Chik-Fil-A sinks to a new low

[Althusser]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/07/25/chick-fil-a-impersonates-young-girl-on-facebook-to-defend-its-biblical-morality/

"Even with all its ‘safety concerns’ about create-your-own puppets, Chick-Fil-A just can’t seem to stop playing with them. They keep getting their fingers stuck in them, too. An unidentified person was caught on Facebook, masquerading as a young girl, and defending Chick-Fil-A from criticism over its bogus ‘voluntary recall’ of Jim Henson toys. Using stock photography and a profile that was only 8 hours old, young ‘Abby Farle’ took offense at the notion that the recall was payback to the Henson Company for ending their partnership with Chick-Fil-A over their corporate embrace of homophobia."

"The teenagers ‘Abby’ was chatting with saw through the facade pretty quickly, even though she said all the things kids say, like “derr, ” and “John 3:16*.” Those darn teens, with their slang, and their bible quotes, who knows what they’re talking about half the time, amirite?"

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/original.jpg

"And sure, there’s no way of knowing just who exactly ‘Abby Farle’ really is, whether a Chick-Fil-A PR flack, or just an ally in the war to keep the ever-changing and biblically inaccurate version of ‘traditional marriage’ safe, but either way, you’d have to imagine that Jesus wouldn’t be too happy about all this lying."

* The passage John 3:16 is For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. I don’t know why ‘Abby’ thought that was relevant…I thought it might have been ‘Turn the other chick.’ Or maybe, “Where is he that is born King of Au Jus?”

[brigadista]

sO-msplukrw

[¿Que?]

I heard there was going to be a national same sex kiss day at chick-fil-a. Almost made me want to take part, even though I'm straight. Sorry, boys, no tongue tho.

[Zostrianos]

You do realize that Chick-Fil-a has donated millions towards anti-gay organizations?

Yeah, millions, they're proud of it too:
0yNsSxf9q3s

[Zostrianos]

This whole thing is good business for them:
_IDvx-xkRGk

[StalinFanboy]

I appreciate people who take a position.

But that doesn't meant they aren't my enemies.


Hope all those motherfuckers get heart attacks.

[Le Socialiste]

This whole thing is good business for them:
_IDvx-xkRGk

Guy at 1:48-2:07: "This has never changed down through the ages. No matter how society changed, our culture changed, the word of God never changes."

Yeah, it's not like the Bible has multiple printed translations, or that these translations weren't themselves altered over the years. His "word of God" has been translated and interpreted so many times it's ridiculous. Guess no one should tell him about sex and sexuality in 'ancient' Greece, or how some Native American women were permitted to dress as men so as to marry other women (and vice versa). :rolleyes:

[Zostrianos]

Guy at 1:48-2:07: "This has never changed down through the ages. No matter how society changed, our culture changed, the word of God never changes."

Yeah, it's not like the Bible has multiple printed translations, or that these translations weren't themselves altered over the years. His "word of God" has been translated and interpreted so many times it's ridiculous. Guess no one should tell him about sex and sexuality in 'ancient' Greece, or how some Native American women were permitted to dress as men so as to marry other women (and vice versa). :rolleyes:

If they really mean what they say, why aren't they following all the other Biblical laws (like stoning unruly kids to death, killing adulterous women, etc...)?

[Dunk]

This whole Chick Fil A "appreciation day" has me really depressed about how backward everything is. You can't even talk with these people.

Things are so fucked up right now. :(

[Le Socialiste]

This whole Chick Fil A "appreciation day" has me really depressed about how backward everything is. You can't even talk with these people.

Things are so fucked up right now. :(

I think it's a losing battle for these people though. Regardless of how they may feel about this "infringement on the principles of traditional marriage," attitudes toward homosexuality and the community as a whole are shifting further in terms of overall tolerance and acceptance. They're fighting the same battle as those who originally supported segregation and Jim Crow - defeat is inevitable. Attitudes are changing on the subject, mostly for the better I think. I could very well be wrong, but the next several years will likely represent this movement's "last gasps," as people gradually cease to see the LGBTQ community as an abnormality and more as a, well...normality.

Edit - This isn't to say things like hate crimes or other forms of discrimination will suddenly disappear overnight. Women are still subjected to patriarchal conceptions of society and the family, minorities are still marginalized and targeted, and LGBTQ people will continue to face opposition and harassment. The point, however, is that more and more people oppose these things, and are more willing to speak out and organize against them. The church that refused to marry a couple because they were black? Its been subjected to intense criticism and disgust for its actions - because attitudes have, by and large, changed. The systemic issues underlying these various forms of oppression remain, but on the surface its opposed by many.

