Chick-fil-A and the Politics of Eating
October 9, 2015 8:46 AM Subscribe
Chick-fil-A and the Politics of Eating: In recent days, the complicated politics of urban consumerism have been playing out most visibly, with the arrival of Chick-fil-A, a totem of red-state habits, in New York City. Created by a conservative Christian child of public housing, S. Truett Cathy, in Georgia, in the mid-20th century, Chick-fil-A has come under fire during the past few years over comments made by the founder’s son Dan Cathy, the company’s president, in opposition to same-sex marriage.
Spokesmen for Chick-fil-A contend that the opening in New York and new restaurants in the Seattle metropolitan area have been among the most successful in the company’s history, which suggests simply that the love of a fried chicken sandwich is universal or, at least to some extent, that the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage has made any question of widespread protest a moot point. In another turn, last year Dan Cathy said that he regretted inserting the company into the equality debate.
Spokesmen for Chick-fil-A contend that the opening in New York and new restaurants in the Seattle metropolitan area have been among the most successful in the company’s history, which suggests simply that the love of a fried chicken sandwich is universal or, at least to some extent, that the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage has made any question of widespread protest a moot point. In another turn, last year Dan Cathy said that he regretted inserting the company into the equality debate.
" ... after the marketing stunt in NY" - details?
posted by King Sky Prawn at 8:51 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by King Sky Prawn at 8:51 AM on October 9, 2015
I only ever feel the urge to eat there on Sundays.
posted by Slackermagee at 8:52 AM on October 9, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by Slackermagee at 8:52 AM on October 9, 2015 [18 favorites]
It's fucking delicious.
(Even if you’re gay) Chow down at Chick-fil-A
posted by maxsparber at 8:52 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
(Even if you’re gay) Chow down at Chick-fil-A
posted by maxsparber at 8:52 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I used to enjoy getting takeaway from Chik-fil-A from time to time because it tastes good, didn't seem insanely unhealthy in that Carl's Jr way, and the restaurants were clean. But after a while the overwhelming "We hate you" vibe from corporate was too much. Same with Cracker Barrel. Sorry, franchise owners, but I'm all about that loving and caring for each other business. I'm taking my business somewhere else.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
" ... after the marketing stunt in NY" - details?
Here's more info:
Under normal circumstances, I am fundamentally averse to standing in a long line for anything that is not medically necessary, like potassium iodide pills. But as New York City learned last week, with the opening of the city’s first ever full-service Chick-Fil-A on Sixth Avenue in Midtown, the hatching of a new full-service Chick-Fil-A does not occur under normal circumstances. Per company policy, every new restaurant opening is conducted with a level of exuberant fanfare rarely seen in modern American society. The festivities, technically termed “The First 100,” kick off when, from a crowd of hundreds, 100 lucky souls are selected to receive gift cards entitling them to what Chick-Fil-A ambitiously describes as “Food for a Year.” (In fact, the actual prize consists of 52 free Chick-fil-A Sandwich Meals, which would work out to one meal per week, but which almost certainly could not, unaccompanied, serve as a person’s single food source for a year.)
The First 100 winners are not simply free to claim their cards and go home, however; after being selected, they must withstand a 12-hour barrage of bizarre, family-friendly, and interactive on-brand “fun,” featuring lots of rapping, dancing, and singing, in the style of a Christian summer camp talent show, if the camp catered exclusively to adults and was designed by a marketing firm from hell. In some locales, the barrage of family friendly fun lasts 24 hours.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:57 AM on October 9, 2015 [34 favorites]
Here's more info:
Under normal circumstances, I am fundamentally averse to standing in a long line for anything that is not medically necessary, like potassium iodide pills. But as New York City learned last week, with the opening of the city’s first ever full-service Chick-Fil-A on Sixth Avenue in Midtown, the hatching of a new full-service Chick-Fil-A does not occur under normal circumstances. Per company policy, every new restaurant opening is conducted with a level of exuberant fanfare rarely seen in modern American society. The festivities, technically termed “The First 100,” kick off when, from a crowd of hundreds, 100 lucky souls are selected to receive gift cards entitling them to what Chick-Fil-A ambitiously describes as “Food for a Year.” (In fact, the actual prize consists of 52 free Chick-fil-A Sandwich Meals, which would work out to one meal per week, but which almost certainly could not, unaccompanied, serve as a person’s single food source for a year.)
The First 100 winners are not simply free to claim their cards and go home, however; after being selected, they must withstand a 12-hour barrage of bizarre, family-friendly, and interactive on-brand “fun,” featuring lots of rapping, dancing, and singing, in the style of a Christian summer camp talent show, if the camp catered exclusively to adults and was designed by a marketing firm from hell. In some locales, the barrage of family friendly fun lasts 24 hours.
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:57 AM on October 9, 2015 [34 favorites]
Whelp, that's my moment of learning about hitherto unimaginable awfulness for the day.
posted by PMdixon at 9:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by PMdixon at 9:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
If I based all my eating (or not eating) decisions on the politics of the company/business that provides the food I consume, I would imagine myself starving very quickly. I am certain that I give money to businesses and people that are not deserving.
But you have to choose your battles. For some that line is to not eat at Chick-fil-A, for others it is to not shop at Hobby-lobby. Some people also cannot afford to be conscientious in their choices and have to do what is necessary for themselves or their family.
I personally hate McDonalds but every year I find myself breaking my not eating at McDonalds rule and ordering a 'Shamrock Shake'.
posted by Fizz at 9:02 AM on October 9, 2015 [18 favorites]
But you have to choose your battles. For some that line is to not eat at Chick-fil-A, for others it is to not shop at Hobby-lobby. Some people also cannot afford to be conscientious in their choices and have to do what is necessary for themselves or their family.
I personally hate McDonalds but every year I find myself breaking my not eating at McDonalds rule and ordering a 'Shamrock Shake'.
posted by Fizz at 9:02 AM on October 9, 2015 [18 favorites]
But you have to choose your battles...
No, I don't. You may feel that you have to choose yours, and that's fine for you, but I do not have the luxury of being able to disregard the harmful effects of my unmindful spending in the name of a chicken sandwich that isn't even that good.
posted by frijole at 9:07 AM on October 9, 2015 [46 favorites]
No, I don't. You may feel that you have to choose yours, and that's fine for you, but I do not have the luxury of being able to disregard the harmful effects of my unmindful spending in the name of a chicken sandwich that isn't even that good.
posted by frijole at 9:07 AM on October 9, 2015 [46 favorites]
I absolutely must feed my family black matte glitter balls from Hobby Lobby. We're too poor to do otherwise.
posted by maxsparber at 9:07 AM on October 9, 2015 [40 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 9:07 AM on October 9, 2015 [40 favorites]
Maybe it's because I was just slumming in the Hail Caesar! thread, but I can't think of a better subject of a Coen Brother's farce than Truett Cathy. There are so many sacred cows on both right and left to blow up and assumptions to invert to comedic effect that it would be a crime if this didn't happen.
posted by echocollate at 9:11 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by echocollate at 9:11 AM on October 9, 2015
You don't slum in a Coen Brothers thread! That's where all the class is!
posted by maxsparber at 9:12 AM on October 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by maxsparber at 9:12 AM on October 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
a chicken sandwich that isn't even that good
Politics aside, you are delusional my friend. Or your taste buds have been sawed off. Either a or b.
posted by echocollate at 9:13 AM on October 9, 2015 [28 favorites]
Politics aside, you are delusional my friend. Or your taste buds have been sawed off. Either a or b.
posted by echocollate at 9:13 AM on October 9, 2015 [28 favorites]
And in my opinion, there's a world of difference between the Chik-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. Chik-fil-A does not discriminate in hiring or serving, the didn't take their anti-gay BS to court, the old man just talked about it, that's it. I find Chik-fil-A gross and horrible based much more on on my anti-big meat, anti-planet-killing through intensive farming, anti-corporation views.
posted by feste at 9:15 AM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by feste at 9:15 AM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm conflicted. On one hand, I don't want to give money to an organization that actively worked against marriage equality. It's not like Dan Cathy gave to those causes as a private citizen, this was through their company foundation with corporate money, as I understand. The Supreme Court decision to uphold marriage equality the law of the land makes the issue safe, for now. We all know how if opposition through the courts fails, the attention turns to thwarting the issue via death-of-a-thousand-cuts, as seen with abortion access; remaining legal but harder to get and full of restrictions in an attempt to starve the beast extra-legally. It remains to be seen if marriage equality foes will emulate this tactic.
On the other hand, the sandwiches are pretty damn good.
In short, don't make moral decisions on an empty stomach.
posted by dr_dank at 9:16 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
On the other hand, the sandwiches are pretty damn good.
In short, don't make moral decisions on an empty stomach.
posted by dr_dank at 9:16 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's fast food, its not some amazing chef-delivered food. "Not that good" is obvious.
posted by agregoli at 9:16 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 9:16 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I wish the author had started with "eating now demands an increasingly complicated mathematics" and built an argument from there rather than filling this piece with snark and lazy prejudice. "...baristas and cashiers are young, wool-capped, unfriendly and imperious-looking, as if they were always asking themselves how it was possible that some other practitioner of Expressionist street theater just won a Guggenheim"? "...a totem of red-state habits"? "...we wouldn’t want to dismiss an opportunity to worry"? That's name-calling, not journalism.
"An opportunity to worry" is a lousy way to frame being aware of companies' poor environmental, social, etc. practices, especially when so many of us are trying to strike some kind of balance in our consumption. Compromise because of valid, practical reasons--like affordability and practicality--shouldn't be a target for derision, either. Poorly played, NYT. Disappointing that this was afforded real estate.
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:19 AM on October 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
"An opportunity to worry" is a lousy way to frame being aware of companies' poor environmental, social, etc. practices, especially when so many of us are trying to strike some kind of balance in our consumption. Compromise because of valid, practical reasons--like affordability and practicality--shouldn't be a target for derision, either. Poorly played, NYT. Disappointing that this was afforded real estate.
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:19 AM on October 9, 2015 [13 favorites]
feste: He made himself the flashpoint very consciously because he knew the business it would drum up. Fuck him six ways from closed-on-Sunday forever if he thinks he can back off that now. He's a hatemonger.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:20 AM on October 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by Navelgazer at 9:20 AM on October 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
I enjoy chic fil a. I also like that they are consistently Christian. That is something I can understand, even if I'm a lesbain pagan. I don't eat there often, but I'm okay if a few of my dollars end up in their hands.
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:21 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by AlexiaSky at 9:21 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Thanks to my patronus J. Kenji Lopez-Alt, I don't need to go to fucking Chik-Fil-A to enjoy their delicious sandwiches, I can make them myself.
posted by padraigin at 9:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
posted by padraigin at 9:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
Still not seeing any reason to go eat there
Perhaps you have never tried one of their chicken sandwiches!
(I've been waiting ages for this, and have gleefully been to the NYC location twice since it opened. On my second visit, they somehow remembered my order from the first time. And they're coming to the mall near me in Jersey City, too! Woot!)
Personally, I think it's reasonable not to buy a good or service if you feel its production itself involves unethical practices (e.g., child labor). I also think it's reasonable to not patronize a business because you don't want to foster a monopoly, and would rather encourage the competition. But I don't consider it any of my business where a company (or its owner) decides to spend its profits.
posted by Shmuel510 at 9:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Perhaps you have never tried one of their chicken sandwiches!
(I've been waiting ages for this, and have gleefully been to the NYC location twice since it opened. On my second visit, they somehow remembered my order from the first time. And they're coming to the mall near me in Jersey City, too! Woot!)
Personally, I think it's reasonable not to buy a good or service if you feel its production itself involves unethical practices (e.g., child labor). I also think it's reasonable to not patronize a business because you don't want to foster a monopoly, and would rather encourage the competition. But I don't consider it any of my business where a company (or its owner) decides to spend its profits.
posted by Shmuel510 at 9:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, taste is subjective. But if you're taking a firm moral stance against the political practices of a restaurant, it slightly weakens your argument to add a parenthetical "also, it kind of tastes like crap!" It sort of implies that if it were truly amazing gourmet food, you might be willing to bend a little.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Yeah, I've gotta say that the one time on a business trip I ate at a Chick-fil-A I was pretty unimpressed. Though at the time I lived next to a local fried chicken place that turned out incredible food for only slightly-above-fast-food prices which people might drive a half-hour to get take-out from, so YMMV.
posted by XMLicious at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I might!
posted by agregoli at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
You don't slum in a Coen Brothers thread! That's where all the class is!
