Chick-fil-A protests do more harm than good

Chick-fil-A has been the focus of political ire recently, after the popular chain sponsored a Christian, anti-gay marriage group at an event in Pennsylvania earlier this month. Yet bringing political activism into private arenas does not accomplish anything, and it threatens to harm the foundations of our nation.

Their chicken sandwiches have made Chick-fil-A a standout among college students. | Creative Commons

Despite Chick-fil-A’s popularity among USC students, many people are not aware of the company’s Christian roots.

Founded by the Cathy family in the notoriously Christian deep South, the restaurant chain closes Sundays in observance of the Sabbath and encourages employees to attend church.

One aspect of the corporation’s mission is “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to [them].”

As our society becomes increasingly secular, many more people are sensitive to any expression of religion, particularly Christian, in the community.

Although Chick-fil-A is a private corporation and has the constitutional right to promote its religious beliefs, it seems people are offended by when they do so.

A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender blog, Good As You, first discovered Chick-fil-A’s involvement with a pro-family values group called the Pennsylvania Family Institute when it saw the company’s name on a flyer for the group’s “Art of Marriage” event.

Soon after, gay rights activists began circulating and signing petitions calling for an end to the restaurant’s support of  anti-gay events.

Chick-fil-A representatives responded by saying the company has no political agenda and  was merely supporting the local community by donating food to surrounding churches.

People, notably student groups, didn’t buy it.

The issue has been especially volatile on college campuses. The restaurant was temporarily cut from Indiana University’s list of retailers as a result of a student movement, and Florida Gulf Coast University had similar plans.

Luckily, USC has not followed suit.

The deeply Christian roots of the restaurant chain’s founding family should be a sufficient explanation for its support of local church events and Christianity-based organizations.

To take a situation like this and turn it into a demonization of an all-American chicken restaurant as some corporation run by ignorant, intolerant homophobes is ridiculous.

Following this warped logic, one could even accuse In-N-Out of being anti-gay because it prints Bible verses on the bottom of its cups.

The funniest thing about this approach to political activism is that people are attempting to use a restaurant that makes chicken to get what they want.

No amount of boycotting will make gay marriage legal across the United States, especially if the place that people are boycotting doesn’t even have explicit anti-gay sentiments.

Not only is boycotting restaurants a futile tool for effecting political change, but it is harmful to the fabric of our nation and its communities.

Family-run companies embody what it is to be American, drawing on relationships and a propensity for hard work to contribute to the community. But in biting the hand that feeds, we only hurt ourselves.

Attacking those who contribute to the economic well-being and cohesiveness of our communities is not an impetus for sociopolitical change; it does quite the opposite.

Looking for any little thing to grab onto to incite political debate in areas where it will not actually effect policymakers is counterintuitive.

Being in the center of a major economic center, perhaps USC students will act with more business savvy in the midst of recent protests.

Let us analyze the situation before turning our back on a highly reputable restaurant chain near our own campus.

Sarah Cueva is a freshman majoring in political science.

47 replies
  1. Gael
    Gael says:

    I dont understand what the crying is about. Not supporting gay marriage on the grounds of religion doesnt mean you are anti gay, it means you are following your religion. Has anyone here even read the bible? How about the quotes above? If someone is a Christian, Muslim or Jew, and homosexuality is considered immoral in their laws, then why do you think they should allow you to participate in their religious institution? Let me reiterate: marriage is a religious institution, not secular. What rights are you being denied? You believe in separation of church and state, yet you are trying to get the state to intervene on the church. Fight for a civil union to hold the same weight and rights as a marriage and be happy. Accept that all choices in life have consequences. Be gay, thats fine, but stop bullying everyone around you to change their way of life for you. Not even the Greeks and Romans married their gay lovers, and homosexuality was a way of life for them. They didnt see a problem, so why do you?

  2. Dawn
    Dawn says:

    As Chick Fil A has a right to have their religious views…bla bla bla…so do those have a right to Freedom of assembly. I grew up in the South….Chick Fil A used to come to my high school on career day every year to recruit…and yes I went to a private Christian school. I can call them anti-gay, as I believe they are. As are most Christian organizations. They still hold true the Old Testament line that homosexuality is an abomination. No one’s being food, regardless of what the Cathy family says. We’re not stupid.