[Misanthrope]

can we please fuck off with this chick-fil-a bullshit? Capitalist corporations are bad, we fucking get it. Stop with this liberal nonsense ffs

[Dunk]

can we please fuck off with this chick-fil-a bullshit? Capitalist corporations are bad, we fucking get it. Stop with this liberal nonsense ffs

Versus socialist corporations?

Dude this is a discrimination forum and we're talking about a particularly in the open act of discrimination, one that clearly lays out a way capitalism can reproduce homophobia. Jesus Christ what do you want a radical of the month reward?

[Misanthrope]

Versus socialist corporations?

Dude this is a discrimination forum and we're talking about a particularly in the open act of discrimination, one that clearly lays out a way capitalism can reproduce homophobia. Jesus Christ what do you want a radical of the month reward?
dont call me dude

because corporations are the direct cause of homophobia and not social and economic conditions :rolleyes:. Chick-fil-a goes out of business; you think homophobia vanishes? Of course not. Keep fighting your petty liberal battles, you're accomplishing nothing, no more revolutionary than fucking PETA.

[Dunk]

dont call me dude

because corporations are the direct cause of homophobia and not social and economic conditions :rolleyes:. Chick-fil-a goes out of business; you think homophobia vanishes? Of course not. Keep fighting your petty liberal battles, you're accomplishing nothing, no more revolutionary than fucking PETA.

When did I ever say that homophobia is caused by corporations? When did I ever imply that Chick Fil A going out of business would destroy homophobia? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I made a passing comment about the Chick Fil A "appreciation day," about how people are stuffing their faces with chicken sandwiches in a kind of reactionary activism in support of a guy who uses a mountain of money to shit on LGBT people.

Go fuck yourself, dude.

[Misanthrope]

When did I ever say that homophobia is caused by corporations? When did I ever imply that Chick Fil A going out of business would destroy homophobia? Oh, that's right, I didn't. I made a passing comment about the Chick Fil A "appreciation day," about how people are stuffing their faces with chicken sandwiches in a kind of reactionary activism in support of a guy who uses a mountain of money to shit on LGBT people.

Go fuck yourself, dude.

you attack my comment and expect me to interact as if I was responding to your previous comments and not your attack?

don't call me dude.

revleft 2012, ban me pl0x

[Le Socialiste]

dont call me dude

because corporations are the direct cause of homophobia and not social and economic conditions :rolleyes:. Chick-fil-a goes out of business; you think homophobia vanishes? Of course not. Keep fighting your petty liberal battles, you're accomplishing nothing, no more revolutionary than fucking PETA.

I don't think anyone here has asserted otherwise. :confused:

Edit - What I mean is, no one's claiming corporations are the cause, nor does anyone expect homophobia to vanish with a change in Chick-fil-a policy (or if it goes under). We all know what the root causes are, and how they're related. That's all.

[Lucretia]

Are all of you calling for boycotting CFA going to track down how owners of businesses and stockholders spend their money politically before you make purchases in their commercial establishment?

Just curious, because if I boycotted on the basis of not giving my money to businesses with owners who disagree with me politically, I'd greatly narrow my choices for any kind of leisure or entertainment. I'm sure the same can be said for everybody else here.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The whole Chik Fil A controversy exists because there is no meaningful left in the US. The US working class never really recovered from the depression of the early 90s. That is when much of the right wing "culture wars" started. Someone who has little tolook forward to in life , facing a lifetime of dead end jobs, can be mobilized to feel heroic by "saving the unborn" or "saving families" from the onslaughts of the elitist liberals. On the other hand, well meaning progressives can latch on to identity politics as a safer means of struggle.Of course there is little meaningful difference between Obama and Romney in so far as our quality of life goes. Most people at some level realize this. Avenue to struggle against this are blocked, so its easier and safer to protest against a fast food chain.

Having said this, I do strongly support lgbt rights and same sex marriage. I do support the boycott/protests against Chik Fil A. The best way to get at them? Work on a unionizing drive for their employees. Carry the struggle into an economic struggle.

[maskerade]

does this place even make good food? and why are there so many fast food places in the states? where I come from we have like 3 chains.

either way this is fucking stupid, nothing quite as sickening as people coming to the defense of a corporation...especially a corporation that so publicly advocates shit like this. bah.