You ain't bona fide!
posted by Foosnark at 9:24 AM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
You ain't bona fide!
posted by Foosnark at 9:24 AM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
I'm a vegetarian and strongly supportive of gay rights, so I have no love for Chick-fil-A. But its opponents have been foolish to focus on the company, thereby giving it tons of free advertising.
"Almost all boycotts fail, but especially those staged as proxy battles in the culture wars."
posted by John Cohen at 9:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Almost all boycotts fail, but especially those staged as proxy battles in the culture wars."
posted by John Cohen at 9:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
This homeless man had a brilliant response to being excluded from Chick-fil-A's free-food giveaway
I mean, I would never eat there anyway because I don't like pickles and apparently everything tastes like pickles, but these are not good people that run this company.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I mean, I would never eat there anyway because I don't like pickles and apparently everything tastes like pickles, but these are not good people that run this company.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
My local supermarket chain (Acme) carries what I like to call Fake Chick-Fil-A sandwiches at lunchtime, nestled next to the rotisserie chickens on the heated rack. They are Perdue chicken sandwiches, constructed to be Chick-Fil-A with the serial numbers filed off (not hot-out-of-the-oil-vat, obviously, and possibly not as buttery, but the filet + roll + pickles ratio is proper). This is an option for those who enjoy the taste but do not wish to subsidize a Focus on the Family partner.
Also, if you save a Chick-Fil-A sandwich until after midnight on Saturday and eat it on Sunday, you will turn into a SATANIC HOMOSEXUAL GREMLIN. That can take a lot of time and effort to achieve under other circumstances so you might want to keep this in mind if that's your desired career path.
posted by delfin at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2015 [21 favorites]
Also, if you save a Chick-Fil-A sandwich until after midnight on Saturday and eat it on Sunday, you will turn into a SATANIC HOMOSEXUAL GREMLIN. That can take a lot of time and effort to achieve under other circumstances so you might want to keep this in mind if that's your desired career path.
posted by delfin at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2015 [21 favorites]
Chik-fil-A and Hobby Lobby are "hate chicken" and "glitter glue of the oppressors", respectively, in our household. Fuck 'em.
posted by ersatzkat at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2015 [24 favorites]
posted by ersatzkat at 9:27 AM on October 9, 2015 [24 favorites]
But I don't consider it any of my business where a company (or its owner) decides to spend its profits.
When someone is saying I can't get married they are making it my business.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:31 AM on October 9, 2015 [34 favorites]
When someone is saying I can't get married they are making it my business.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:31 AM on October 9, 2015 [34 favorites]
Every time I eat at Chick-Fil-A, I think "I shouldn't be eating here." Then I get my chicken sandwich and it's amazing. My current rationalization is that so long as they keep their backwards ideas out of the courts, I'll keep eating their chicken.
posted by fremen at 9:32 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by fremen at 9:32 AM on October 9, 2015
Meanwhile, earlier this summer, "Fried chicken aficionados queued for hours at Myanmar's first KFC restaurant Tuesday, as the US restaurant chain became the latest big foreign brand to open an outlet in the long-cloistered nation."
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:33 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:33 AM on October 9, 2015
I guess ever since I saw the author of the Sexual Politics of Meat give a presentation at the uni I went to back in gosh, was it 1993 I guess, it hasn't been all that hard for me to "do the math" when deciding what to chew on with my mouth.
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:34 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 9:34 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
"Almost all boycotts fail, but especially those staged as proxy battles in the culture wars."
This is just stupid. Boycotts can be very effective mostly because they are so easy to implement. Moreover, people's motivation for doing them are intrinsic so there is no collective action problem.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is just stupid. Boycotts can be very effective mostly because they are so easy to implement. Moreover, people's motivation for doing them are intrinsic so there is no collective action problem.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
The "Chik-Fil-A is soooo goooood!" meme seems like one of those viral marketing things that exploded and took on a life of its own, just like omnipresent bacon bacon bacon was revealed to be a few months back. It's just an extruded chicken patty, I don't get it.
posted by Vulgar Euphemism at 9:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [20 favorites]
posted by Vulgar Euphemism at 9:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [20 favorites]
Even if it were the best chicken patty ever made, the company actively hurts people. Don't go there.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:36 AM on October 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:36 AM on October 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
I live in Michigan. What is Chick-Fil-A?
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 9:38 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 9:38 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
But you have to choose your battles...
Well, like some others above, I respectfully disagree. You can act as your conscience dictates you should act or you can divert from that and do something you know isn't OK, which is a thing that is defined internally and personally for each and every one of us, obviously.
Is that all semantics? Perhaps, because...
Is it also ignoring the fact that many, many, many businesses do bad things that we may not know about (either through their skill in hiding it or the media's apathy or just not enough hours in the day to research every company that we buy things from)? Certainly, but...
Is it still possible to avoid buying non-essential goods, like a chicken biscuit perhaps, from a retailer that you know actively places itself against something you agree with? Absolutely.
Live simply so that others may simply live. /motto
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:42 AM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
Well, like some others above, I respectfully disagree. You can act as your conscience dictates you should act or you can divert from that and do something you know isn't OK, which is a thing that is defined internally and personally for each and every one of us, obviously.
Is that all semantics? Perhaps, because...
Is it also ignoring the fact that many, many, many businesses do bad things that we may not know about (either through their skill in hiding it or the media's apathy or just not enough hours in the day to research every company that we buy things from)? Certainly, but...
Is it still possible to avoid buying non-essential goods, like a chicken biscuit perhaps, from a retailer that you know actively places itself against something you agree with? Absolutely.
Live simply so that others may simply live. /motto
posted by RolandOfEld at 9:42 AM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
It's just an extruded chicken patty, I don't get it.
I'm pretty sure it's not extruded.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:43 AM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
I'm pretty sure it's not extruded.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:43 AM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
When you know better, you do better. - Maya Angelou
I have never been to a Chick-fil-A. I have never been to Hobby Lobby. I have never been to a Carl's Jr. If I know that money I am spending is going to fund something I am opposed to, I will not spend my money there. If I learn that my favorite store is owned by someone giving massive donations to anti-Planned Parenthood groups, I cannot, in conscience, spend my money there whether it affects the bottom line or not.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:44 AM on October 9, 2015 [25 favorites]
I have never been to a Chick-fil-A. I have never been to Hobby Lobby. I have never been to a Carl's Jr. If I know that money I am spending is going to fund something I am opposed to, I will not spend my money there. If I learn that my favorite store is owned by someone giving massive donations to anti-Planned Parenthood groups, I cannot, in conscience, spend my money there whether it affects the bottom line or not.
posted by Sophie1 at 9:44 AM on October 9, 2015 [25 favorites]
They do that "First 100" thing every time they open a new restaurant.
posted by all about eevee at 9:45 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by all about eevee at 9:45 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I love Chick-fil-A. Love it. I don't agree with their politics or where their money goes. But I'm in recovery from an eating disorder, and when (very rarely now) there are times I can't eat anything, I can eat Chick-fil-A. Same as when I'm recovering from being sick; it's the one thing that always sounds good to me.
As long as I keep it to a special treat, I'm okay with it. The food is really superior in quality to any other national fast-food chain. Those of you saying it's "extruded" have no idea. It's always, and has always been, whole meat chicken.
I do, though, make sure I ask for "the maximum number of Chick-fil-A sauces you're allowed to give me," so that I can eat them with my Morningstar buffalo wings at home. That is some good sauce.
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:49 AM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
As long as I keep it to a special treat, I'm okay with it. The food is really superior in quality to any other national fast-food chain. Those of you saying it's "extruded" have no idea. It's always, and has always been, whole meat chicken.
I do, though, make sure I ask for "the maximum number of Chick-fil-A sauces you're allowed to give me," so that I can eat them with my Morningstar buffalo wings at home. That is some good sauce.
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:49 AM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
(And yes -- I have been in a same-sex marriage, and so their politics has burned my biscuits directly.)
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by fiercecupcake at 9:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Is it still possible to avoid buying non-essential goods, like a chicken biscuit perhaps, from a retailer that you know actively places itself against something you agree with? Absolutely.
And essential to sleeping at night.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
And essential to sleeping at night.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Everybody's got to judge these things for themselves, but some of the comments here really really do make the point that food is the new sex when it comes to judging other people's behavior and morality. Call it the scarlet F.
posted by immlass at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by immlass at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2015 [25 favorites]
I hug three gay friends for every Chick-fil-a sandwich I eat. Math!
posted by echocollate at 9:53 AM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by echocollate at 9:53 AM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
There was a weird self-serve Chick-Fil-A on campus when I was in college. I ate the shit out of the breakfast sandwich and the chicken nuggets. So good. But that was 15 years ago.
So aside from the fact that I almost never eat fast food, I won't eat there now that they're actually opening locations near me. The sandwiches are pretty good. The politics are toxic. I buy a lot of shit from companies who are probably morally-reprehensible. Why support one more that I know is?
posted by uncleozzy at 9:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
So aside from the fact that I almost never eat fast food, I won't eat there now that they're actually opening locations near me. The sandwiches are pretty good. The politics are toxic. I buy a lot of shit from companies who are probably morally-reprehensible. Why support one more that I know is?
posted by uncleozzy at 9:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Chick-fil-A : LGBT :: US Republican Party : working class
posted by mistersquid at 9:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by mistersquid at 9:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Can I, with perfect precision, keep my money out of the hands of people who I think are harming others? No. Can I at least try to be moderately good at it? Yes.
There's a donut shop here that advertises itself with a hippy dippy faux-60s flower power aesthetic. In reality, the owner is a heinous local conservative douche. I don't care how bangin' their donuts are, I am not giving my money to that ahole.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:57 AM on October 9, 2015 [16 favorites]
There's a donut shop here that advertises itself with a hippy dippy faux-60s flower power aesthetic. In reality, the owner is a heinous local conservative douche. I don't care how bangin' their donuts are, I am not giving my money to that ahole.
posted by soren_lorensen at 9:57 AM on October 9, 2015 [16 favorites]
I ate at Chick Fil-A once when I lived in Florida, way before all this hit the fan. It wasn't that great.
posted by jonmc at 9:57 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jonmc at 9:57 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm perfectly comfortable judging the morality of people, some of whom clam to be allies, who knowingly give money to someone who uses that money to treat me as less than human.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:58 AM on October 9, 2015 [28 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:58 AM on October 9, 2015 [28 favorites]
What fffm said. You give money to a company that treats the homeless and gay people like crap? I'm going to judge hard.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:59 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:59 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
> But its opponents have been foolish to focus on the company, thereby giving it tons of free advertising.
This can be said about pretty much anything that people protest against, so it sounds an awful lot like "don't object to things publicly, because that's just free publicity," and that sounds pretty dumb.
In any case, Cathy wasted a bunch of money fighting a losing battle, so yay for that. Though I remain profoundly weirded out by all the people here and elsewhere who are like "but the sandwiches are so good!" in response to his unashamed bigotry.
posted by rtha at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
This can be said about pretty much anything that people protest against, so it sounds an awful lot like "don't object to things publicly, because that's just free publicity," and that sounds pretty dumb.
In any case, Cathy wasted a bunch of money fighting a losing battle, so yay for that. Though I remain profoundly weirded out by all the people here and elsewhere who are like "but the sandwiches are so good!" in response to his unashamed bigotry.
posted by rtha at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
Note to self: burn all receipts.
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
a chicken sandwich that isn't even that good
Politics aside, you are delusional my friend. Or your taste buds have been sawed off. Either a or b.
Raising Cane's is better. Also its mascot is a cute dog. Chik-fil-A only appealed to me during the years when my child could be entertained by a playspace, the chicken was always "meh."
posted by emjaybee at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Politics aside, you are delusional my friend. Or your taste buds have been sawed off. Either a or b.
Raising Cane's is better. Also its mascot is a cute dog. Chik-fil-A only appealed to me during the years when my child could be entertained by a playspace, the chicken was always "meh."
posted by emjaybee at 10:00 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
For a fast-food chicken sandwich, they aren't bad. But, Wendy's spicy chicken sammie beats it like Rousey on anyone.