    I boycott Chick Fil A. Meaning, I won’t eat there or purchase anything from there. I don’t force my family to do the same. My husband and kids love their chicken. I don’t stop them, but will never pick anything up from there for them either, they know this. My choice to do so. I’m not crazy about gay hater Jesus chicken.

  3. Food Fight
    Food Fight says:

    There are too many simplistic yokels commenting on here with their fallacious arguments a la slippery slope, straw man, poisoning the well, etc. And ewwhhh, poor grasp of the English language!

    DT needs to set up a “sign in” system that requires everyone to submit “traceable” profiles so that people stop trolling on here…because I know not everyone who kicks up dust on here is from SC. My local newspaper did that, and the profanity, vitriol, and racist comments abruptly dropped.

    ..Anways, I’m gonna enjoy my Chick-Fil-A sandwich with criss cross fries, and some sweet Southern ice tea!!!! You have no idea how happy I am because there is a Chick-Fil-A close by. Next: Tommy’s Famous Chili Burgers, In-N-Out,

  4. Russell
    Russell says:

    It’s come to my attention that there are some basic facts that are being misinterpreted here. It seems people have come to the conclusion that Chick-Fil-A is donating to overtly anti-gay organizations of which there is no evidence at least from this article. The defense is that the USC Chick-Fil-A is donating to community religious organizations. The fact that some of these have anti-gay sentiment or are against gay marriage doesn’t seem to truly reflect on the company as a whole. And even if the intent of Chick-Fil-A is to openly voice it’s disapproval of gay marriage, what is protesting really going to do? Boycotting makes sense. Don’t support them. But believing that protesting an isolated incident at a fast food restaurant is going to enact social change is just naive. I’ve read people equating this to boycotts and sit ins during the civil rights movements which is as much if not more of a stretch of the imagination than what you are accusing the writer of during her In’n’Out analogies. Those protests were against widespread direct discrimination of blacks with the aim of making the discrimination illegal. Protesting Chick-Fil-A for a single action is not going to force the federal government to outlaw the practice of donating to organizations based on their religious or political affiliations. Protests are a great tool, but should be used for something that matters. I equate it to going fishing with dynamite. And for pete’s sake people. IT’S A FAST FOOD CHICKEN RESTAURANT! The gravity with which this has been discussed is laughable. For the record I’m a democratic atheist from the California bay area who is pro gay rights. I’m just tired of seeing overzealous, belligerent and useless demonstrations. (You can thank code pink for that one.)

  5. Daisy
    Daisy says:

    You know you’re born with that body.You are raised up in a society where you’re allowed to make many choices to define who you are today. You have every rights and every power you have to ask for more to satisfy your needs and wants. When will it be enough? Homosexual is a choice. A contagious choice and it needs to be prevent. Not allow same sex marriage is one way to prevent it from spreading. If there is a cure for such a choice, we should look into scientific research. Marriage is not a right but it is a choice. For thousand of years wedding ceremony has always been between a man and a woman. To allow same sex marriage is like allowing immediate relatives marrying one another? To allow same sex marriage is like issuing citizenship to all illegal aliens? To allow same sex marriage is like issuing professional license to prostitutes? To allow same sex marriage is like legalizing all the drugs?

    • Russell
      Russell says:

      …Homosexuality is as much of a choice as is your grasp of the English language. Sometimes you just can’t help it. Not sure why you’re posing questions of your personal statements, And marrying relatives is illegal since it often condones sexual intercourse which leads to genetic defects. Same sex partners don’t exactly have that issue. No study has shown child development is hindered by having same sex parents, Marriage between a man and a woman is a christian construct (marriage as an institution has been enacted by peoples around the world and is not exclusively a Christian construct), Homosexuality is not a disease, same sex marriage will not result in a bunch of new gay people… that’s not how reproduction works. Based off your post, I have a feeling we should be way more pissed off at the failings of our education system. You are the poster child for why we should not be cutting funds to public education. We just can’t afford it. Of course this post is useless, since it’s evident you won’t be able to read it. So i’ll put it into simple terms for your simple mind:

      “Gayz is good and you r dumb”

  6. Correy Lennox Youngblood
    Correy Lennox Youngblood says:

    Nobody is infringing on anybody’s rights here.

    Chick Fil A can have and can express their beliefs.