[Ostrinski]

I had some ChikFilA this morning which tasted good. I repent!

[¿Que?]

So is there nothing to be said of ideological or symbolic battles. To be sure, in and of themselves, they serve very little purpose without real battles that recognize capitalism as the problem, not specific capitalists, but still, should we just write this off because ultimately it is reformist or liberal identity politics.

What about the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Weren't there other institutions segregating blacks. Weren't schools segregated? Other public institutions and also private businesses segregating by race? And yet, MLK and others chose to target the buses, for symbolic purposes, sure, but didn't the implications of it have deeper significance, if not actual change in ideological and political institutions.

And what about the famous women's day march in Russia, around 1917. Didn't that sort of lead to a revolutionary overthrow of the Czar?

I mean, am I wrong in thinking sometimes these radical ideological purists are some of the most myopic people on the left, who's insistence on radical purity often results in serving the interests of the bourgeoisie, and very often their arguments eerily resemble those of the right wing intelligentsia.

Also, I know it doesn't mean the end of capitalism, but personally I will be mighty pleased to see just one of these big business motherfuckers go down in flames. Even if it is only one, it has the potential to ignite a movement.

Leftist shouldn't be criticizing this at all. Rather, they should be latching on to this issue, and framing it within the broader struggle against capitalism. That's my opinion...

[Lucretia]

So is there nothing to be said of ideological or symbolic battles. To be sure, in and of themselves, they serve very little purpose without real battles that recognize capitalism as the problem, not specific capitalists, but still, should we just write this off because ultimately it is reformist or liberal identity politics.

What about the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Weren't there other institutions segregating blacks. Weren't schools segregated? Other public institutions and also private businesses segregating by race? And yet, MLK and others chose to target the buses, for symbolic purposes, sure, but didn't the implications of it have deeper significance, if not actual change in ideological and political institutions.

And what about the famous women's day march in Russia, around 1917. Didn't that sort of lead to a revolutionary overthrow of the Czar?

I mean, am I wrong in thinking sometimes these radical ideological purists are some of the most myopic people on the left, who's insistence on radical purity often results in serving the interests of the bourgeoisie, and very often their arguments eerily resemble those of the right wing intelligentsia.

Also, I know it doesn't mean the end of capitalism, but personally I will be mighty pleased to see just one of these big business motherfuckers go down in flames. Even if it is only one, it has the potential to ignite a movement.

Leftist shouldn't be criticizing this at all. Rather, they should be latching on to this issue, and framing it within the broader struggle against capitalism. That's my opinion...

I think your analogy here is a little off. The Montgomery bus boycott was about not using accommodations that discriminated African-AMericans. I don't think anybody in this latest round of "controversy" has accused Chick-Fil-A of not serving LGBT people. It's about boycotting the business on the basis of what the private owner of the business does with a small fraction of the revenue.

Anyhow, I don't think a boycott of ChickFila is wrong or bad per se. I just think it's silly to condemn people who don't jump on board with it for some of the reasons I have already mentioned in this and in a related thread. Fortunately I don't have to worry about any of this huge ethical dilemma, since I am far from any location.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

does this place even make good food? and why are there so many fast food places in the states? where I come from we have like 3 chains.

either way this is fucking stupid, nothing quite as sickening as people coming to the defense of a corporation...especially a corporation that so publicly advocates shit like this. bah.

I've never eaten there, I believe they are concentrated in the southern states. The reason for so many fast food places is that the US is, or has been forced to have become, a car culture and people are often forced to drive long distances for work, recreation or just to buy necessities.Hence the popularity of fast food places. McDonalds overwhelmingly dominates that market, but their food is crap, so there is room for "niche marketing" in that area.

I originally thought the Chik Fil A thing was liberal wankery, but now I see how it can be a significant campaign. At this stage it doesn't matter why or how people criticize corporate power, as long as corporate power is being criticized. Hopefully this campaign can be used to mobilize people not just against the reactionary policies of the owners of the company but also the low pay and crappy conditions of fast food workers.

[Lucretia]

I've never eaten there, I believe they are concentrated in the southern states. The reason for so many fast food places is that the US is, or has been forced to have become, a car culture and people are often forced to drive long distances for work, recreation or just to buy necessities.Hence the popularity of fast food places. McDonalds overwhelmingly dominates that market, but their food is crap, so there is room for "niche marketing" in that area.