FWIW, Ball State has a Chick-Fil-A right in the student food court.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:03 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
FWIW, Ball State has a Chick-Fil-A right in the student food court.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:03 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
What fffm said. You give money to a company that treats the homeless and gay people like crap? I'm going to judge hard.
I think this should not be a categorical rule but a function of what other options one has. So, for example, if I have no choice of where to buy my electricity from, and my electric company funds bigots, then you know, nothing much I can do and you shouldn't judge. But Chick-Fil-A? You can get food anywhere, and you can even make their sandwiches at home!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:04 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think this should not be a categorical rule but a function of what other options one has. So, for example, if I have no choice of where to buy my electricity from, and my electric company funds bigots, then you know, nothing much I can do and you shouldn't judge. But Chick-Fil-A? You can get food anywhere, and you can even make their sandwiches at home!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:04 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'll try to make the way I view it even simpler.
Look. It's like how the wife and I are vegetarians for ethical reasons, not religious or health reasons so we're not going to die or go to hell if a pan had chicken cooked in it before our noodles were stir fried in it....
Anyway, we just discovered that the egg drop soup at the local Chinese take-out place is really good. Before I ordered it I asked, as I always do for soups that I suspect have meat broth or what have you, "Is this vegetarian?" as well as, when that was countered with the inevitable, and slightly confused but well meaning, "It has eggs in it", "No, I mean does it have any meat or meat broth in it?". I was told it does not so we ordered it. It was good, better than most non-meat-broth egg drop soups we've had...
Now, to the point, I don't plan on asking again if that soup has meat in it, I've done my part and feel no urge to go all investigative journalist foodie on them to see if they A) lied, B) misunderstood, or C) change their recipe in the future........
However, if someone that works there or a friend or something tells us "That has meat in it." then it's on us and our conscience to either find out if that is the case or to stop ordering the damn soup (or to just be hypocrites I suppose).
This chicken joint has made it clear they don't like a certain subset of individuals and actively want them to be treated as the lesser. Once I heard that, before I was a vegetarian of course, I stopped eating there.
It's really not hard.
All this handwringing about "but other businesses maybe are doing bad things and I don't know about it so what-to-do" or the ever-popular excuse of "I deserve what I deserve and I don't eat there all that often" or the conservative fallback (which I haven't noticed here thank goodness) of "well if you're really trying to not hurt anything then you honestly need to stop driving/never fly/go vegan/avoid having kids/kill yourself now" is just tiresome and a way for folks to try to make OK their deviations from what they know is right.
It's totally OK to say you value the taste differential of a certain chicken biscuit over another one more than you value some part or parcel of the ideal of gay equality or marriage. But why deny it? Just say that instead of acting like it's not the case, we'll still be friends, really.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:05 AM on October 9, 2015 [31 favorites]
Look. It's like how the wife and I are vegetarians for ethical reasons, not religious or health reasons so we're not going to die or go to hell if a pan had chicken cooked in it before our noodles were stir fried in it....
Anyway, we just discovered that the egg drop soup at the local Chinese take-out place is really good. Before I ordered it I asked, as I always do for soups that I suspect have meat broth or what have you, "Is this vegetarian?" as well as, when that was countered with the inevitable, and slightly confused but well meaning, "It has eggs in it", "No, I mean does it have any meat or meat broth in it?". I was told it does not so we ordered it. It was good, better than most non-meat-broth egg drop soups we've had...
Now, to the point, I don't plan on asking again if that soup has meat in it, I've done my part and feel no urge to go all investigative journalist foodie on them to see if they A) lied, B) misunderstood, or C) change their recipe in the future........
However, if someone that works there or a friend or something tells us "That has meat in it." then it's on us and our conscience to either find out if that is the case or to stop ordering the damn soup (or to just be hypocrites I suppose).
This chicken joint has made it clear they don't like a certain subset of individuals and actively want them to be treated as the lesser. Once I heard that, before I was a vegetarian of course, I stopped eating there.
It's really not hard.
All this handwringing about "but other businesses maybe are doing bad things and I don't know about it so what-to-do" or the ever-popular excuse of "I deserve what I deserve and I don't eat there all that often" or the conservative fallback (which I haven't noticed here thank goodness) of "well if you're really trying to not hurt anything then you honestly need to stop driving/never fly/go vegan/avoid having kids/kill yourself now" is just tiresome and a way for folks to try to make OK their deviations from what they know is right.
It's totally OK to say you value the taste differential of a certain chicken biscuit over another one more than you value some part or parcel of the ideal of gay equality or marriage. But why deny it? Just say that instead of acting like it's not the case, we'll still be friends, really.
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:05 AM on October 9, 2015 [31 favorites]
I love Chick-Fil-A chicken. Absent any other issue, I'd probably get something from there maybe once a week.
Since I disagree with the fact that they gave corporate money to oppose marriage equality, I decided not to give them my money. I've had a few chances to eat their chicken for free, which I've happily taken.
...and, like most of my other decisions (to exercise more, eat more vegetables), I have not been perfect in adhering to this decision. I've paid for their food a handful of times over the past few years. So, on those occasions, I chose to give them my money.
So I'm evil and pathetic, but I guess I already knew that.
posted by Four Ds at 10:06 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Since I disagree with the fact that they gave corporate money to oppose marriage equality, I decided not to give them my money. I've had a few chances to eat their chicken for free, which I've happily taken.
...and, like most of my other decisions (to exercise more, eat more vegetables), I have not been perfect in adhering to this decision. I've paid for their food a handful of times over the past few years. So, on those occasions, I chose to give them my money.
So I'm evil and pathetic, but I guess I already knew that.
posted by Four Ds at 10:06 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
MisantropicPainforest, that's a good point. Some people sometimes don't have another option. But you always do when it comes to fast food.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:06 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:06 AM on October 9, 2015
It's just an extruded chicken patty, I don't get it.
It helps, if you're going to claim to not get something, to have actually attempted it in some way. I'm far from a Chick-fil-A apologist (I was boycotting them since their original BS about marriage equality, and only recently ate there again), but must point out that no, their chicken is not "extruded". It's literally just a chicken breast, battered and (pressure) fried. That's it. No mechanically separated meat, no random bits and bobs, just: a whole (half) chicken breast.
This is a significant step up from most fast food places, particularly in areas that don't have a tradition of local fast food. If you don't like it for taste reasons or political reasons, that's fine, but making up demonstrably false reasons to not like it is ridiculous.
posted by tocts at 10:09 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
It helps, if you're going to claim to not get something, to have actually attempted it in some way. I'm far from a Chick-fil-A apologist (I was boycotting them since their original BS about marriage equality, and only recently ate there again), but must point out that no, their chicken is not "extruded". It's literally just a chicken breast, battered and (pressure) fried. That's it. No mechanically separated meat, no random bits and bobs, just: a whole (half) chicken breast.
This is a significant step up from most fast food places, particularly in areas that don't have a tradition of local fast food. If you don't like it for taste reasons or political reasons, that's fine, but making up demonstrably false reasons to not like it is ridiculous.
posted by tocts at 10:09 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
The deal is, Cathy's bigotry is somewhat refreshingly out in the open. How about all the companies that aren't so open, but still shovel their anti-LGBT dollars and profits hard into efforts to roll back the clock? Their delicious foods/liquids/services also deserve boycotting, or not, depending on how your inclinations lie.
For me personally, I didn't love Chick-Fil-A enough to feel any qualms about stopping going there, no matter how delicious their food is or how polite and clean-scrubbed their employees are. That's just me.
I loved the comment above that the courts have ruled so the issue of same-sex marriage (not that that's the only issue, or even the most important, impacting LGBT people) is safe "for now," as though everyone can breathe a massive sigh of relief and party in the streets (which, I'll admit, I did in June). All "for now" means is until the next President (assuming he or she is a Republican) has the chance to replace four moderate SCOTUS justices with four lovely, determined Scalia and Alito clones. That's all that means. For real.
posted by blucevalo at 10:10 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
For me personally, I didn't love Chick-Fil-A enough to feel any qualms about stopping going there, no matter how delicious their food is or how polite and clean-scrubbed their employees are. That's just me.
I loved the comment above that the courts have ruled so the issue of same-sex marriage (not that that's the only issue, or even the most important, impacting LGBT people) is safe "for now," as though everyone can breathe a massive sigh of relief and party in the streets (which, I'll admit, I did in June). All "for now" means is until the next President (assuming he or she is a Republican) has the chance to replace four moderate SCOTUS justices with four lovely, determined Scalia and Alito clones. That's all that means. For real.
posted by blucevalo at 10:10 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
The sandwiches used to be good but I quit buying them because the added ingredient of bigotry made them taste terrible. I live in The South. I can get fried chicken somewhere else.
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:10 AM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 10:10 AM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
The beliefs are less important than the actions.
In-N-Out Burger prints Biblical verse references on their wrappers, cups and containers. Does this make them less worthy of my dollar? even though Five Guys is better OH I SAID IT
Not to me. Because the Snyder family from In-N-Out is presenting their beliefs but not, to my knowledge, actively partnering with or donating to organizations and movements with the explicit desire to enforce those beliefs on everyone else. They're not petitioning the Supreme Court to be relieved of the burden of sponsoring heathen employees' birth control, they're not being sued over racist waitstaff, they're not helping to create organizations like the fabled PMRC, they're not funding anti-gay initiatives, and they're not putting company money in James Dobson's pocket.
Boycotting In-N-Out would be like refusing Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap because of ALL-ONE OR NONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH! covering its label. I won't smolder and burn if I touch something handled by a religious company or employee. But if you're actively trying to curtail my rights because Your God Says It's Wrong? Well, then, fuck your God sideways and may He go with you 'cause I won't.
posted by delfin at 10:19 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
In-N-Out Burger prints Biblical verse references on their wrappers, cups and containers. Does this make them less worthy of my dollar? even though Five Guys is better OH I SAID IT
Not to me. Because the Snyder family from In-N-Out is presenting their beliefs but not, to my knowledge, actively partnering with or donating to organizations and movements with the explicit desire to enforce those beliefs on everyone else. They're not petitioning the Supreme Court to be relieved of the burden of sponsoring heathen employees' birth control, they're not being sued over racist waitstaff, they're not helping to create organizations like the fabled PMRC, they're not funding anti-gay initiatives, and they're not putting company money in James Dobson's pocket.
Boycotting In-N-Out would be like refusing Dr. Bronner's Magic Soap because of ALL-ONE OR NONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE! ALL-ONE-GOD-FAITH! covering its label. I won't smolder and burn if I touch something handled by a religious company or employee. But if you're actively trying to curtail my rights because Your God Says It's Wrong? Well, then, fuck your God sideways and may He go with you 'cause I won't.
posted by delfin at 10:19 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
What fffm said. You give money to a company that treats the homeless and gay people like crap? I'm going to judge hard.
If you and fffm deem me no longer an LGBT ally because I occasionally drop five bucks on a delicious chicken sandwich, so be it. I'm really over this absolutist crap. Feel free to classify me as you like.
Cheers.
posted by echocollate at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
If you and fffm deem me no longer an LGBT ally because I occasionally drop five bucks on a delicious chicken sandwich, so be it. I'm really over this absolutist crap. Feel free to classify me as you like.
Cheers.
posted by echocollate at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
to someone who uses that money to treat me as less than human.
Not even that, it's to someone who wants to encode into US law that we aren't human, and is using that money to promote this.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not even that, it's to someone who wants to encode into US law that we aren't human, and is using that money to promote this.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
In-N-Out Burger prints Biblical verse references on their wrappers, cups and containers. Does this make them less worthy of my dollar? even though Five Guys is better OH I SAID IT
What? Animal style!
posted by maxsparber at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
What? Animal style!
posted by maxsparber at 10:22 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
even though Five Guys is better OH I SAID IT
I favorited your comment before I noticed this blasphemy.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 10:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
I favorited your comment before I noticed this blasphemy.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 10:23 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Anyway there is no possible way it is better than the fried chicken at the place by me, which also prebutters your biscuits heavily. I only order from them 1x a month because otherwise my blood turns into grease.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by poffin boffin at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2015
What fffm said. You give money to a company that treats the homeless and gay people like crap? I'm going to judge hard.
Wow... That sort of judgement gets tricky... Not only are you going to judge me on my actions, and words, but on how I spend my money. Moral and ethical judgement against me on who I decide to patronize...