    And people can, and have the right to, disagree with those beliefs in the form of a boycott.

    To make an implication that not eating somebody’s chicken sandwich somehow equals “infringing on their religious rights” is beyond ridiculous, and I was told those very same words this evening by Bryan Fischer on American Family Radio.

    I don’t eat there, as I think to be anti-gay is immoral.

    If I wanted to eat there as a show of support of anti-gay policies, I would have that right too.

  7. biba
    biba says:

    If this food chain wants to donate their chickens to Ku Klux Klan type events or whatever other less than noble causes, they have only themselves to blame for their public relations disaster.

  8. cow
    cow says:

    I think the point the author is trying to make is that boycotting a USC Chick-Fil-A restaurant for something a Pennsylvania restaurant did is counterproductive. Chick-Fil-A is a franchise and each restaurant is independently owned and operated. It’s pointless to boycott the USC Chick-Fil-A, as the current owner of that restaurant has never spoken out against gay marriage. While Chick-Fil-A’s corporate office is very vocal about its religious beliefs, I don’t think it has extended to the point of protesting against gay marriage, with the exception of this independently operated restaurant in Pennsylvania. The CEO released a statement regarding the matter, and I encourage you to all read it. This was the action of an independently owned restaurant, not the company itself.

    I don’t believe the author claimed that people don’t have the right to boycott, but rather was trying to say it’s ineffective in doing so in this situation. I will continue to eat at the USC Chick-Fil-A regardless of the decision of the Pennsylvania’s restaurant. I am in favor of gay marriage, but I’m not going to stop eating at the USC Chick-Fil-A because of some other restaurant 3000 miles away.

  9. Ryan Hauck
    Ryan Hauck says:

    As a dedicated Christian, I concede that Chick-fil-A has every right to observe and express its Christian tradition. However, there is a fine line between a Christian cause and an anti-gay cause. Those who use their religion to defend out-dated and offensive political views are no different than those who used the Bible to justify slavery or the oppression of women.
    While there has been a slight secularization of modern society, this is mostly the product of an increasing respect for the incredible breadth of American religious diversity and not a deliberate, underground anti-Christian campaign as so many seem to falsely believe. No one expects the owners of Chick-fil-A to disown their religion, nor should anyone expect such a thing.
    Lastly, political activism cannot conceivably challenge our nation’s foundations. The ability to stand up in the face of injustice is one of the greatest products of our democracy and our Constitutional rights. No one knew this better than another devout Christian: Martin Luther King, Jr.
    Other than that, anyone whose personally attacking Sarah for her article should remove themselves from the forum. This isn’t a country where we shout down opposition.

  10. Jack
    Jack says:

    Grow up Keely!! The purpose of an opinion article is to get people thinking about subjects that impact all of us and where differing thoughts and ideas exist and should be considered and discussed. This article did that.
    Your comment…”if their money is being actively used to deny my friends their rights” Reread the article or do a little research before making stupid comments like this. At no point in the article did the author support denying rights to gays. In fact, the article states that Chik Fil A has made it very clear that they did not support denying gay rights but rather simply donated food to numerious churchs in the surrounding area. Boycotts are fine however I think the point of the article is that, in this case, the Boycott is aimed in the wrong direction. When people act ignorantly and attempt to push their agenda by condeming the wrong group of people the entire agenda looses credibilty and takes a step backwards. Go grab a chickin sandwhich and some sweet tea and relax a little Keely.

    • Quyennl
      Quyennl says:

      Before making personal attacks, Jack: maybe you should do some research too.

      Although Chick Fil A only served food at the the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s “Art of Marriage” event mentioned in the article, they have financially supported anti-gay organizations such as the The National Organization for Marriage’s Ruth Institute in the past.

      And Keely clearly “[considered and discussed] subjects that impact all of us…” She’s not saying the article shouldn’t have been published, only that the author should be held accountable.

