Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole

[cooleddie74]

Yep. Stuff your face and feel like you're saving the nation from immoral decay. Jingoism and gluttony all in one location.

It's the crusades all over again.

Except this time the Holy Grail is a big pile of waffle fries drizzled in ketchup.

Graham Chapman: "Waffle fries!"
John Cleese: "Waffle fries!"
Michael Palin: "God be praised!"
Terry Gilliam: "It's only some bigotry..."

 

[Davros]

Yep. Stuff your face and feel like you're saving the nation from immoral decay. Jingoism and gluttony all in one location.

It's the crusades all over again.

Except this time the Holy Grail is a big pile of waffle fries drizzled in ketchup.

Graham Chapman: "Waffle fries!"
John Cleese: "Waffle fries!"
Michael Palin: "God be praised!"
Terry Gilliam: "It's only some bigotry..."

Now I want some chicken and waffles.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

The Colonel is back....with a message.

[YT]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jp4RdX8YjA0[/YT]

 

[gturner]

The drive-thru lines for Chick-Fil-A have been reported up to a half-mile long today. The country's largest Wendy's franchisee put up signs saying "Try Chick-Fil-A", probably thinking "First they came for Chick-Fil-A, and nobody spoke up. Then they came for..."

 

[cooleddie74]

Remember folks: the lines for a big Monster Truck Show often stretch all the way around buildings and out into parking lots. Doesn't mean the reason is anything good or special or to be proud of, much less a reason to wave the American flag.

Although seeing the Bigfoot or the Crush-a-Saurus flatten a row of Toyota Camrys is nothing to sneeze at, and no gay civil rights are being infringed upon.

The concepts of class and taste, perhaps. But not basic human decency.

 

[gturner]

Very true, but franchises struggle for tiny percentages of market share and bombard us with constant, expensive ingenious advertisements, often featuring scantilly clad women to win the blue collar customer base. Real men eat beef, and chicken faced an uphill struggle as a light, healthy alternative.

Suddenly Chick-Fil-A got 15,000 real-man points, and guys in flannel shirts can sit in the drive thru line supremely confident that their presence is striking a blow for freedom, America, and perky boobs. Scores of gay Hollywood actors are going to sit in the Chick-Fil-A line madly dialing paparazzi photobugs so they can get a Chick-Fil-A picture in the tabloids, which is way cheaper than dating an ultra-high maintenance beard with two Emmy's and a coke habit.

With Chick-Fil-A getting a free PR trifecta so profound that other franchises are putting up signs to send customers there, things in the fast food industry are going to get intense. I expect Hardee's will have Padma Lakshmi and Kate Upton doing full frontal nudity in a desperate attempt to lure men back to beef.

 

[Kestra]

I predict that people will go back to their usual habits shortly, and not eat there much more than before.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The drive-thru lines for Chick-Fil-A have been reported up to a half-mile long today. The country's largest Wendy's franchisee put up signs saying "Try Chick-Fil-A", probably thinking "First they came for Chick-Fil-A, and nobody spoke up. Then they came for..."

I'd like you to substantiate this.

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/jim-furman-wendys-chick-fil-a_n_1730890.html:

A major Wendy's franchise owner wants Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chicken chain embroiled in an blowup over its CEO's anti-gay comments, to know it's not alone.

Signs at a number of Wendy's franchises in the Carolinas read, 'WE STAND WITH CHICK FIL A' on Wednesday, according to photos submitted to Reddit. The signs have since been removed.

Jim Furman, CEO of Wendy's franchise Tar Heel Capital in the Carolinas, one of the largest Wendy's franchises worldwide, told WBTV that the company decided to post the message. He said the signs were later taken down because Wendy's "felt it was time to go back to their marketing message."

Wendy's pushed back on Twitter, saying that an independent franchisee posted the signs and that the burger chain proudly serves all customers.

Towleroad.com also posted an email from Wendy's consumer relations department. "This is one independent franchisee’s personal opinion," the email read. "We are proud to serve customers of varied races, backgrounds, cultures and sexual orientation, with different beliefs and values. Bearing that in mind, this franchisee has decided to remove the messages from his restaurant signs."

Unless you have a source showing otherwise, your claim as to the text of what was posted on the signs is false (in a way that reminds me of the game of telephone). Additionally, your supposition that there is a connection to words attributed to Martin Niemöller would seem to be totally spurious.