I have a relative who doesn't buy anything made in China. She has problems with both the labor conditions there, and the level of environmental regulation (or lack thereof). I respect and understand that decision (and wow, it's quite difficult).
But I'd be pretty unhappy/unimpressed if someone were to judge me because I don't decide to make the decision.
And I'll admit, by buying Chinese products, I'm giving money to companies that actively harm their employees (via working conditions, livable wages, etc) and the environment (lack of environmental regulations). But are you going to judge me as a human being for making that decision? I mean I guess you can.
I used to work for a technology company that sold technology to oppressive regimes (technology that helped enable them to oppress their population). You can certainly judge me for deciding to take a paycheck from that name brand company, but are you really going to pass judgement on everyone who bought products from that company?
It won't be long before you decide that every human being on the planet is an awful human being; not because of their words an actions, but because of their purchasing decisions.
It's hard to avoid the chain of exploitation and awfulness that comes with commerce.
It's okay though, because I'll just judge your judginess right back at you.
posted by el io at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Wow... That sort of judgement gets tricky... Not only are you going to judge me on my actions, and words, but on how I spend my money. Moral and ethical judgement against me on who I decide to patronize...
I have a relative who doesn't buy anything made in China. She has problems with both the labor conditions there, and the level of environmental regulation (or lack thereof). I respect and understand that decision (and wow, it's quite difficult).
But I'd be pretty unhappy/unimpressed if someone were to judge me because I don't decide to make the decision.
And I'll admit, by buying Chinese products, I'm giving money to companies that actively harm their employees (via working conditions, livable wages, etc) and the environment (lack of environmental regulations). But are you going to judge me as a human being for making that decision? I mean I guess you can.
I used to work for a technology company that sold technology to oppressive regimes (technology that helped enable them to oppress their population). You can certainly judge me for deciding to take a paycheck from that name brand company, but are you really going to pass judgement on everyone who bought products from that company?
It won't be long before you decide that every human being on the planet is an awful human being; not because of their words an actions, but because of their purchasing decisions.
It's hard to avoid the chain of exploitation and awfulness that comes with commerce.
It's okay though, because I'll just judge your judginess right back at you.
posted by el io at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Seems like we're getting closer to the franchise wars.
posted by sleeping bear at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by sleeping bear at 10:24 AM on October 9, 2015
As long as I get the invite to Taco Bell, that's fine by me.
posted by tocts at 10:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by tocts at 10:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
even though Five Guys is better OH I SAID IT
Not to start a derail, but this was also my experience. While recently on the West coast, I made a point of stopping at an In-N-Out to see what all the fuss was about. It was OK. The same town had a Five Guys AND a Shake Shack, and they were both better - Shake Shack current takes the crown but Five Guys is a solid contender (same as back home). In-N-Out was pretty fresh but not nearly so tasty as the other two. Maybe I had an outlier? For the record, this was in Vegas, where everything is crazy, so this strikes me as possible.
posted by Edgewise at 10:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Not to start a derail, but this was also my experience. While recently on the West coast, I made a point of stopping at an In-N-Out to see what all the fuss was about. It was OK. The same town had a Five Guys AND a Shake Shack, and they were both better - Shake Shack current takes the crown but Five Guys is a solid contender (same as back home). In-N-Out was pretty fresh but not nearly so tasty as the other two. Maybe I had an outlier? For the record, this was in Vegas, where everything is crazy, so this strikes me as possible.
posted by Edgewise at 10:26 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Anyway there is no possible way it is better than the fried chicken at the place by me, which also prebutters your biscuits heavily. I only order from them 1x a month because otherwise my blood turns into grease.
It's been ages since I've had a biscuit from Chick Fil-A, because I'm stuck (for now) eating from the food truck which is lunch only, but they definitely prebutter the buns. The buns are super buttery, and it's a huge part of the appeal.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:36 AM on October 9, 2015
It's been ages since I've had a biscuit from Chick Fil-A, because I'm stuck (for now) eating from the food truck which is lunch only, but they definitely prebutter the buns. The buns are super buttery, and it's a huge part of the appeal.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:36 AM on October 9, 2015
This is a significant step up from most fast food places
McDonald's and Wendy's will both sell you a plain old breaded fried half-chicken-breast sammich. The southern style chicken sammich at McD's is basically a chikfila sammich, down to the pickle.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:43 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
McDonald's and Wendy's will both sell you a plain old breaded fried half-chicken-breast sammich. The southern style chicken sammich at McD's is basically a chikfila sammich, down to the pickle.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:43 AM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
The post is about chik-fil-a, not affordable underwear at target, el io. I fail to see how your comparison is even relatable.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:46 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:46 AM on October 9, 2015
In-N-Out was pretty fresh but not nearly so tasty as the other two.
I don't mean to besmirch anyone's taste, please eat what you like, but this is too perfect a demonstration of the flaws in most hamburger assessments I see these days to let pass without comment.
A burger is not supposed to be tasty, it is supposed to be good. The requirements are simple: fresh, hot, greasy, Animal Style.
Anyone who attempts to make a "better" burger by adding flavors and ingredients without showing due appreciation for what makes them so delicious in the first place deserves nothing but scorn and admonishment, and I will judge you for preferring a Frumburger so hard.
✨🍔✨
posted by frijole at 10:48 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't mean to besmirch anyone's taste, please eat what you like, but this is too perfect a demonstration of the flaws in most hamburger assessments I see these days to let pass without comment.
A burger is not supposed to be tasty, it is supposed to be good. The requirements are simple: fresh, hot, greasy, Animal Style.
Anyone who attempts to make a "better" burger by adding flavors and ingredients without showing due appreciation for what makes them so delicious in the first place deserves nothing but scorn and admonishment, and I will judge you for preferring a Frumburger so hard.
✨🍔✨
posted by frijole at 10:48 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I live in the hinterlands, and I don't have the opportunity to shop at lots of places that the internet finds problematic. There's no Whole Foods or Urban Outfitters or American Apparel here. There is, though, a Chik-Fil-A in the mall food court, and there's a Hobby Lobby in the same strip mall as the grocery store. I would shop at both if I didn't have ethical qualms. But it's also not a huge hardship to go to Michael's rather than Hobby Lobby and to Panera rather than Chik-Fil-A. I guess part of my issue with Chik-Fil-A is that it's really public, and I would feel like I was sending a public, visual message to anyone who passed by that I didn't care about equality. And since a lot of kids hang out at the mall, and since some of them are probably queer kids who are grappling with their place in the world, I don't want to send that visual message. I'm sure that's hypocritical in some way, but I can live with that. I have made my peace with not being 100% consistent.
Mostly, I feel like Ginia Bellafante writes this kind of liberal gotcha thing a lot, and it's sort of annoying.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:49 AM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
Mostly, I feel like Ginia Bellafante writes this kind of liberal gotcha thing a lot, and it's sort of annoying.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:49 AM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
I can't imagine that whatever percentage of a $5 sandwich goes to Focus on the Family will do that much harm to The Gay Agenda. If you're worried about it, maybe give $1/sandwich to GLAAD, following a carbon offset model?
posted by JDHarper at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by JDHarper at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I had my first Chick Fil-a while stuck at an airport due to snow. I had a pang of guilt, but also really wanted to know what the fuss was about. It was good. Not life shatteringly good, but enough that I could see what the fuss is about.
There are not any local Chick Fill-As, so I do not know what I would do if I should encounter another.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015
There are not any local Chick Fill-As, so I do not know what I would do if I should encounter another.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015
I'm one of the few people I know of who thinks In-n-Out burgers taste like sawdust, so I'll concede Chick-fil-a may not be to everyones' taste.
posted by echocollate at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by echocollate at 10:50 AM on October 9, 2015
Before I knew anything about Chick-Fil-A, my son nailed me in the face with a bowling ball released backwards and we had to wait a bit for my new glasses. I couldn't legally drive and he was hungry and there was this place within walking distance and off we went.
It was really good. So good that we ordered again. We got home and I was wondering how I'd never eaten at a Chick-Fil-A before and googling and I felt like a dope. Never been back. We've had discussions about that.
Five Guys? When their original location was walking distance, I could say that name and everyone would drool and get in on the order. Not impressed with the local franchise. Mere drones doing droney things over and over. 5 guys, in it's original incarnation, was exciting to watch. 5 guys throwing things at each other.
Shop local. I eat so much better that way. There is a place near you that blows all the chains out of the water. You just have to find it.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 10:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
It was really good. So good that we ordered again. We got home and I was wondering how I'd never eaten at a Chick-Fil-A before and googling and I felt like a dope. Never been back. We've had discussions about that.
Five Guys? When their original location was walking distance, I could say that name and everyone would drool and get in on the order. Not impressed with the local franchise. Mere drones doing droney things over and over. 5 guys, in it's original incarnation, was exciting to watch. 5 guys throwing things at each other.
Shop local. I eat so much better that way. There is a place near you that blows all the chains out of the water. You just have to find it.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 10:54 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
every year I find myself breaking my not eating at McDonalds rule and ordering a 'Shamrock Shake'.
What you want to do is get one that's half Shamrock and half chocolate and I swear to you it's like drinking a Thin Mint.
You can trust me on this. Fat people from the suburbs know their fast food.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
What you want to do is get one that's half Shamrock and half chocolate and I swear to you it's like drinking a Thin Mint.
You can trust me on this. Fat people from the suburbs know their fast food.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:55 AM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
> If you and fffm deem me no longer an LGBT ally because I occasionally drop five bucks on a delicious chicken sandwich,
I guess if your $5 sandwich is that important to you, well, you go on with that!
(I'm not up to passing judgement on you as a human being. I am just VERY VERY puzzled by this attitude.It is really hard for me to interpret this in any other way than "I support equality, but I love my chicken sandwiches even more!" even when - especially when! - what I also hear is "this isn't that big a deal it's not that important just let me eat my sandwich." Because if it's not that important, then why are you so determined to eat that unimportant sandwich? And talk about?)
posted by rtha at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2015 [20 favorites]
I guess if your $5 sandwich is that important to you, well, you go on with that!
(I'm not up to passing judgement on you as a human being. I am just VERY VERY puzzled by this attitude.It is really hard for me to interpret this in any other way than "I support equality, but I love my chicken sandwiches even more!" even when - especially when! - what I also hear is "this isn't that big a deal it's not that important just let me eat my sandwich." Because if it's not that important, then why are you so determined to eat that unimportant sandwich? And talk about?)
posted by rtha at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2015 [20 favorites]
DirtyOldTown, spiked Thin Mint shakes are even better
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:56 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Chik-Fil-A stopped giving money to the Marriage & Family Foundation, the National Christian Foundation, Family Research Council, and Exodus International around a year and a half ago. Here's an article from GLAAD about that.
Shane Windmeyer, an advocate with Campus Pride who has worked closely with Chick-fil-A' Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy, commented to qnotes on the development in funding:And from the same piece:
“I still wouldn’t call Chick-fil-A a gay-friendly company, but I would say that our dialogues and conversation that Campus Pride has had has been a positive one. There is some, albeit small, progress there.”
Federal tax filings for 2012 for Chick-fil-A’s primary corporate foundation, the WinShape Foundation, show the group has shifted its focus to its own programs — marriage retreats, camps and other services, as well as a scholarship fund at Berry College in Georgia and Lars WinShape, a home for needy children in Brazil. . . grants to groups like Habitat for Humanity, the United Negro Scholarship Fund and two groups that work with homeless and at-risk youth in Atlanta. Only one arguably anti-LGBT group remains, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which holds some anti-LGBT leadership policies and religious doctrines. But, that group received just $25,390 in 2012, down from nearly a half-million dollars in funds it received in 2010.posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:01 AM on October 9, 2015 [16 favorites]
No, I don't. You may feel that you have to choose yours, and that's fine for you, but I do not have the luxury of being able to disregard the harmful effects of my unmindful spending in the name of a chicken sandwich that isn't even that good.
Oh god. When you do that, you are choosing your battles. Unless you know who precisely created or picked the food source of every item, you are choosing your battles. You're just choosing that this is a battle which is a line too far for you. But everyone still chooses their battles! That's kind of what life is!
posted by corb at 11:02 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Oh god. When you do that, you are choosing your battles. Unless you know who precisely created or picked the food source of every item, you are choosing your battles. You're just choosing that this is a battle which is a line too far for you. But everyone still chooses their battles! That's kind of what life is!
posted by corb at 11:02 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
The post is about chik-fil-a, not affordable underwear at target, el io. I fail to see how your comparison is even relatable.