      • Jack
        Jack says:

        No personal attacks intended Quyennl. I just think that if you are going to attack an article/author that you should attack/discuss the content and intent of the material vs. making up things out of context and thin air. I agree, I should do more homework as I wasn’t aware of Chik Fil A supporting anti-gay organizations. When I look at the web site for the Ruth’s institute they claim their mission is “Our mission is to create an intellectual and social climate favorable to marriage!” Without digging deeper I can’t tell from this that they are anti gay but since they are pro “traditional marriage” you may be right. Not sure the author should be attacked and insulted for believing a boycott of a christian based company is warranted because they support christian causes. It is, of course, our right to boycott anything we want, but to the authors point, I don’t think it accomplishes anything when pointed in the wrong direction. I pulled up other support that chik fil A has donated to in the past which covers everything from nursery schools to high schools to colleges. It looks to me like this is a company that trys to support most of society while not attempting to alienate anyone. I believe in gay marriage/rights but I don’t see why a boycott against a company like this furthers anyones cause. It can only set it back………in my opinion

  11. Culinary Incorrectness
    Culinary Incorrectness says:

    So much heat in here! Big chicken deal! I like Chick-Fil-A and In-N-Out, but I’m not Christian. I don’t care if they proselytize their religion on drink cups, or support causes against homosexuality.

    Both their food is great! I’ll eat more cows and chicken.

    …So in your face: vegans/vegetarians!!! Are you gonna use the food card on me because I didn’t distinguish between “vegan” and “vegetarian?”

  12. Quyennl
    Quyennl says:

    Many people have covered some issues already but I’d like to add:

    “biting the hand that feeds, we only hurt ourselves,” With that attitude, most of the social progress in history would never have happened. Are we going to tell the Black slaves not to protest their plantation masters (who literally fed them)? I understand this analogy is limited because chick-fil-a is not directly oppressing gay people, but remember that not all social change comes from explicit laws and policies of the government. Things that raise awareness are not futile just because they don’t directly change laws, as others have already mentioned; the protests were not a direct attempt to make gay marriage legal (and admittedly, not eating at Chick fil a will not make gay marriage legal), although that can be the indirect effect. It’s a way for people to raise awareness about where their money is going and to defend themselves against a force they feel is impinging on their rights.

    I sincerely hope that when you get into your field of work in the future that you remember that the United States is a country of people, not big business, and that, like wealth, human rights will not just simply trickle down from top to bottom. People are allowed to take action.

    • Jeffrey
      Jeffrey says:

      I’ve read the article. And no, I don’t believe the author thinks that those protesting should not have a right to protest. I don’t agree with the entirety of the article, and a couple phrases do stick out to me as being overly sensational, but also agree with aspects of it in that I believe in this case, demonizing Chick-Fil-A because they support a Christian organization isn’t fair to the corporation and ultimately makes homosexuals construed as looking for blood (chicken blood?) rather than working for constructive change.

      But yeah, aspects of the article’s argument are a bit ridiculous for insinuating that boycotts never got anything done.

  13. Jeffrey
    Jeffrey says:

    Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (NIV)

    Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.”

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 – “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV).

    I do not consider myself a Christian, but I do believe that the Bible is relatively clear that it deems Homosexuality a sin. Of course, it simultaneously states that sinners can “inherit the kingdom of God” due to God’s forgiveness of sin, but it does clearly condemn homosexuality.

    So, I’d argue that a “Christian” organization supporting homosexual marriage (not homosexual rights, as I believe – and doubt Christians would disagree – that homosexual people should have every societal right as anyone else) directly contradicts Christian teaching.

    In my opinion: The idea that marriage – initially a religious institution – should carry with it societal rights and priviliges is a violation of the principle of separation of church and state. However, I do not believe that the best way to solve this dilemma is to extend marriage to homosexuals (in direct conflict with the traditionally religious nature of marriage) but in fact alter the legal grounds marriage entails, and remove any special priviliges given to married couples vs. a partnership agreement (or whatever the most correct legal term is). Homosexuals fundamentally deserve the same rights as everyone else, however I do not believe that the terminology of “marriage” is a right, due to the fact that homosexuality is clearly condemned by the religious institution under which marriage is traditionally performed.

  14. Keely
    Keely says:

    There are a lot of people here advocating that Sarah be cut some slack because she is only a freshman. As another freshman, I call BS. That sort of excuse just sees that such people as Sarah are cut slack for bull like this when they, not their age, should be held accountable.