I originally thought the Chik Fil A thing was liberal wankery, but now I see how it can be a significant campaign. At this stage it doesn't matter why or how people criticize corporate power, as long as corporate power is being criticized. Hopefully this campaign can be used to mobilize people not just against the reactionary policies of the owners of the company but also the low pay and crappy conditions of fast food workers.

I don't think people are criticizing Chickfila because it represents corporate power. They are criticizing its owners because those owners donate some money to a political campaign they disagree strongly with (and justifiably so), and many of these critics are using their power as consumers to try to pressure the owners not to make the donations anymore (I think that's what the goal is, anyway). I have no problem with their criticisms or their boycott (though as I said earlier, I am not a big fan of same-sex civil marriage for the same reason I am not a fan of opposite-sex civil marriage). I would, however, have a problem with boycotters sanctimoniously criticizing those who choose not to participate for whatever reason for the simple reason I stated above: everybody indirectly gives money to reactionary political causes practically every day of their lives when they engage in economic transactions with businesses. It seems arbitrary to single this campaign out as crucially important, and not a boycott of, say, AT&T for rolling over all the government's requests into the private cell phone records of its consumers.

Anyhoo I think it's important we don't just opportunistically latch onto every campaign against a corporation just because it is against a corporation, which seems to be the gist of your remarks here. In fact, people are perfectly capable of making reactionary criticisms of corporations, like right-wingers do when they criticize Disney for being too "gay friendly."

[Ocean Seal]

That's not a new low, putting a fake PR up on Chick Fil 'A isn't as bad as the anti-gay attitude.

[DasFapital]

we don't have chik fil a out in my neck of the woods. thank god

[¿Que?]

I think your analogy here is a little off. The Montgomery bus boycott was about not using accommodations that discriminated African-AMericans. I don't think anybody in this latest round of "controversy" has accused Chick-Fil-A of not serving LGBT people. It's about boycotting the business on the basis of what the private owner of the business does with a small fraction of the revenue.

Anyhow, I don't think a boycott of ChickFila is wrong or bad per se. I just think it's silly to condemn people who don't jump on board with it for some of the reasons I have already mentioned in this and in a related thread. Fortunately I don't have to worry about any of this huge ethical dilemma, since I am far from any location.
Well, it's not a perfect analogy, but if it were, then we'd be comparing two identical things right?

So the point is that it is not absolutely necessary to boycott everything objectionable to the left, so long as the boycott has some sort of meaning or significance. This significance can be exploited by the left to make a broader critique of capitalism. Sadly, the liberal control of the message, and the radical left's insistence on disavowing itself of anything remotely associated with identity politics will make sure the broader critique is not made.

Further, the donations Dan Cathy is making basically amount to providing material support for organizations actively engaged in promoting a legal structure that would allow the kind of discrimination you're talking about. Here is Peter Sprigg's, of the Family Research Council, testimony opposing a bill that would criminalize discriminatory hiring practices based on transgender identity:
http://www.frc.org/testimony/testimony-of-peter-sprigg-to-the-maryland-state-senate-regarding-gender-identity-discrimination
In other words, he is arguing that businesses should be free to discriminate against transgendered individuals in their hiring practices.

I think in some ways you are right. So long as this remains strictly an identity issue, and the broader critique of capitalism is not put forth, which I think is the case, not strictly looking at the major news networks, but generally in activist and political circles, then there is not much point to jumping on board. I have not been too enthusiastic with regard to this issue, and the fact that some mayors are refusing or attempting to refuse to allow chick fil A's to do business in their cities (most notably Rahm Emmanuel) is simply indefensible within the strictures of capitalist ideology and discourse.

So yeah, in some ways, I think I see where you're coming from.

EDIT: I think even if Fox news would frame this as Obama's socialist attack on private business would be better than some so called culture war. Maybe?

[Althusser]

That's not a new low, putting a fake PR up on Chick Fil 'A isn't as bad as the anti-gay attitude.

Their anti-gay attitude compounded with this ridiculous PR attempt constitutes their "new low."

[freeeveryone!]

I had some ChikFilA this morning which tasted good. I repent!not to belittle the awfulness of corporate homophobia, but compared to how many people get killed due to the actions of large companies all the time, which leftists buy from, Chik-Fil-A's stance on gay marriage is a pretty tame offense in the context of capitalism. so I don't see a need to feel bad, even if you are kind of joking around.