Well, I brought it up because it's one thing to boycott an organization you don't agree with (and don't get me wrong, I wouldn't eat at ChickFilA, or shop at HobbyLobby, personally), but it seems to be a whole other level to start judging people that don't join in your boycott.
I respect people that vote with their wallet, and are conscious of the economic impact of their purchases and how it relates to their own personal ethical worldview. I don't respect it when folks take that another level and start viewing everyone that isn't joining in their decision as someone they should 'judge hard'.
posted by el io at 11:03 AM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
Well, I brought it up because it's one thing to boycott an organization you don't agree with (and don't get me wrong, I wouldn't eat at ChickFilA, or shop at HobbyLobby, personally), but it seems to be a whole other level to start judging people that don't join in your boycott.
I respect people that vote with their wallet, and are conscious of the economic impact of their purchases and how it relates to their own personal ethical worldview. I don't respect it when folks take that another level and start viewing everyone that isn't joining in their decision as someone they should 'judge hard'.
posted by el io at 11:03 AM on October 9, 2015 [14 favorites]
Hi... long time lurker, first time poster. I think I have a unique perspective on Chick-fil-A as I am both queer as a three dollar bill and a writer for Chick-fil-A's franchisee magazine.
I had some misgivings, be assured; but I really needed the work and a dollar a word is nothing to sneeze at. Did I feel that I was compromising a moral principal by taking the job?
Kinda?
I've found that all of the operators I've spoken with have been nice people — Christians all. And they seem to, as a rule, give generously to their communities (usually free chicken and not just to churches). I guess I prefer to take each franchise on its own merits, rather than tarring every Chick-fil-A owner and employee with the anti-gay brush. It's like disagreeing with the Pope, but still liking the work of the local Catholic nunnery.
Still... the issue of gay rights has never come up in an interview, nor has my own sexuality, so I can't say what any of these operators really believe on the subject. But I don't think it matters. I mean, Christianity is utterly alien to me, but their faith has no bearing on an article about drive-thru best practices anymore than mine does.
The owner of a Virginia Chick-fil-A franchise might be shocked to learn that the money Chick-fil-A paid me goes to support the campaign of that evil SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders. But that's not their business. I guess I figure it all washes out in the end.
Also, did I mention that they pay a dollar per word?
posted by Laura Palmer's Cold Dead Kiss at 11:04 AM on October 9, 2015 [75 favorites]
I had some misgivings, be assured; but I really needed the work and a dollar a word is nothing to sneeze at. Did I feel that I was compromising a moral principal by taking the job?
Kinda?
I've found that all of the operators I've spoken with have been nice people — Christians all. And they seem to, as a rule, give generously to their communities (usually free chicken and not just to churches). I guess I prefer to take each franchise on its own merits, rather than tarring every Chick-fil-A owner and employee with the anti-gay brush. It's like disagreeing with the Pope, but still liking the work of the local Catholic nunnery.
Still... the issue of gay rights has never come up in an interview, nor has my own sexuality, so I can't say what any of these operators really believe on the subject. But I don't think it matters. I mean, Christianity is utterly alien to me, but their faith has no bearing on an article about drive-thru best practices anymore than mine does.
The owner of a Virginia Chick-fil-A franchise might be shocked to learn that the money Chick-fil-A paid me goes to support the campaign of that evil SOCIALIST Bernie Sanders. But that's not their business. I guess I figure it all washes out in the end.
Also, did I mention that they pay a dollar per word?
posted by Laura Palmer's Cold Dead Kiss at 11:04 AM on October 9, 2015 [75 favorites]
Or, if you really want to put a fine point on it, if you're buying that $5 chicken sandwich from Chik-Fil-A today, it's far, far, far more likely that the meager share of that $5 that goes to charity is supporting something like the United Negro College Fund than it is that it's going to the lone organization they still fund that is even partly anti-LGBT.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:05 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:05 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Laura Palmer's Cold Dead Kiss: Welcome to metafilter! I appreciate you paying 5$ to make that comment.
As a long-time-lurker you probably already know that if metafilter were the only group of folks to vote in the election, Bernie would win by a landslide.
posted by el io at 11:09 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
As a long-time-lurker you probably already know that if metafilter were the only group of folks to vote in the election, Bernie would win by a landslide.
posted by el io at 11:09 AM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
rtha: I think it's more "I support equality in actual, tangible ways, and I don't want to be judged as unrighteous because of where I bought a sandwich."
It's not about how tasty the sandwich is. It's about the fact that people are setting up an ideological purity test based on which multinational fast food corporation gets your lunch money.
posted by JDHarper at 11:09 AM on October 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
It's not about how tasty the sandwich is. It's about the fact that people are setting up an ideological purity test based on which multinational fast food corporation gets your lunch money.
posted by JDHarper at 11:09 AM on October 9, 2015 [23 favorites]
Inbetween my on-again-off-again relationship with vegetarianism and the fact that when I do eat meat there are a wide variety of places to get significantly better chicken (including my grandmas house where it comes with cornbread and love and okra) I don't have the slightest problem avoiding cfa in my day to day life. BUT I have mixed feelings about the individualistic ideal of boycotts as a display of moral purity. Like I'm all for being a virtuous consumer I guess, but think there's stuff I don't like going on behind most of the purchases I make, and the change needs to be systemic rather than on a person by person basis.
posted by bracems at 11:12 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by bracems at 11:12 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
TL;DR for my comment above, which is seriously relevant: Chik-Fil-A doesn't actually support anti-LGBT groups any more. Even if you argue Fellowship of Christian Athletes is anti-LGBT (and that's pretty far from their defining identity, but even if you do..) that puts their total donations to that sphere at around $25K a year, down from millions.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:14 AM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Another company you're probably still boycotting over an anti-LGBT stance they have largely abandoned: Barilla pasta. I stopped eating them a year or two ago when their owner said they'd never feature a gay couple in their ads and you could buy someone else's pasta if you didn't agree. Many people, like I did, did just that. So many, in fact, that they've done an about face, recently getting a perfect score as an ideally gay-friendly company.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:15 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:15 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I'm not up to passing judgement on you as a human being. I am just VERY VERY puzzled by this attitude.It is really hard for me to interpret this in any other way than "I support equality, but I love my chicken sandwiches even more!" even when - especially when! - what I also hear is "this isn't that big a deal it's not that important just let me eat my sandwich." Because if it's not that important, then why are you so determined to eat that unimportant sandwich? And talk about?
Because they're delicious and I enjoy eating one from time to time. And because I've been an active and vocal proponent of LGBT rights in an area of the country where doing so was often socially inconvenient, and I did so well before it was expedient to do so.
So to me, it's not about the sandwich. It's about the absolutist black-and-white mentality that one is an ally up until the point where one unapologetically deviates from some minor stricture of the received Standards and Practices of LGBT allies.
This is not how you treat your allies. It's how you treat someone you're exploiting as means to an end. And you know what? Fuck that.
posted by echocollate at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Because they're delicious and I enjoy eating one from time to time. And because I've been an active and vocal proponent of LGBT rights in an area of the country where doing so was often socially inconvenient, and I did so well before it was expedient to do so.
So to me, it's not about the sandwich. It's about the absolutist black-and-white mentality that one is an ally up until the point where one unapologetically deviates from some minor stricture of the received Standards and Practices of LGBT allies.
This is not how you treat your allies. It's how you treat someone you're exploiting as means to an end. And you know what? Fuck that.
posted by echocollate at 11:18 AM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
to the lone organization they still fund that is even partly anti-LGBT.
Which organization are you referring to?
posted by andoatnp at 11:21 AM on October 9, 2015
Which organization are you referring to?
posted by andoatnp at 11:21 AM on October 9, 2015
I used to eat at Chik-Fil-A for one weekend a month, but that was because the lines there were usually shorter than damn near anywhere else when I was at DragonCon. The last time was 2007, and the reason for the eating was, like I said, entirely based on line length. It was mostly because CFA was faster than any of the others - Subway. Dairy Queen, Orange Julius - and I could get food and eat and run back to a panel or something. It wasn't that great.
Two other things:
1) In'N'Out is better than Five Guys in general, and Dick's up here in Seattle is better than both.
2) love and okra are antonyms of each other. Okra is horror.
posted by mephron at 11:27 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Two other things:
1) In'N'Out is better than Five Guys in general, and Dick's up here in Seattle is better than both.
2) love and okra are antonyms of each other. Okra is horror.
posted by mephron at 11:27 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
to the lone organization they still fund that is even partly anti-LGBT.
It was in the longer comment (citing an article from GLAAAD) I had made above: Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They definitely have some anti-LGBT attitudes, but that is far from their defining purpose. And as I understand it, Chik-Fil-A gave them money for specific things having nothing to do with that stance. I can understand if someone doesn't want to abide even that when sizing up FCA. Totally fair.
But let's make sure we're up to date here: the Chik-Fil-A that gave millions to organizations that were specifically, vocally active against LGBT is over. They are, even by uncharitable estimates, now an organization that gives $25K to a group you could call anti-LGBT.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
It was in the longer comment (citing an article from GLAAAD) I had made above: Fellowship of Christian Athletes. They definitely have some anti-LGBT attitudes, but that is far from their defining purpose. And as I understand it, Chik-Fil-A gave them money for specific things having nothing to do with that stance. I can understand if someone doesn't want to abide even that when sizing up FCA. Totally fair.
But let's make sure we're up to date here: the Chik-Fil-A that gave millions to organizations that were specifically, vocally active against LGBT is over. They are, even by uncharitable estimates, now an organization that gives $25K to a group you could call anti-LGBT.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:28 AM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm more against them for the 'Eat-More-Kale' dispute, even though they lost.
(Most links gone)
posted by MtDewd at 11:30 AM on October 9, 2015
(Most links gone)
posted by MtDewd at 11:30 AM on October 9, 2015
I'm not at all arguing that Chik-Fil-A is an awesome company. They're not. And I wish they wouldn't give $25k to FCA, even if that's probably less than the catering bill at a single board meeting.
But if they've already caved and stopped doing the thing we were mad at them about, shouldn't we maybe move on and flex our protest muscle elsewhere? If we won't, why would a company bother to listen in the first place?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
But if they've already caved and stopped doing the thing we were mad at them about, shouldn't we maybe move on and flex our protest muscle elsewhere? If we won't, why would a company bother to listen in the first place?
posted by DirtyOldTown at 11:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
love and okra are antonyms of each other. Okra is horror.
(ง •̀_•́)ง
posted by bracems at 11:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [17 favorites]
(ง •̀_•́)ง
posted by bracems at 11:35 AM on October 9, 2015 [17 favorites]
I personally know someone who was fired from a Chick-fil-A vendor because Truett Cathy didn't want any unmarried men working on his account. The was in the 1980s.
posted by Classic Diner at 11:41 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by Classic Diner at 11:41 AM on October 9, 2015
> The deal is, Cathy's bigotry is somewhat refreshingly out in the open. How about all the companies that aren't so open, but still shovel their anti-LGBT dollars and profits hard into efforts to roll back the clock? Their delicious foods/liquids/services also deserve boycotting, or not, depending on how your inclinations lie.
Pulling back to this, but: that's why I am so angry about their donations. I want these people and these companies to be ashamed when it comes out that they donate to anti-lgbtq organizations. I want them to think about these donations as a dirty little secret, I want their PR reps to be worried about damage control if it comes out, I want them to backpedal when the public gets angry. I want other corporations whose regressive fucklord owners think donating to those organizations sounds great to see these cases and worry about the damage to the bottom line.
If they're going to donate to shitheel organizations like that, I want that to be a motherfucking liability. Open bigotry is not fucking refreshing, in the same way that someone who shits in the middle of my carpet while I'm watching, making eye contact with me all the while, is more offensive than someone who slinks in and shits in the middle of my carpet in the dead of night. At least the second person has the decency to be ashamed of their shitty behavior.