    Sarah, you know very little about the principles on which this country was founded and the tools with which most civil rights advances have been made. Boycotting has in the past been one of the most crucial political tools of the United States–hardly a “threat to the fabric of our nation”–and we are fully within our rights to do so. Shutting up and sitting down doesn’t get anything done, and–though Chick-Fil-A might be “just a fast food restaurant”–if their money is being actively used to deny my friends their rights (for the problem here is not that they are Christian–so is In N Out, and I can’t find the slightest speck of news anywhere that they donate money to anti-gay right causes), I am fully free to refrain from giving them more money with which to do so.

    Corporations and those of Sarah Palin’s ilk seem to think that, if we publicly censure or disagree with them, we are denying them of their right to free speech. But “free speech” doesn’t mean “freedom from criticism”–their detractors have free speech too.

  15. josh
    josh says:

    How did this editorial make it through the editor?? Was there someone off-duty, or has USC given up on intellectual rigor? (or basic U.S. history and government…) Time to spend a little more time studying, Sarah.

  16. Molly
    Molly says:

    “Not only is boycotting restaurants a futile tool for effecting political change, but it is harmful to the fabric of our nation and its communities.”

    Yikes. This article is really scary. It scares me that an article like this could be published out of a reputable school like USC. It scares me that you are missing the most fundamental aspect of democracy – the right to express our own ideas, our own preferences, our own CHOICES. Boycotting a restaurant is an EXTREMELY powerful tool for effecting social change – we have a powerful tool at our disposal as conscious consumers. How do you reconcile the effectiveness of boycotts during the civil rights movement of the 60s? Boycotting is not “harmful to the fabric of our nations.” It is beneficial to the fabric of our nations. By questioning , we not only exercise our rights, but uphold the tradition of participatory democracy. Such a tradition helped us to recognize our bigotry and injustice in the 1960s, and it will help us come to terms with the systematic discrimination against gays today. We will all look back on this time, down the road when ALL citizens have full rights, and reflect on our role in righting that injustice. Personally, I hope I don’t look back with regret. Sarah, I realize you are only a freshmen and you still have a lot of learning and growing to do at college, but I urge you to take a deeper look into your convictions.

  17. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    Ha..ha.. Eric…. very simple…. Dont go and eat there… Are the forcing you? Its free society and you have a choice to
    make, instead of protest.
    Oh, yes but their chicken sandwich is so tasty….. perhaps you can resist going there…. hahahaha

  18. Angela
    Angela says:

    Chick-fil-A’s Christian background is not the issue, so comparing these protests to hypothetical protests of In-N-Out because they print bible verses on their cups and paper is not only completely baseless and unjustified, it’s a complete exaggeration. You are naively assuming that anything Christian/biblical=anti-gay, which is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case. There are several Christian denominations that are completely supportive of queer rights, including the right to marry not only through the state but through the Church itself. The real issue is that this particular corporation decided to support an ANTI-GAY group that uses “Christian” rhetoric to support its views. Yes, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but PLEASE do not generalize and assume all Christians are anti-gay because that’s just plain inaccurate. And PLEASE, as an earlier post said, try to think a bit critically–your in college now.

  19. JoeyF
    JoeyF says:

    I was going to write a much more robust response, but then I got to the bottom of the article and saw that Sarah Cueva is just a freshman. Assuming she’s a teenager, I’ll cut her some slack for being quite a bit off the mark. Besides, most of the comments here have already said what I was going to say. Sarah: Please continue to write and think critically and learn from your time at USC. I’m sure you’ll learn/realize that (1) the public’s right to choose to support–or not support–private businesses IS part of “the foundation of our nation,” and (2) hyperbole such as “bringing political activism into private arenas…threatens to harm the foundations of our nation” only compromises your own credibility as a writer. Good luck to you! :)

  20. JeepersCreepers
    JeepersCreepers says:

    Chik-fil-A owners have a right to donate to anti-gay causes. Its protesters have a right to boycott. It’s called the marketplace of ideas, and may the best man win.

    For the record, I’m bisexual and I’m eating at Chik-fil-A regardless, sorry. *shrug*

  21. omgeffbigots
    omgeffbigots says:

    what Eric meant by a corporation that actively tries to destroy his life is analogous to the idea of homosexuality and homosexuals in general being boycotted by what people think “God” meant and through personal interpretations of a text that has been translated and retranslated over and over and over again to fit political agenda and oppression of people through the ages. I think its ridiculous that any group or human can use a fairy tale to oppress others. one would think our cortex in our brains evolved to be smarter than this. we are truly and officially living in an idiocracy. one would think using god to oppress others would be passe in 20-effing-11.