 

[nightwind1]

To Brent, KT, et al:

Here is a post by an ACTUAL Biblical scholar. I ask that you read it with an open mind, consider what he is saying, and then continue your conversation with the rest of us.

http://bradhicks.livejournal.com/119283.html

Does the Old Testament condemn homosexuality? Yes, clearly and unambiguously, at least if we're talking about MSM (men having sex with men): "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) On the other hand, that same general part of the Old Testament also prescribes the death penalty for working on the weekend (Exodus 35:1-2) and for cursing (Leviticus 24:13-16). It also requires that houses with mildew on the shower wall be torn down if the priest doesn't like its color (Leviticus 14:33-53). It also equally fiercely condemns cotton/wool blend suits (Leviticus 19:19), playing football (Leviticus 11:7-8, and boy, tell that to a Southern Baptist from Texas), and most famously, eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:9-12). That's right, folks, God Hates Shrimp. What should all of those rules mean to a contemporary Christian? Remarkably little. How can I say that? Simple: I've read the book of the Bible called Acts, short for "The Acts of the Apostles." It tells the story of how Christianity first spread from a relatively tiny persecuted sect of Jews in Jerusalem to a world-wide religion with more gentile than Jewish believers. And all the way through the first half of the book, the apostles wrestle with the question of just how much of the holiness code, the law of Moses, do the gentiles need to adopt? And when all was said and done, when God had finally gotten His point through their thick skulls, the answer was this: no meat offered to idols. In the opinion of the apostles, and of nearly every Christian scholar from that time until the Republican party takeover of the Church starting in the 1960s, the vast majority of the holiness code, all of the weird little nitpicky details, was not a set of universal laws for all people for all time but a very specific set of laws for a very specific group of people (Jews) in a very specific place (Palestine) during a very specific time (the transition from nomadic tribes to agricultural kingdom). Of all of those details, the only one that the apostles felt worth preserving was a rule requiring that Christians abstain from sharing the food offered at the ceremonial meal at pagan religious ceremonies. That's it. Other than that? Do what Jesus said.

You remember Jesus, right? The guy who stood up against everything the Republicans stand for? Supposedly your savior if you call yourself a Christian? That guy. And oh yeah, he never mentioned anything about homosexuality, or, for that matter, much about any kind of sin other than robbing the poor. In fact, the only time that anybody forced the issue on him, it was a trap by the Pharisees, who hated Jesus with a fiery passion. You see, the Pharisees were exactly like modern Republicans. The Pharisees were a sect who believed that the Roman occupation of Israel was God's punishment on the Jews for not being holy enough, not being pure enough. So the Pharisees taught a regimine of rules about sex, hygiene, and diet that went even farther than God Himself did in the original holiness code. So when they caught Jesus travelling on the sabbath, or gleaning stray grains from the fields he walked through on the sabbath, they were all over Him like flies on excrement. They also hated him for associating with people and ethnic groups that the Pharisees didn't like, and they were constantly smearing Him as a drunkard. And when a group of Pharisees caught an adulterous couple, they figured they had the perfect trap for Jesus. You see, the holiness code very specifically prescribes the death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10). However, Roman law said that only the Roman governor could prescribe the death penalty. So by bringing him the woman caught in adultery, they figured that they could force him to choose between offending the Jews (and losing his followers) or offending the Romans (and being put to death). Instead of answering, Jesus just crouched down and wrote on the ground with His finger for a while, then stood up and said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." The Pharisees slunk away in cowardice and shame, which raises the interesting unanswerable question, what the heck was Jesus writing? My theology professors' favorite speculation was that it was a list of other death penalty offenses that the Pharisees might reasonably suspect Jesus of somehow knowing they were guilty of, daring them to start a stone-throwing festival that would have left the hypocrites as dead as the adulteress. Nonetheless, as fun as this story is, let's not miss part of the point here. Jesus was specifically asked whether or not we as human beings should continue to enforce the holiness code in the Law of Moses, and Jesus very specifically said no. (John 8:1-11)

Paul, on the other hand, we're told from the pulpit that he had a few divinely inspired things to say about homosexuality, right? And since that moves the prohibition on homosexuality into New Testament times, into the mouth of an apostle, surely that means that even if the kosher laws no longer apply and it's legal to play football, it's obviously still wrong to have sex with someone of the same gender. Right? Right? Well, you tell me -- where does Paul supposedly say this? Oh, yeah, it's right here: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1st Corinthians 6:9-10)