I'm glad to hear they've dialed back on the bigotry donations. I'm still angry at them, so I'm probably not eating there myself anytime soon. (I cherish my grudges, goddammit.) I don't necessarily judge people I know who eat there, but I do judge people who race into a discussion of their previous ethics and start waxing eloquent on how goddamn delicious their food is. I get it. You don't care. But could you please at least have the decency to pretend that you haven't consciously and deliberately decided that their deliciousness is more important to you OR at least have the decency to keep it to yourself when LGBTQ people are expressing anger? It feels very much like an insult to me, and I have a really hard time with that particular response to the discussion of Chik-Fil-A.
posted by sciatrix at 11:47 AM on October 9, 2015 [26 favorites]
Pulling back to this, but: that's why I am so angry about their donations. I want these people and these companies to be ashamed when it comes out that they donate to anti-lgbtq organizations. I want them to think about these donations as a dirty little secret, I want their PR reps to be worried about damage control if it comes out, I want them to backpedal when the public gets angry. I want other corporations whose regressive fucklord owners think donating to those organizations sounds great to see these cases and worry about the damage to the bottom line.
If they're going to donate to shitheel organizations like that, I want that to be a motherfucking liability. Open bigotry is not fucking refreshing, in the same way that someone who shits in the middle of my carpet while I'm watching, making eye contact with me all the while, is more offensive than someone who slinks in and shits in the middle of my carpet in the dead of night. At least the second person has the decency to be ashamed of their shitty behavior.
I'm glad to hear they've dialed back on the bigotry donations. I'm still angry at them, so I'm probably not eating there myself anytime soon. (I cherish my grudges, goddammit.) I don't necessarily judge people I know who eat there, but I do judge people who race into a discussion of their previous ethics and start waxing eloquent on how goddamn delicious their food is. I get it. You don't care. But could you please at least have the decency to pretend that you haven't consciously and deliberately decided that their deliciousness is more important to you OR at least have the decency to keep it to yourself when LGBTQ people are expressing anger? It feels very much like an insult to me, and I have a really hard time with that particular response to the discussion of Chik-Fil-A.
posted by sciatrix at 11:47 AM on October 9, 2015 [26 favorites]
in the same way that someone who shits in the middle of my carpet while I'm watching, making eye contact with me all the while, is more offensive than someone who slinks in and shits in the middle of my carpet in the dead of night.
I can't wait until I can use this in a non-digital discussion. Cuz I will be, at the soonest opportunity.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I can't wait until I can use this in a non-digital discussion. Cuz I will be, at the soonest opportunity.
posted by RolandOfEld at 11:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Aside from dimly remembered meals there from my youth on the East coast, I haven't had Chick fil A in decades, and I made a special trip just a few nights ago to the new location in Bellevue, WA.
Chicken was pretty dang good--- moist throughout and pleasant heat on the spicy coating. The waffle-cut fries, aside from being waffle-cut, were not out of the ordinary. The laundry list of dipping sauces was terrific.
Pretty good, but not worth a special trip; I might visit next time I'm on the east side.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:51 AM on October 9, 2015
Chicken was pretty dang good--- moist throughout and pleasant heat on the spicy coating. The waffle-cut fries, aside from being waffle-cut, were not out of the ordinary. The laundry list of dipping sauces was terrific.
Pretty good, but not worth a special trip; I might visit next time I'm on the east side.
posted by Sunburnt at 11:51 AM on October 9, 2015
I do wish more retail outlets would commit to giving their employees at least one day off / week.
posted by straight at 11:52 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by straight at 11:52 AM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Even if they do not donate outright to hate groups, that doesn't excuse their stupid anti-low-income policies detailed in this thread. They also have a lot of religious fundraisers & daddy-daughter nights that profit specific churches that I would rather my money not support either.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:53 AM on October 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:53 AM on October 9, 2015
> Am I suddenly a bad fag for rationalizing the occasional breakfast sandwich?
You're making a rational economic decision to get a good value on good breakfast. It's not wrong to make rational economic decisions.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're making a rational economic decision to get a good value on good breakfast. It's not wrong to make rational economic decisions.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think being LGBT and working for Chick-fil-a is a-okay in my book.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:00 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Everyone chooses their battles. The people who are likely to click into and comment on a thread like this are people who have this as one of their important battles. Just like a thread about, say, poverty will attract people who have that as their big issue or a global warming thread will attract environmentally minded people. No one should demand ideological purity and expect others to fight with them (especially if they actually agree on the issue itself). And at the same time no one should be surprised that the people who are fighting that battle really care about it and want others to join them.
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by downtohisturtles at 12:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
You're making a rational economic decision to get a good value on good breakfast. It's not wrong to make rational economic decisions.
It's okay too just to want the damn thing. It doesn't have to be a rational decision.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's okay too just to want the damn thing. It doesn't have to be a rational decision.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, but it's also okay to be like, "Those people who are buying those chicken sandwiches are wrong and are participating in their own oppression."
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:06 PM on October 9, 2015
In short, don't make moral decisions on an empty stomach.
This probably sums up thousands of years of humanity in one sentence.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:08 PM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
This probably sums up thousands of years of humanity in one sentence.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:08 PM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
No, this isn't complicated.After watching Bojack Horseman I can't take this man seriously anymore. MR PEANUTBUTTER TALKING ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE!
posted by Talez at 12:09 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
> 2) love and okra are antonyms of each other. Okra is horror.
Paul Prudhomme is barely in his grave and already you've set him to spinning.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Paul Prudhomme is barely in his grave and already you've set him to spinning.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Oh yeah, I don't eat there at all myself, but I was also an insufferable vegan in high school and that experience taught me a lot about how to remain passionately idealistic about something while not being an asshole about it.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Yeah, again, for the record--I'm not all that bothered by people who do eat there. (And not bothered at all by people who work there; everyone's gotta make a paycheck somewhere.) You're more forgiving than me, fine, or you have different priorities, or you have food issues and they're reliably something you can eat, or you're kind of broke right now and it's the best quality you can afford, or you are torn between their dedication to their employees who aren't too unChristian and their social politics, or whatever. Like I said, I cherish my grudges, but that doesn't mean everyone has to--especially now they're apparently downgrading their donations to bigoted groups.
What gets me cranky is very specifically the "yeah, they're unethical, but also DELICIOUS SO WONDERFUL" knee-jerk reaction. It's really frustrating to see the sum total of your grievances against a company which has very deliberately tried to fuck you and people like you over dismissed in a breath, immediately followed by a passionate, florid description of every tasty, wonderful, high-quality thing about that company's product. It feels really dismissive.
posted by sciatrix at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2015 [24 favorites]
What gets me cranky is very specifically the "yeah, they're unethical, but also DELICIOUS SO WONDERFUL" knee-jerk reaction. It's really frustrating to see the sum total of your grievances against a company which has very deliberately tried to fuck you and people like you over dismissed in a breath, immediately followed by a passionate, florid description of every tasty, wonderful, high-quality thing about that company's product. It feels really dismissive.
posted by sciatrix at 12:12 PM on October 9, 2015 [24 favorites]
I dunno. The inability for ex-felons to get jobs is an actively serious policy problem that contributes to recidivism and poverty. Trade embargoes embolden fascist governments and radicals. Racism is most entrenched in places where whites are so poor, racial superiority is the only privilege they have available. The underlying idea of getting to choose who deserves economic survival is not just reprehensible, but fundamentally self defeating.
The only reason this is acceptable is because these targets are powerful enough to recover from their sins and the impact we can make on them collectively is fairly ineffectual.
It's primarily about pride and feeling better about yourself, not changing the world. It's not the worst reason to do something. But I don't really consider a political choice. It's a choice that makes you feel better about your politics. There's a big difference.
posted by politikitty at 12:13 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
The only reason this is acceptable is because these targets are powerful enough to recover from their sins and the impact we can make on them collectively is fairly ineffectual.
It's primarily about pride and feeling better about yourself, not changing the world. It's not the worst reason to do something. But I don't really consider a political choice. It's a choice that makes you feel better about your politics. There's a big difference.
posted by politikitty at 12:13 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
But I don't consider it any of my business where a company (or its owner) decides to spend its profits.
That's totally true. And all of those divestment rallies we held in the 1980s were stupid, because if companies want to spend their profits investing in a hideous regime that systematically destroys the rights of a group of people, that's their business.
And anyway boycotts totally don't work, so that's why we still have apartheid and it was a total waste of time for us to get out there and protest. Oh wait: yes they do, and no we don't and no it wasn't. And fuck Chick-fil-A.
posted by The Bellman at 12:14 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
That's totally true. And all of those divestment rallies we held in the 1980s were stupid, because if companies want to spend their profits investing in a hideous regime that systematically destroys the rights of a group of people, that's their business.
And anyway boycotts totally don't work, so that's why we still have apartheid and it was a total waste of time for us to get out there and protest. Oh wait: yes they do, and no we don't and no it wasn't. And fuck Chick-fil-A.
posted by The Bellman at 12:14 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
I guess I figure it all washes out in the end.
Unless you are as wealthy and as connected as the Cathys of the US, a dollar you spend on Bernie probably doesn't go anywhere near as far as a Cathy's contribution to NOM or other Mormon hate groups.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:14 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unless you are as wealthy and as connected as the Cathys of the US, a dollar you spend on Bernie probably doesn't go anywhere near as far as a Cathy's contribution to NOM or other Mormon hate groups.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:14 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
that doesn't excuse their stupid anti-low-income policies detailed in this thread.
Did I miss something in this thread? I followed the link about their free offer only being valid to someone with a photo ID. While this might have the side-effect of not having homeless people eligible for their prize, I doubt this was their primary motivation.
Earlier in the thread it mentioned that they contribute money to "two groups that work with homeless and at-risk youth in Atlanta." Do other fast-food franchises do this? Do they play loud music outside their stores to prevent people from loitering there (as other fast-food chains do, which is arguably much more anti-homeless than having a clause in a giveaway requiring a valid photo-ID).
posted by el io at 12:17 PM on October 9, 2015
Did I miss something in this thread? I followed the link about their free offer only being valid to someone with a photo ID. While this might have the side-effect of not having homeless people eligible for their prize, I doubt this was their primary motivation.
Earlier in the thread it mentioned that they contribute money to "two groups that work with homeless and at-risk youth in Atlanta." Do other fast-food franchises do this? Do they play loud music outside their stores to prevent people from loitering there (as other fast-food chains do, which is arguably much more anti-homeless than having a clause in a giveaway requiring a valid photo-ID).
posted by el io at 12:17 PM on October 9, 2015
Divestment and boycotts were and are related to the company's business practices, vendor relationships, investments. Where the owner decides to spend his own money isn't any of those things; that is the difference.
Might not be enough of a difference to you, but it is to me. I'll eat the chicken when it's good, and eat elsewhere when it isn't.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:18 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Might not be enough of a difference to you, but it is to me. I'll eat the chicken when it's good, and eat elsewhere when it isn't.
posted by Sunburnt at 12:18 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why I think places like Chick-Fil-A are terrible places to eat
Fast food is tasty and cheap but if you have the means to eat elsewhere, do everyone on earth a favor and at least consider not eating fast food.
If you're poor or in a food desert, I get it. No judgement at all.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:20 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Fast food is tasty and cheap but if you have the means to eat elsewhere, do everyone on earth a favor and at least consider not eating fast food.
If you're poor or in a food desert, I get it. No judgement at all.
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:20 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Anyone who attempts to make a "better" burger by adding flavors and ingredients without showing due appreciation for what makes them so delicious in the first place deserves nothing but scorn and admonishment, and I will judge you for preferring a Frumburger so hard.
frijole, have you eaten at 5guys or Shake Shack? They don't add any special ingredients or flavors (that I am aware of) - in fact, a typical Five Guys burger has fewer ingredients than In-N-Out (no lettuce nor tomato). They just taste better IMO. I don't mind the disagreement but it seems possible you are off-target here.
posted by Edgewise at 12:22 PM on October 9, 2015
frijole, have you eaten at 5guys or Shake Shack? They don't add any special ingredients or flavors (that I am aware of) - in fact, a typical Five Guys burger has fewer ingredients than In-N-Out (no lettuce nor tomato). They just taste better IMO. I don't mind the disagreement but it seems possible you are off-target here.
posted by Edgewise at 12:22 PM on October 9, 2015
It's nice that Chik Fil A is now only possibly slightly supportive of just one little slightly Anti-LGBT organization. It's a bold step forward to be sure. But I'll only consider spending money there only after they publicly apologize for their massive public support of anti-LGBT causes, and match and exceed that funding to HRC, GLAAD, and/or other pro-human-rights organizations.