  22. JPP
    JPP says:

    A business takes certain risks when it nails the personal beliefs of the owners to their doors for all to see. Or as Martin Luther might put it today, “In your face….” But is this a Chick-Fil-A strategy (there is no bad publicity) to gather the flock for the inevitable negative reactions by evil homosexual and other outsiders? In any case, Sarah, you go around flying your flag and you invite rejection, protest (that’s right, LAPD, protest), and flag-flying by others. I hope the more thoughtful among the masses of chickens will use this opportunity to rise up, biting Chick-Fil-A from the rear as former customers head for the Nine-O for a round and some fries.

  23. Chris
    Chris says:

    I think you miss the point of “rights.” While they have a right to use their private funds and influence however they see fit, we have just as much right to be unhappy about it. If their names are appearing on fliers for these events, and they are donating to them, then guess what? They’re engaged in the political arena.

    Certainly, they shouldn’t be threatened or demonized, but every American can protest ’till the cows come home if they see fit.

    It looks like the commenters above said things to a similar effect, so I’ll get off my soap box in short order, but I can’t think of a case where a protest, based in fact/events absent of baseless character defamation, is inappropriate. Americans are notoriously complacent and we don’t protest about ANYTHING in force, and even though I don’t think that Chick-Fil-A’s actions merit a boycott myself, I am 100% behind the activist groups that boycott it. If Chick-Fil-A really wants to make sure it doesn’t step on any gay toes, it would donate an equal amount to an LGBT org or something. Since it hasn’t, carry on, boycotteers.

  24. Eric
    Eric says:

    You are missing the point of the boycott. It’s not that this will accomplish something in the political arena. It’s that I don’t like the profit that Chick-fil-a makes from me shopping there providing free food to people who actively try to destroy my life.

    • Diane
      Diane says:

      Really? People working for the word “marriage” to mean what it has always meant – how exactly does that “destroy” your life? If your life is “destroyed” by people disagreeing with you, you are kind of a pathetic little weenie, right?

      • rachel
        rachel says:

        Wow. If you were told you couldn’t marry the consenting adult person you love, and you were discriminated against in other ways as well, I probably wouldn’t call you a “pathetic little weenie” for it. But I guess I’m the pathetic one.

      • JoeyF
        JoeyF says:

        Really, Diane?? Sure, maybe Eric’s phrase “destroy my life” was an (obvious) exaggeration, but there really is no debate that anti-marriage crusaders are actively trying to keep rights from others.

        Keep pretending that they (you?) are just “working for the word ‘marriage'”.

        I’ll keep working on that definition of “small-minded, bigoted busybodies.”

      • Keely
        Keely says:

        If “people disagreeing with you” translates to said people actively trying to deprive you of rights granted every other citizen due only to your sexual orientation then, yes, it’s more than fair to use that kind of hyperbole–especially since the people running organizations like those also tend to work against other kinds of discrimination against GLBTs as well. Your calling someone “a pathetic little weenie” because they’re upset about being denied basic rights for an entirely arbitrary reason indicates that you are fairly despicable, deeply homophobic, and extremely ignorant. Go home.

        • Keely
          Keely says:

          Er, “work FOR other kinds of discrimination,” rather. I’m only running on a couple hours of sleep, people, sorry.

  25. Duke Yin
    Duke Yin says:

    Some of your facts are wrong or misleading.

    1. USC doesn’t have a Chick-fil-a on campus. It’s in Tuscany, which isn’t really USC. This is important, because
    2. Indiana University South Bend (IUSB)’s Chick-fil-a (which only operates on Wednesdays) IS on campus.

    Thus, USC couldn’t have “followed suit”.

    Furthermore, Chick-fil-a operates FULL restaurants at IUPUI (Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis) and the REAL Indiana University (Indiana University Bloomington), but they didn’t kick Chik-fil-a off their campuses, so it’s also false to say “Indiana University” kicked Chick-fil-a out. That’s be like UCLA losing to our football team, then saying we beat Cal. (Which may be true, but not because we beat UCLA.)

