppl. If it was not an accurate representation, the ppl of Boston have a chance to get rid of him. If it was an accurate representation then the ppl of Boston can by the same method get rid of Chick-fil-A.

wants2laugh wrote:

The "Kiss in" is ridiculous though in my opinion. If they are not buying anything, but sitting in the chairs (or even on the property) then the prostestors are loitering and should be kicked out. Not to mention the fact that I don't want to seee anyone kissing public---gay or straight.

I wasn't aware they were going to do the Kiss-In on premises. I thot it was going to be staged on the public thorofare. I don't think they would attempt that because it would be trespassing and the protest would quiclky move to lockup.

BTW, if you don't want to see anyone kissing in public you have the right to look somewhere else.

femme fatale wrote:

The bill of rights is so outdated anymore--- if you are not totally PC, then you are evil. From my understanding, CFA is a privately owned company, not a publicly traded one. Therefore what the owner wants/does is his right. If patrons do not like it, do not go there.

Don't try to blame the abuses of PC on the Bill of Rights, which is needed now as much as it ever has been. It is not outdated and has helped secure equal rights for a number of disenfranchised groups in the past, including blacks & women. Not every minority has equal rights to this day - so good thing we still have the Bill of Rights.

Shale wrote:

That is true. There is nothing a government official or office can do to prevent their opening a business. The mayor was just giving his opinion as a representative of the ppl. If it was not an accurate representation, the ppl of Boston have a chance to get rid of him. If it was an accurate representation then the ppl of Boston can by the same method get rid of Chick-fil-A.



I wasn't aware they were going to do the Kiss-In on premises. I thot it was going to be staged on the public thorofare. I don't think they would attempt that because it would be trespassing and the protest would quiclky move to lockup.

BTW, if you don't want to see anyone kissing in public you have the right to look somewhere else.



Don't try to blame the abuses of PC on the Bill of Rights, which is needed now as much as it ever has been. It is not outdated and has helped secure equal rights for a number of disenfranchised groups in the past, including blacks & women. Not every minority has equal rights to this day - so good thing we still have the Bill of Rights.

CeCe wrote:

A section of Chicago is trying to keep Chick-fil-A out as well for the same reason.

I'm split on this. On the one hand, if the community by and large doesn't want a certain business in their area, then there's a significance to that. I mean look at how many cities and towns have managed to keep Walmart out. On the other, it's a free market economy.

The bottom line is that if someone has a problem with a business, they should protest with their wallet.

I was being sarcastic that the BOR was outdated. I just hate the fact that people use it for one side and not the other. If the mayor has the right to say something, that is one thing, that is his opinion. But does the mayor have to the right to prevent jobs from being created? To prevent industry from growing? Chick Fil A draws a lot of traffic in (the same as walmart). We have 2 in my area and you must wait atleast 20 min in line at the drive thru as the line often goes around the block--no matter what time you go there. If someone is being drawn to the area specifically for the Chick Fil A, they may often stop off at the businesses surrounding it, which promotes commerce.

The thing is that Chick fil A did not discriminate against anyone. I didn't see an article where it said "Chain refuses to serve gay couple" or "Chain fired man for marrying his partner". IF that happened, I would be all for this hoopla. But from what i can see that did not happen.

Chick Fil A has not violated anyone's rights. The founder has just expressed his own opinion. The mayor also has a right to express his own opinion... but going to the point where the mayor prevents a business from entering a city? A business that could help the community and will be paying taxes... that just seems extreme. And it also appears that the mayor could be violating the rights of those people who would want to frequent the establishment.

This is not the same as putting a porn theater near a school or something.

wants2laugh wrote:

I was being sarcastic that the BOR was outdated. I just hate the fact that people use it for one side and not the other. If the mayor has the right to say something, that is one thing, that is his opinion. But does the mayor have to the right to prevent jobs from being created? To prevent industry from growing? Chick Fil A draws a lot of traffic in (the same as walmart). We have 2 in my area and you must wait atleast 20 min in line at the drive thru as the line often goes around the block--no matter what time you go there. If someone is being drawn to the area specifically for the Chick Fil A, they may often stop off at the businesses surrounding it, which promotes commerce.

The thing is that Chick fil A did not discriminate against anyone. I didn't see an article where it said "Chain refuses to serve gay couple" or "Chain fired man for marrying his partner". IF that happened, I would be all for this hoopla. But from what i can see that did not happen.

Chick Fil A has not violated anyone's rights. The founder has just expressed his own opinion. The mayor also has a right to express his own opinion... but going to the point where the mayor prevents a business from entering a city? A business that could help the community and will be paying taxes... that just seems extreme. And it also appears that the mayor could be violating the rights of those people who would want to frequent the establishment.

This is not the same as putting a porn theater near a school or something.

That's a personal opinion of the owner. If there was any evidence that he stopped gay people from working in his restaurants or discriminated against them in his business, then they would be reason for an outcry. What someone thinks is just that. I really wish people would stop with madness. You can't FORCE people to like or even accept homosexuality and it's funny when they try to. It's a shame too. Boston is going to miss out on the bomb ass chicken sandwiches!

Well that's the thing. Is Boston going to miss out on anything? Has Chick Fil A said they're going to let themselves be kept out? That's not a rhetorical. The last I read was a related story that their spokesman had died suddenly.

I heard that Boston's mayor might be backing down. We'll see what happens.

I think the controversy is causing the opposite of its goal. The restaurants here are getting busier and busier, and people are saying exactly what NY and I have said. They are supporting CFA's owners rights to think what he wants.

IMO, as I stated on the Mississippi wedding thread, banning the wedding and discriminating is MUCH MUCH worse than a man's opinion.

wants2laugh wrote:

I think the controversy is causing the opposite of its goal. The restaurants here are getting busier and busier, and people are saying exactly what NY and I have said. They are supporting CFA's owners rights to think what he wants.