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Cookiebastard at 12:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Anyone who attempts to make a "better" burger by adding flavors and ingredients without showing due appreciation for what makes them so delicious in the first place deserves nothing but scorn and admonishment, and I will judge you for preferring a Frumburger so hard.
Isn't that the whole point of Chik Fil A though? Doesn't it only taste like pickle?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:24 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Isn't that the whole point of Chik Fil A though? Doesn't it only taste like pickle?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:24 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Unless you are as wealthy and as connected as the Cathys of the US, a dollar you spend on Bernie probably doesn't go anywhere near as far as a Cathy's contribution to NOM or other Mormon hate groups.
Money is not all powerful in the US. If it was, blacks would have never gained enough political capital to end slavery, much less achieve the leaps in civil rights that have been made today. Gay marriage certainly would never have been legalized by the Supreme Court.
It has done a fantastic job slowing down equality. Which sucks. I'm not trying to minimize how much that sucks. But it has failed miserably at the fundamental reason those rich bastards threw their wealth at the problem.
It's the exact opposite of a win-win situation. But they've lost so much more than folks who had nothing who by virtue of their position had little to work with and nothing to lose.
posted by politikitty at 12:26 PM on October 9, 2015
Money is not all powerful in the US. If it was, blacks would have never gained enough political capital to end slavery, much less achieve the leaps in civil rights that have been made today. Gay marriage certainly would never have been legalized by the Supreme Court.
It has done a fantastic job slowing down equality. Which sucks. I'm not trying to minimize how much that sucks. But it has failed miserably at the fundamental reason those rich bastards threw their wealth at the problem.
It's the exact opposite of a win-win situation. But they've lost so much more than folks who had nothing who by virtue of their position had little to work with and nothing to lose.
posted by politikitty at 12:26 PM on October 9, 2015
It tastes like chicken
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:27 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 12:27 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
What gets me cranky is very specifically the "yeah, they're unethical, but also DELICIOUS SO WONDERFUL" knee-jerk reaction. It's really frustrating to see the sum total of your grievances against a company which has very deliberately tried to fuck you and people like you over dismissed in a breath, immediately followed by a passionate, florid description of every tasty, wonderful, high-quality thing about that company's product. It feels really dismissive.
I can see where that might feel that way - but I think actually discussion of Chick-Fil-A being delicious is very relevant to the boycott thread. Because honestly, I see a lot of people say 'I'm declaring a boycott' against places they don't like and would never shop at - places without delicious food, places whose clothing and food and what have you is just 'meh', or places where it's easy to find an equivalent (Hobby Lobby/Joannes/Michaels, for example). And it's really easy to boycott those places, because you weren't planning on going there anyway, or at least didn't care that much.
Chick-Fil-A is one of those boycotts that really hits people in their ethics place - it forces people to choose between something they actually want to consume - and sometimes very much want to consume, or it's the only thing they can eat that doesn't make them feel disgusting - and an ethical principle they hold. That debate is provoked by the fact that it's a unique, valuable good.
So if I'm in the car deciding about fast food with certain people, we are having those conversations. People are figuring out precisely how much their ideals are worth to them, and that's important stuff even if a lot of people come down on the 'delicious fast food, fuck it' side of the equation.
posted by corb at 12:29 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I can see where that might feel that way - but I think actually discussion of Chick-Fil-A being delicious is very relevant to the boycott thread. Because honestly, I see a lot of people say 'I'm declaring a boycott' against places they don't like and would never shop at - places without delicious food, places whose clothing and food and what have you is just 'meh', or places where it's easy to find an equivalent (Hobby Lobby/Joannes/Michaels, for example). And it's really easy to boycott those places, because you weren't planning on going there anyway, or at least didn't care that much.
Chick-Fil-A is one of those boycotts that really hits people in their ethics place - it forces people to choose between something they actually want to consume - and sometimes very much want to consume, or it's the only thing they can eat that doesn't make them feel disgusting - and an ethical principle they hold. That debate is provoked by the fact that it's a unique, valuable good.
So if I'm in the car deciding about fast food with certain people, we are having those conversations. People are figuring out precisely how much their ideals are worth to them, and that's important stuff even if a lot of people come down on the 'delicious fast food, fuck it' side of the equation.
posted by corb at 12:29 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I think the jokes about it being delicious but socially unsavory create more hype than it deserves.
It's less dry than most chicken sandwiches, but also far far too salty. The McDonald's clone is better, and they wear their evil on their sleeve, so the moral ambiguity gets replaced with comfortable fatalism.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's less dry than most chicken sandwiches, but also far far too salty. The McDonald's clone is better, and they wear their evil on their sleeve, so the moral ambiguity gets replaced with comfortable fatalism.
posted by mccarty.tim at 12:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
frijole, have you eaten at 5guys or Shake Shack? [...] I don't mind the disagreement but it seems possible you are off-target here.
I, for one, am grateful for the sincerity that I seem to have been able to encourage in this ridiculous derailment about hamburgers.
fwiw, though, Five Guys gets points for fresh potatoes and fries, but loses points for seasoning and portions (seriously, too much). and Shake Shack has the mantle of expediency and branding (not to mention the line!) that I just can't get past in order to try their burger again.
posted by frijole at 12:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I, for one, am grateful for the sincerity that I seem to have been able to encourage in this ridiculous derailment about hamburgers.
fwiw, though, Five Guys gets points for fresh potatoes and fries, but loses points for seasoning and portions (seriously, too much). and Shake Shack has the mantle of expediency and branding (not to mention the line!) that I just can't get past in order to try their burger again.
posted by frijole at 12:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
> What gets me cranky is very specifically the "yeah, they're unethical, but also DELICIOUS SO WONDERFUL" knee-jerk reaction. It's really frustrating to see the sum total of your grievances against a company which has very deliberately tried to fuck you and people like you over dismissed in a breath, immediately followed by a passionate, florid description of every tasty, wonderful, high-quality thing about that company's product.
My wife became vegan this year - I'm not (though I don't eat meat and eggs, I can't give up ice cream, the simulations are good but not the same), but she has all my support.
From being exposed to arguments about this, I have to say that my opinion of the average American's moral calculus has fallen from its already low state. A lot of people - luckily, very few of our friends - really think that "bacon tastes really good" so trumps any other possible argument that they can just repeat that endlessly and laugh.
We see the same arguments about Amazon - "yes, they treat all their workers like shit up and down the line, but you can't expect me to spend an extra couple of percent on consumer products, just so they are made by workers who are treated properly, and Amazon is so convenient!!"
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:41 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
My wife became vegan this year - I'm not (though I don't eat meat and eggs, I can't give up ice cream, the simulations are good but not the same), but she has all my support.
From being exposed to arguments about this, I have to say that my opinion of the average American's moral calculus has fallen from its already low state. A lot of people - luckily, very few of our friends - really think that "bacon tastes really good" so trumps any other possible argument that they can just repeat that endlessly and laugh.
We see the same arguments about Amazon - "yes, they treat all their workers like shit up and down the line, but you can't expect me to spend an extra couple of percent on consumer products, just so they are made by workers who are treated properly, and Amazon is so convenient!!"
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 12:41 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
If I based all my eating (or not eating) decisions on the politics of the business that provides the food I consume, I would imagine myself starving very quickly.
Well, in general, it's not a matter of "Eat at Chick-Fil-A or starve". And even religions with dietary restrictions tend to have "if you have to eat it to survive" clauses. But the bottom line is, if the only local grocery store kicks puppies and eats babies, a case for necessity could be made. But Chick-Fil-A is convenience food and there's plenty of other places to go.
posted by happyroach at 12:53 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, in general, it's not a matter of "Eat at Chick-Fil-A or starve". And even religions with dietary restrictions tend to have "if you have to eat it to survive" clauses. But the bottom line is, if the only local grocery store kicks puppies and eats babies, a case for necessity could be made. But Chick-Fil-A is convenience food and there's plenty of other places to go.
posted by happyroach at 12:53 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I get that we all choose our battles. I don't boycott or otherwise avoid every single company that engages in objectionable donations or beliefs/practices. And heck, one of these days, I might check out a Chick-fil-A for myself; I was aware that they had stopped donating to anti-gay groups a while back, and that's generally where my personal line is these days*. (That said, I completely understand people who continue to boycott Chick-fil-A because they don't want to support a company that was so instrumental and outspoken in the fight against marriage equality.)
But yes, the sheer contrarian glee that some people display in talking about how much they loooooove Chick-fil-A in discussions about the company's anti-LGBT history irritates me like no other.
* Not really a hard and fast line, I'll admit. I avoided seeing Ender's Game in theaters because of Orson Scott Card's outspoken and particularly virulent homophobia. It's not as though the movie's profits was going to go to anti-LGBT groups, and as far as I know, OSC had already been paid for the film so my money would have made no difference. But I had this tenuous link in my head that connected the success of the movie to contributing to an ever-wider platform for OSC to continue spewing his bigotry, and I just couldn't do it.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 12:56 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
But yes, the sheer contrarian glee that some people display in talking about how much they loooooove Chick-fil-A in discussions about the company's anti-LGBT history irritates me like no other.
* Not really a hard and fast line, I'll admit. I avoided seeing Ender's Game in theaters because of Orson Scott Card's outspoken and particularly virulent homophobia. It's not as though the movie's profits was going to go to anti-LGBT groups, and as far as I know, OSC had already been paid for the film so my money would have made no difference. But I had this tenuous link in my head that connected the success of the movie to contributing to an ever-wider platform for OSC to continue spewing his bigotry, and I just couldn't do it.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 12:56 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
The chicken sandwich is delightful, but it's easy to tell the increase in quality with their nuggets.
Their nuggets shred, making it obvious it's not chicken paste. The breading crisps and flakes the way real fried chicken would. The little flakes of breading in the bottom of the box are the best bonus gifts a fast food place can give you.
They've been around since I was a pre-teen furious at Christianity, with murals of their Southern Baptist deeds on the wall and closing on Sunday. The mormon kids in high school angled to work there, since they were supportive of their missions once they turned 18. So I dealt with that cognitive dissonance of enjoying something from people I fundamentally disagreed with really young.
Its still very surprising to me that this became a media frenzy. They're an openly Southern Baptist family owned organization founded by a white guy MS during the 60s. They put the history prominently on the wall of every freestanding location I've been to, not hidden in their SEC filings. Any progressive stance is in spite of their faith. Hating gays is upsetting, but not news.
posted by politikitty at 12:59 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Their nuggets shred, making it obvious it's not chicken paste. The breading crisps and flakes the way real fried chicken would. The little flakes of breading in the bottom of the box are the best bonus gifts a fast food place can give you.
They've been around since I was a pre-teen furious at Christianity, with murals of their Southern Baptist deeds on the wall and closing on Sunday. The mormon kids in high school angled to work there, since they were supportive of their missions once they turned 18. So I dealt with that cognitive dissonance of enjoying something from people I fundamentally disagreed with really young.
Its still very surprising to me that this became a media frenzy. They're an openly Southern Baptist family owned organization founded by a white guy MS during the 60s. They put the history prominently on the wall of every freestanding location I've been to, not hidden in their SEC filings. Any progressive stance is in spite of their faith. Hating gays is upsetting, but not news.
posted by politikitty at 12:59 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Chick-Fil-A is one of those boycotts that really hits people in their ethics place - it forces people to choose between something they actually want to consume - and sometimes very much want to consume, or it's the only thing they can eat that doesn't make them feel disgusting - and an ethical principle they hold. That debate is provoked by the fact that it's a unique, valuable good.
QFT.
This isn't the case for me; there are none near me, and I couldn't eat their food if there was. I did have a product I was buying daily (rockstar energy drink), and that was the first boycott in my life that actually impacted my buying habits. It kind of bummed me out ("aww, man, I love this drink, It's part of my unhealthy daily ritual"), but I couldn't bring myself to buy them.
And then they made a bunch of public statements, and tried to address the criticisms against them; the boycott/negative press had an impact! (I didn't go back though, I quit drinking energy drinks on a daily basis sometime later, and am uncertain of how sincere their PR moves were).
posted by el io at 1:01 PM on October 9, 2015
QFT.