But you see, there's a problem with that passage. That phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind" is a translation of one word in the original Greek: arsenokoites, and that word does not mean homosexual. Now, how can I possibly know that, when scholars of Greek don't even agree on what the word means? Simple, I know this by process of elimination: ancient Greek doesn't have a word that means "homosexual." Why? Because neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals existed in that culture. History does not record a single example of a man who was only attracted to men or to women, nor a clear and unambigous example of a woman who's only attracted to men or to women. Normal life as it was lived was for romantic relationships to be with either gender older/younger members of the same sex; same age members of the opposite sex. One married the opposite gender, in an arranged and generally loveless marriage, for the purpose of producing children to take care of you in old age in exchange for an inheritance. In fact, in Plato's famous book The Symposium, there's a long and involved argument that only sex between older men and younger boys qualifies as spiritually pure romantic sexual love; all other forms of sex or love are based in some way or another on narcissism or selfishness. Does a culture that thinks this have a word, let alone an insult, for men who love men? But anyway, if Paul had meant to say that God condemned men having sex with men, or women having sex with women, he could have done so. As one of the most famous students of the Mosaic Law of his time, he could have effortlessly done so by quoting the Septuagint, the widely respected translation of those books from Hebrew into Greek. He could have said "nor men who lie with men as with women ... shall inherit the kingdom of God." You can say that in Greek. But he didn't. Instead he used a word specific to the Corinthian dialect, one not written down in any other source that survived into modern times. So whatever sin he's condemning there, it's not homosexuality. (The leading contender among scholars is "temple prostitutes," and that would make sense: Corinth was the capital of the biggest cult of temple prostitution in the entire Greek-speaking world, the famous Temple of Aphrodite at Corinth.)

So why would so many Bible scholars say otherwise? Why the lie? Why substitute this "Bible full of holes" for their so-called-beloved whole Bible? I'll tell you why they do it. Because by so doing, they take the clash of cultures between Republican reactionaries and Democratic idealists and make it look like God Himself demands that you vote for the reactionaries. And so by this and similar lies they distract people from voting the party that stands up for Christ's principles, and lure them instead to vote for the party that most closely resembles the competing religious sect that most loudly and fervently demanded Jesus' death, the Pharisees.

 

[gturner]

^So the franchisee (as I said) took down the signs that never existed, and we are always at war with East Asia.

The event may be the first time in human history where a franchise told customers to go to a competing franchise, which of course wasn't going to last long because they're in competition.

Meanwhile, opponents of Chick-Fil-A are proudly fighting the franchise and posting videos like this:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=thNqs9fPcgM[/yt]

I'm sure it will get recopied as "Dick in a Drive Thru." Check the comments on it.

When you shoot yourself in the foot, don't reload and shoot the other foot.

If the head of the Special Olympics said gay-pride leather costumes weren't appropriate for the opening cermonies, would you verbally berate a bunch of the competitors and post videos of them crying all over Youtube to establish your intellectual superiority?

It's like the Fred Thompson line from Hunt For Red October. "This thing is going to get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

The winner will be the side whose stupidest, most hateful member was outclassed by a stupid, hateful member of the other side.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No. According to actual documented sources, the signs said: 'WE STAND WITH CHICK FIL A'. Nothing about trying C-f-A.

Get the facts right, at least.

And what's the connection with words attributed to Martin Niemöller? Anything besides something just in your imagination, or not?

 

[gturner]

Because by so doing, they take the clash of cultures between Republican reactionaries and Democratic idealists and make it look like God Himself demands that you vote for the reactionaries. And so by this and similar lies they distract people from voting the party that stands up for Christ's principles, and lure them instead to vote for the party that most closely resembles the competing religious sect that most loudly and fervently demanded Jesus' death, the Pharisees.

Well, it's certainly true that Democratic idealists want to return us to the Garden of Eden, which the Soviets rightly claimed had to have been located in their country, since where else could two people have no shelter, no clothes, and one piece of fruit between them and think they were living in paradise?

You miss the central, overarching message of the New Testament, which is: Don't fuck with Italians, because they'll nail your ass to a cross no matter who your daddy is.