I think it's causing the opposite of its goal in more ways than one. I think most public boycotts, by nature, are counterproductive because they typically bring something into the spotlight and people are naturally attracted to controversy. Here, I think that is definitely in play. Many people probably did not hear much about Chick-Fil-A since they were not among the really top tier chain. Now they have, and they might become new fans. In addition to that, they are essentially inspiring those who already supported Chick-Fil-A to rally around them even more. And furthermore, I think it's also having an adverse effect on the message. So the public boycott seems to be a lose-lose in 3 major areas. If nobody made a stink about this, it would've blown over and things would've returned to normal. But because of the stink, Chick-Fil-A is now constantly trending on social media and I think their business is only going to go up now.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

So now if a town's mayor doesn't agree with what a company's president believes, he can keep them out. Talk about bigotry. lol

A) that's NOT what bigotry means (for the umpteenth time) and...

B) Your statement doesn't even reflect the reality of the situation. There is nothing to suggest that the mayor can "keep them out".

Forgiveness Man wrote:

But mayors shouldn't be able to tell a company that they can't expand into their city unless they conform their politics to what the mayor believes.

And nobody has actually done that. He simply asked them to go elsewhere because neither he nor the majority of Bostonian support their bigotry. You see, it is Chick-fil-A who are the bigots in this case. The sooner you learn what the word means and how it applies the easier it will be for you to follow along. In any case, the mayor's job is to reflect the interests of the citizens of the town/city. And that's exactly what he has done by making that public denouncement of Chick-Fil-A. He wouldn't have been doing his job otherwise.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Chick-Fil-A doesn't turn people away,

You mean except for THE GAYS.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

and yet these politicians are. Seems to me that the politicians are the intolerant ones.

Yeah, but it only SEEMS that way to you because you don't know what you're talking about (as usual). The "politicians" in this case are trying to turn away a chain run by homophobes. And I say Kudos for that!

I find it Ironic how many of the people who support Chick-Fil-A's "right" to build their establishments wherever they want, and the Chick-Fil-A president's "right" to say what he wants about gays, are pretty much the same demographic that were totally against the building of an Islamic community center near ground zero. It's funny how these "rights" and "freedoms" only seem to apply when they concern a group that publicly declares their bigotry openly (homophobes), but are conveniently ignored when it comes to groups that these hypocrites practice their own bigotry against (Muslims). Essentially, homophobes are true "Americans" and they are entitled to "freedom" but Muslims are terrorists are aren't entitled to jack shit!

captainbryce wrote:

I find it Ironic how many of the people who support Chick-Fil-A's "right" to build their establishments wherever they want, and the Chick-Fil-A president's "right" to say what he wants about gays, are pretty much the same demographic that were totally against the building of an Islamic community center near ground zero. It's funny how these "rights" and "freedoms" only seem to apply when they concern a group that publicly declares their bigotry openly (homophobes), but are conveniently ignored when it comes to groups that these hypocrites practice their own bigotry against (Muslims). Essentially, homophobes are true "Americans" and they are entitled to "freedom" but Muslims are terrorists are aren't entitled to jack shit!

Very good points. There was an attempted block to build a mosque in Tennessee as well.

captainbryce wrote:

A) that's NOT what bigotry means (for the umpteenth time)

But what can you expect? That's the neocon strategy. Deflect legitimate criticism from your group by accusing the opposition of the same thing.

Chick-Fil-A doesn't turn gay people away. lol "Oh you're gay, no chicken for you!" Nah, the only place that is happening is in the minds of the haters. (Which is where they live, so I suppose it's understandable) The people hating on CFA are bigots by very definition. They just like to cloak their bigotry in their phony, one-sided "tolerance." But it's still bigotry, and hypocritical. "We won't let a business open here because they don't share our values." Bigotry. But I guess CFA can always use the free publicity and they seem to be as crowded as ever, if not moreso. Wouldn't surprise me to see others start trying to follow suit just so they can get some free press. lol Go Chick-Fil-A! (And just for fun: GO Sarah! )

And the band played on.............

Tony Marino wrote:

And the band played on.............

I think that's probably what many are thinking about the entire controversy. "Oh, the left's imagined something else to be homophobic and are throwing yet another temper tantrum? Meh. Carry on." So yep, Big Bro! I think you captured the sentiments of many perfectly. (Heck, that's just a step below what I feel about it. lol) I should treat you to some CFA chicken, Big Bro! We can make an afternoon of it. (We can invite Wansts2laugh too. )

[quote="captainbryce"are pretty much the same demographic that were totally against the building of an Islamic community center near ground zero. [/quote]

In my case, I sided with the Muslims. And although I am catholic, I sided with the wife of a fallen LT who died in Iraq defending our freedoms, but was denied his wife's request to put a wiccan symbol on his military headstone. In that case, there were 38 different symbols one could select from, even an atom for athiests, but the wiccan was denied the symbol of his religion. THAT is discrimination. Keeping a Islamic building out is discrimination. Preventing the mississippi couple from marrying in a church is discrimination. Chick Fil A has NOT discriminated against anyone. There have been no complaints that people were not served for being gay. There has not been one employee who has sued for wrongful termination due to sexual orientation. No employee has come forward and said "I was fired because I legally married my spouse" If those things had happened, we all know that it would be out in the open now. Instead, its "the CEO basis his business practices on his religious beliefs". That is HIS right as the owner of a private corporation---they are not publicly traded. Just the same as it is the right of gays to say, "He is wrong we are right".

THAT is the difference.

I find it funny that someone can say "if you trash me, your a bigot.... if i trash you, then it's freedom of speech". That is what I see happening here, and I think that is FM's point. It is freedom of speech on both sides.