    • USC Dad
      USC Dad says:

      Where is “Tuscany”? Not on USC Property? as a NYCer, I am going to sneak into the NYU Dining Hall to try Chick-fil-A (at their Aramark Corp Concession) This is per Article in the NYTimes of 03_FEB_11. Whoever said ” There is no such thing as Bad Publicity”, is Right.
      The US Supreme Ct “Citizens United” Decision established Corporate Freedom of Speech. Right or Wrong, it is currently the Law of the Law. Boycott of the Corporation seems to be the only recourse. Lighten-up! It is not the End of the World. It is just Chicken.

  26. FlexSF
    FlexSF says:

    Sarah, you’re totally wrong. “Yet bringing political activism into private arenas does not accomplish anything, and it threatens to harm the foundations of our nation.” WOW. This is a gigantic leap in logic, and you didn’t unpack it, whatsoever! Chick-fil-A can donate whatever it wants, and to whomever it wants. The people Chick-fil-A seeks to discriminate against are free to protest, and level boycotts against the company for their discriminatory behavior. Anti-gay, Christian zealots deserve all of the negativity they have coming to them. If you think for a second the gays are going to ask a bunch of bigots, nicely, for their permission via votes for marriage equality, you’re really living in a dream world.

    Until the gays are treated equally under the law, and Christian zealots are the only volunteers to prevent it from happening, boycott the bigots, and bankrupt them if possible. I hate them!

  27. Jay
    Jay says:

    Good for Chik-Fil-A for taking a stand! Part of what makes America a free country is the right of all people to make their own choices! As a private company Chik-Fil-A has a right to support whatever causes it deems appropriate, while the public has the option to do business with the company or not. End of story. The reaction to this cause can definitely be seen as anti-Christian by the same logic as people are using to claim the company is anti-gay, and persecuting people for their religious beliefs is no different than what the gay community is accusing Chik Fil A of doing to them.

    Whether or not this was the right choice is irrelevant… the point is that America is a free country and ALL citizens have the right to do as they see fit, including privately held corporations.

    • John K.
      John K. says:

      Jay, your analogy is apples and oranges.

      We in the LGBT community are not attacking Chick Fil A for being Christian; we are calling them out for being ANTI-GAY! We are only attacking Christianity to the extent that being Christian and being anti-gay are one and the same, a premise which I reject, as do a lot of my gay Christian friends.

      We are not on the offensive here. We are defending ourselves against the ATTACKS of organizations that Chick-Fil-A supports. To equate that defense with the affirmative initiation of anti-gay ballot questions and laws all across this country is intellectually dishonest at best, and willfully deceptive at worst.

      The moment Chick-Fil-A stops expressing its Christianity by supporting attacks on me is the moment I will stop boycotting Chick-Fil-A, period. It has nothing to do with its Christianity, and everything to do with the direct effect its actions has on my life.

    • FlexSF
      FlexSF says:

      Jay, you are wrong. “…and persecuting people for their religious beliefs is no different than what the gay community is accusing Chik Fil A of doing to them.” The gay community has not facilitated a referendum on anyone’s right to get married, the Christian Klan has. The Christian Klan is responsible for every pre-emptive, and gay marriage referendum in the country. Chik-Fil-A supports professional, anti-gay, Christian organizations. It is one. It supports the anti-gay, Christian, claim that to strengthen opposite-sex marriage, they must ban gay marriage. Who is persecuting who here? What group has had a more tangible impact?

      Wake up.

  28. John Kч
    John Kч says:

    Chick fil a has a constitutional right to it’s opinions and people have a constitutional right to p spend their money the way they want. The blogs have a constitutional right to inform people where organizations like chick fil a spend their money, which comes from their patrons. I’m sick of people equating one organization’s first amendment rights with some imaginary right to be free from criticism or retaliation from private citizens in the form of counter speech, AKA taking their money elsewhere.

    The bottom line is that if any portion of revenue that comes into chick fil a will be donated to a cause that does not just hold an opinion, but affirmatively advocates for anti-gay laws, then OF COURSE gay people and our supporters have an interest in knowing that and of course we would have an interest in seeing that our money does not go through organizations like chick fil a to other organizations that will use it to hurt us! This is not difficult to understand. It is not about punishing chick fil; it is about defending our rights, which are CONSTANTLY under attack. And if you deny that, you are an idiot or simply not paying attention.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Continue reading here: Chick-fil-A protests do more harm than good – Daily Trojan Online […]

Comments are closed.