 

[cooleddie74]

Ummm... 'kay.

Did I just have a major stroke?

 

[gturner]

No. According to actual documented sources, the signs said: 'WE STAND WITH CHICK FIL A'. Nothing about trying C-f-A.

Get the facts right, at least.

And what's the connection with words attributed to Martin Niemöller? Anything besides something just in your imagination, or not?

Well, as I've never even imagined that Neimoller was a name, I doubt I imagined that someone was named that, much less that such a person spoke about something.

And again, only official documented sources about the sign are real. It's physically impossible for any Wendy's manager or employee to add their own sign and put it in the window, even for 15 minutes, even if they're a member of the Aryan Nations with all the appropriate tattoos, and even if someone saw the sign, and we are always at war with East Asia.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Thanks. In it's own way, that answers the questions to my satisfaction.

 

[IndyJones]

snip

This thing you're trying to do, guy gardener is already doing it. And he does it better.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Ummm... 'kay.

Did I just have a major stroke?

If you eat this kind of fast food you probably will.


http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Nuggets-Tray

Seriously disgusting.

 

[cooleddie74]

Ummm... 'kay.

Did I just have a major stroke?

If you eat this kind of fast food you probably will.


http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Food/Menu-Detail/ChickfilA-Nuggets-Tray

Seriously disgusting.

Just... wow.

Excuse me just a sec. Be right back.

 

[gturner]

Thanks. In it's own way, that answers the questions to my satisfaction.

And that's the root of the disfunction. Feeling satisfied and sanctimonious and convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is filled with hate may feel good, but it's abysmally ineffective and self-defeating.

Read Sun-Tzu, Clausewitz, or Colonel Boyd. You have to get inside your opponent's head and think as he thinks to understand how to outmaneuver him or defeat him. Your inherent misperceptions of him will spell your doom, because he understands you and what you're doing but you don't understand him. You're fighting a phantom figment of your imagination and he's toying with you, wondering if you'll get a clue as to what's really happening from lots of ground data from your own scouts, or whether you'll dismiss the reports as erroneous, desperately clinging to the wildly incorrect mental picture of what's transpiring.

I've had lots of gay friends, and lots of dead gay friends. Parties at my house used to be 90+% gay, me being the exception. The most frustrating thing about dealing with the left is their massive misperception of the right, whose actions are really easy to understand and predict, and yet, due to a lack of a valid mental model, the left might as well be a space chimp in an Apollo capsule.

This shows up time and time again. Martin Luther King would beat your ass for being PR morons. You've got to focus on the narrative, the goal, and the struggle. Chick-Fil-A is not the Woolworth lunch counter, and Chick-Fil-A never refused service to gays.

 

[nightwind1]

Thanks. In it's own way, that answers the questions to my satisfaction.

And that's the root of the disfunction. Feeling satisfied and sanctimonious and convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is filled with hate may feel good, but it's abysmally ineffective and self-defeating.

Read Sun-Tzu, Clausewitz, or Colonel Boyd. You have to get inside your opponent's head and think as he thinks to understand how to outmaneuver him or defeat him. Your inherent misperceptions of him will spell your doom, because he understands you and what you're doing but you don't understand him. You're fighting a phantom figment of your imagination and he's toying with you, wondering if you'll get a clue as to what's really happening from lots of ground data from your own scouts, or whether you'll dismiss the reports as erroneous, desperately clinging to the wildly incorrect mental picture of what's transpiring.

I've had lots of gay friends, and lots of dead gay friends. Parties at my house used to be 90+% gay, me being the exception. The most frustrating thing about dealing with the left is their massive misperception of the right, whose actions are really easy to understand and predict, and yet, due to a lack of a valid mental model, the left might as well be a space chimp in an Apollo capsule.

This shows up time and time again. Martin Luther King would beat your ass for being PR morons. You've got to focus on the narrative, the goal, and the struggle. Chick-Fil-A is not the Woolworth lunch counter, and Chick-Fil-A never refused service to gays.

Once again, for those disinclined to pay attention-

The point is NOT that they refuse service to gays (which they don't).

The point is that the corporation ACTIVELY DONATES THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to groups who ACTIVELY ATTEMPT TO PUT INTO LAW DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GAYS AND WOMEN!!!

Plain enough for you?