As Drive-Thru Apple Pie
Irradiated by LabRat
My various collections of beliefs and bugaboos mean I don’t have a dog in this fight, or at least that my various dogs have begun fighting amongst themselves while I wander off (Chick-fil-A donates to organizations I disapprove of and appears to wrap its workers in a moist embrace of big-brotherly nosiness I also disapprove of, on the other hand fuck a whole bunch of government thuggery- let consumers decide who they want to give their lunch money to). Plus, Chick-Fil-A doesn’t have any franchises within fifty miles of me, so my opinion of them means precisely diddly with a side order of squadoo.
I will say, however, that a full-scale culture war fought on the battlefield of a fast-food fried chicken chain, including buycotts, boycotts, sign-waving protestors, and kiss-ins, is maybe the single most uniquely American phenomenon I’ve seen in my life to date.
As insular family-controlled religious fast food chains go, I vastly prefer In-n-Out anyway.
August 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
And In and Out’s owners are fundies … heh.
They were fairly horrified by people modifying their bumperstickers to say “In and Out _urge__ “.
August 2nd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Yep, I’m more concerned about what is going on behind the ‘scenes’ in DC than this kerfluffle… What I ‘do’ find interesting is that this is yet another case where the First Amendment rights seem to ONLY apply to the left to say “outrageous” things (in some people’s minds)…
August 2nd, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Personally I don’t care for In-n-Out either, but that is neither here nor there. That so many panties got wadded over this is not a good sign for the future health of our fruited plain or our purple mountain majesty.
Evidence of malady may be found in this particular circus. That so many on the right seem incredulous about the left’s supposed denial of rights for some bible-pounding fool uttering ill-advised words is nothing less than farcical. Omitting stupid things said by politicians, all that remains is the remainder of the commenters actually exercising those supposedly denied rights… on both sides. Protecting stupid speech is exactly the purpose of the First Amendment.
For anyone to come unwound over ignorant pontifications by politicians, I would suggest that if we compared stupid left to stupid right that contest would be a draw. To balance the wager of one Emmanuel and one Meneno… I’ll see you with a Mike Kelly and raise you a Rush Limbaugh.
August 2nd, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Stupid speech gets my attention one hell of a lot faster and more immediately when it’s someone in a position of government power muttering about how they oughta use that power to Make Things Right. Because sometimes they try.
My panties have been quite firmly wadded over various such antics by right-wing politicians as well, Huckabee most certainly included.
August 2nd, 2012 at 10:52 pm
File this one under “genres I didn’t know existed”.
The incentives here are interesting. If I was running a mediocre restaurant chain with no hope of competing with my competitors on the usual merits, I might do well to gratuitously provoke my local government officials. If I can get someone to muse publicly about denying me a permit because I (supported a local mosque | said gays were icky), I’d get instant national media attention and pick up a whole bunch of business from Culture Warriors willing to choke down my food to prove a point.
One wonders if this is already happening.
August 3rd, 2012 at 11:01 am
So lemme get this straight, protesting Chik-Fil-A is not having any respect for their first amendment rights (despite the fact that no one’s calling for the closing or arrest of Chik-Fil-A’s higher ups, etc.), but urging people to close their Bank of America accounts because of their anti-2A stance is not the same thing?
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:13 pm
No. Protesting CFA, buycotting it, boycotting it, kiss-ins or sit-ins or endless speculating about it all = glorious first amendment expression. It was a party, first amendment wise.
Grumbling about how you should use your political power to block a corporation from expanding into your area because of things the head of that corp has said/causes it’s put corporate money to = not so firstalicious.
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Chao,
Perhaps you missed the part where a number of elected officials are on the record saying that this private business will not be welcome in their cities, and will not be granted business licenses, on account of how the owner of the chain does not agree with the current Mayor on a particular social issue.
I don’t give two shits about people liking or disliking various businesses for whatever political reasons. I give very, very many shits about the State telling private entities that they must embrace the political cause du jour or risk being shut down or shut out. First Amendment abuses don’t come much clearer than that.
August 3rd, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Or what LabRat said.
August 3rd, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Yeah, I hated that stuff. The politicians should keep their mouths shut, and what they said and insinuated WAS out of line. However, that was not I was referring to.
What I was referring to is the general sentiment that by daring to boycott or disagree with Chik-Fil-A, people are trampling all over religious freedom and the first amendment. Which is a sentiment I keep seeing everywhere all over the place, including from those who, I kid you not, were in full support of boycotting Tactical Firearms a day earlier over some comments regarding the ban of ammo sales on the internet.
August 3rd, 2012 at 4:56 pm
As best I can tell from coverage, the other issue is that while technically cities cannot ban Chikfilas on grounds of disapproving of their moral stance, a Supreme Court ruling a few years back gives them grounds to do so for stupid reasons. (E.g. we won’t approve your porn store permit because it might increase traffic in the neighborhood, and we don’t like “traffic.”) Does seem like several large city mayors have backed off - “We don’t like your politics and we hope you won’t come here, but we can’t legally stop you,” etc.
As for me, I agree on principle (for the same reason I thought it was bullshit when someone was protesting building a mosque near ground zero) but feel generally depressed as hell that so many folks want to support their anti-gay stance. Luckily, no one’s forcing me to eat there, so I can avoid their bigoted chicken sandwiches all I want.
August 3rd, 2012 at 4:57 pm
There are few things I hate more than hypocracy, especially from people who I’d otherwise agree with on other issues. But the fact is, it IS hypocritical to be in full support and even instigate boycotts of anti-2A stores and organizations and then cry foul when people decide to do a boycott on a restaurant over the fact that their profits fund incredibly anti-gay organizations and policies.
Choose one. Is it ok for ordinary people to be upset and boycott something over a political issue or not? Because if it is, don’t throw hissy fits about how your rights are oh-so-trampled when the “other side” does it.
August 4th, 2012 at 1:02 am
chao: you seem to be arguing against a point no one here has made or endorses. In point of fact, I haven’t seen ANYONE - including people on many gun blogs, their commentariat, and a few different gun forums - make that point. I’m sure there are a few morons who have made that point, but they seem to be off in their own little corner of the web, not ’round these parts.
The uproar is over the idiotic mayors who decided to piss on the first amendment, not whether or not there’s a boycott of a mediocre fast food joint.
August 4th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
And to follow:
In the grand Wookie Suiter tradition, yes, individuals boycotting (& buycotting) a company based on the beliefs of the owners is ok.
-HOWEVER-
Governments (the key word here) refusing to allow a company to do business based on the beliefs of the owners is wrong.
Had it been a set of Republican mayors told a business that they were not welcomed because of the pro-gay opinions of the company’s owners, I know most of the folks reading/ commenting here would be equally angry at those mayors for the same reason.