This isn't the case for me; there are none near me, and I couldn't eat their food if there was. I did have a product I was buying daily (rockstar energy drink), and that was the first boycott in my life that actually impacted my buying habits. It kind of bummed me out ("aww, man, I love this drink, It's part of my unhealthy daily ritual"), but I couldn't bring myself to buy them.
And then they made a bunch of public statements, and tried to address the criticisms against them; the boycott/negative press had an impact! (I didn't go back though, I quit drinking energy drinks on a daily basis sometime later, and am uncertain of how sincere their PR moves were).
posted by el io at 1:01 PM on October 9, 2015
Southern Baptist family owned
Southern Baptist? Even worse!
...Sorry, I might still be a bit bitter over the SBC's conference this week: "Homosexuality: Compassion, Care, and Counsel for Struggling People." Made me never want to give a Southern Baptist the benefit of the doubt ever again.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 1:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Southern Baptist? Even worse!
...Sorry, I might still be a bit bitter over the SBC's conference this week: "Homosexuality: Compassion, Care, and Counsel for Struggling People." Made me never want to give a Southern Baptist the benefit of the doubt ever again.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 1:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I just wanna know where I can download a copy of the Citizen's Moral Purity Test so I can make sure I score high enough to comment here.
I think very, very few people stand firmly on comprehensive moral high ground, to have license to make the kinds of hardline, judgmental stances expressed by some in this thread. Even if one wanted to research the provenance of every single component and every single manufacturing process detail and employment conditions of every worker contained in all the many, many goods and services one uses daily, to be sure all of one's choices and actions are morally consistent and acceptable, I don't think it would be possible. We just do not live in a local world.
This restaurant chain has behaved (words and dollars) badly on some important social issues in the recent past, and now by all accounts has changed both their speech and actions. You may judge someone morally suspect for patronizing them, given their past, but to be so certain and absolute, with judgments as sweeping as expressed here, is surprising. And breathtakingly rude to make out loud, given that you know little to nothing about the context in which any given commenter lives, or what the moral sum total of their behaviors may be.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:07 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
I think very, very few people stand firmly on comprehensive moral high ground, to have license to make the kinds of hardline, judgmental stances expressed by some in this thread. Even if one wanted to research the provenance of every single component and every single manufacturing process detail and employment conditions of every worker contained in all the many, many goods and services one uses daily, to be sure all of one's choices and actions are morally consistent and acceptable, I don't think it would be possible. We just do not live in a local world.
This restaurant chain has behaved (words and dollars) badly on some important social issues in the recent past, and now by all accounts has changed both their speech and actions. You may judge someone morally suspect for patronizing them, given their past, but to be so certain and absolute, with judgments as sweeping as expressed here, is surprising. And breathtakingly rude to make out loud, given that you know little to nothing about the context in which any given commenter lives, or what the moral sum total of their behaviors may be.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:07 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Even if one wanted to research the provenance of every single component and every single manufacturing process detail and employment conditions of every worker contained in all the many, many goods and services one uses daily, to be sure all of one's choices and actions are morally consistent and acceptable, I don't think it would be possible. We just do not live in a local world.
Which is why most of us are saying that while it's impossible to do that, it's also completely possible to avoid this one company.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:08 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Which is why most of us are saying that while it's impossible to do that, it's also completely possible to avoid this one company.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:08 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
it's also completely possible to avoid this one company
Oh, I understand that. I don't understand the tone of many comments that avoiding this one company is a sort of purity test, to see if you really care about the issues; or that preclude that one could think it's OK to eat there AND be an ally/activist on LGBT issues. Like, it's not that big a sin in the grand scheme of things and there are much worse behaviors one could spend energy trying to change.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, I understand that. I don't understand the tone of many comments that avoiding this one company is a sort of purity test, to see if you really care about the issues; or that preclude that one could think it's OK to eat there AND be an ally/activist on LGBT issues. Like, it's not that big a sin in the grand scheme of things and there are much worse behaviors one could spend energy trying to change.
posted by LooseFilter at 1:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I didn't mean to thumb my nose at anyone who still opts not to eat at Chik-Fil-A for whatever reasons they have which still apply. But the most common reason people give for boycotting them continues to be "They give money to anti-LGBT groups" and it wasn't being mentioned at all that this is no longer actually the case. I'm all for boycotts and putting your money where your mouth is. But when we boycott companies to demand change, the very least we can do is make a cursory effort to notice if change happens and then pledge to re-examine the situation again at that point.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:26 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 1:26 PM on October 9, 2015 [8 favorites]
When I was a kid in the early 80's in very rural south, my entire association with Chick-Fil-A was positive. They were the chicken place at the mall (an hour away) that our (broke, frugal) mom would very rarely agree to buy us food from. BUT, they sponsored the library's summer reading program. We'd sign up, and all summer long when the bookmobile came to the (town's only) parking lot on a Saturday morning, we would give them back last week's 7 books and get 7 more, and power through the reading list, picking up bonus coupons for every 20 books we read, until by the end of summer, I had vouchers for two free sandwiches, 5-6 small fries, drinks... did they have milkshakes? I forget. No nuggets at the time, it was all sandwiches. So we'd pile in the car, and my brother and I would "buy" dinner for the whole family using our powerful book-reading skills. Good times.
It wasn't till 10 years later when I was far-off at college that I realized the chain only existed in the south. And that if anyone had heard of them, it was in the context of a redneck-haven reputation similar to WalMart. And then they started getting political and making publicly asinine statements, such that admitting that I had in the past eaten and enjoyed many of their sandwiches would get me subjected to all kinds of outraged rants. So now I just pretend we've never met.
Goodbye, Old Chick-Fil-A who gave out prizes when I read books - I miss you!
posted by aimedwander at 1:28 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
It wasn't till 10 years later when I was far-off at college that I realized the chain only existed in the south. And that if anyone had heard of them, it was in the context of a redneck-haven reputation similar to WalMart. And then they started getting political and making publicly asinine statements, such that admitting that I had in the past eaten and enjoyed many of their sandwiches would get me subjected to all kinds of outraged rants. So now I just pretend we've never met.
Goodbye, Old Chick-Fil-A who gave out prizes when I read books - I miss you!
posted by aimedwander at 1:28 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
in the same way that someone who shits in the middle of my carpet while I'm watching, making eye contact with me all the while
a cat did this to me once and tbh i don't know if i ever truly recovered
posted by poffin boffin at 1:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
a cat did this to me once and tbh i don't know if i ever truly recovered
posted by poffin boffin at 1:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
If you must eat chik-fil-a, at least have the decency to steal it rather than pay. Befriend a Chik-Fil-A worker who's willing to slip you free sandwiches, maybe, or figure out which cashiers are pocketing money instead of putting it in the till and only buy from them.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:40 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:40 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
> This is not how you treat your allies. It's how you treat someone you're exploiting as means to an end. And you know what? Fuck that.
The thing is, my allies don't get to tell me what parts of my struggle I ought to prioritize. I mean, they can, but then they have to listen when I say I think that's bullshit. Sorry if this makes you defensive, but you are choosing to defend this thing. I am not over here lobbing hate at you; your eating a sandwich is not lobbing hate at me. But you telling me that it's somehow improper of me to talk about how I feel when people say that they know what my priorities ought to be, well, fuck that indeed. I would like you to acknowledge that I have not "treated" you in any such way: I have expressed what I think and feel about someone like you spending $5 on a sandwich. You characterizing that in a different, more hostile way is on you, and not me.
posted by rtha at 1:40 PM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
The thing is, my allies don't get to tell me what parts of my struggle I ought to prioritize. I mean, they can, but then they have to listen when I say I think that's bullshit. Sorry if this makes you defensive, but you are choosing to defend this thing. I am not over here lobbing hate at you; your eating a sandwich is not lobbing hate at me. But you telling me that it's somehow improper of me to talk about how I feel when people say that they know what my priorities ought to be, well, fuck that indeed. I would like you to acknowledge that I have not "treated" you in any such way: I have expressed what I think and feel about someone like you spending $5 on a sandwich. You characterizing that in a different, more hostile way is on you, and not me.
posted by rtha at 1:40 PM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
Am I the only one who finds their food uninteresting? it's not bad, it's just bland. I'd rather eat a powerbar. I don't get the whole fascination with the quality of their food. I ate there once to see what the big deal was and there was no there there.
So they can make homophobic statements or house every homeless person in America, either way, there's no incentive to eat their food.
posted by GuyZero at 1:42 PM on October 9, 2015
So they can make homophobic statements or house every homeless person in America, either way, there's no incentive to eat their food.
posted by GuyZero at 1:42 PM on October 9, 2015
Another company you're probably still boycotting over an anti-LGBT stance they have largely abandoned: Barilla pasta. ... they've done an about face, recently getting a perfect score as an ideally gay-friendly company.
Huh! Last time I was grocery shopping, I couldn't remember whether Barilla or Bertolli was the bad one, so I had to stop and look it up. Good to know I can go back to just buying whatever's on sale.
posted by segfaultxr7 at 1:45 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Huh! Last time I was grocery shopping, I couldn't remember whether Barilla or Bertolli was the bad one, so I had to stop and look it up. Good to know I can go back to just buying whatever's on sale.
posted by segfaultxr7 at 1:45 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think I've got the winning strategy for the GOP next election: "vote for us, and you'll get a deee-licious chicken sandwich!"
posted by happyroach at 2:15 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by happyroach at 2:15 PM on October 9, 2015
i feel like the "but it's sooo good!" is a direct reaction to "the food is crap anyway!" and i find them both really annoying in a thread about the ethics of capitalism. i've gone back to eating chick-fil-a occasionally after their about face. i totally understand people who won't ever go back. if you want to say that i love a chicken sandwich more than i love queer people (a group i'm part of) i'm going to think we approach things differently and handle nuance differently.
posted by nadawi at 2:21 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 2:21 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
i feel like the "but it's sooo good!" is a direct reaction to "the food is crap anyway!"
I feel like it's generally the other way around, the grumblings about the crappy food seem to be more hype backlash than anything else. But this might be a chicken-or-egg scenario.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 2:36 PM on October 9, 2015
I feel like it's generally the other way around, the grumblings about the crappy food seem to be more hype backlash than anything else. But this might be a chicken-or-egg scenario.
posted by imnotasquirrel at 2:36 PM on October 9, 2015
yeah i don't even mean one comes first or second, because that changes thread to thread - conversation to conversation (although, in this specific thread the opinion that it's not tasty happened before anyone defended it on those merits), but that both are really annoying and not the point.
posted by nadawi at 2:40 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by nadawi at 2:40 PM on October 9, 2015
I would like you to acknowledge that I have not "treated" you in any such way: I have expressed what I think and feel about someone like you spending $5 on a sandwich. You characterizing that in a different, more hostile way is on you, and not me.
Your comment was about the third Ina string to which I was replying. At no time did I engage you personally or attack you or suggest that your feelings about a thing were invalid or that your priorities were backward.
As far as priorities are concerned, because your allies may have a difference of opinion about how and in what manner they should advocate in defense of justice for LGBT persons, it doesn't make them nonallies.
posted by echocollate at 2:50 PM on October 9, 2015
Your comment was about the third Ina string to which I was replying. At no time did I engage you personally or attack you or suggest that your feelings about a thing were invalid or that your priorities were backward.
As far as priorities are concerned, because your allies may have a difference of opinion about how and in what manner they should advocate in defense of justice for LGBT persons, it doesn't make them nonallies.
posted by echocollate at 2:50 PM on October 9, 2015
> But this might be a chicken-or-egg scenario.
Chicken-and-egg-and-cheese, more realistically.
posted by Sunburnt at 2:51 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Chicken-and-egg-and-cheese, more realistically.
posted by Sunburnt at 2:51 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I am increasingly incredulous at the amount of whining in this discussion that lgbtq people are being too mean, so allies are going to pack up and not help anymore. Do you hear yourself?
If you're an ally, do it because it's the right thing to do. This alienation stuff is some bullshit.
posted by sciatrix at 2:58 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
If you're an ally, do it because it's the right thing to do. This alienation stuff is some bullshit.
posted by sciatrix at 2:58 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
But it's also not a huge hardship to go to Michael's rather than Hobby Lobby and to Panera rather than Chik-Fil-A.
There is that.
I've never tasted Chik-Fil-A. I want to, because I am a fried chicken whore and love that shit, but since I don't know what I'm missing, I can still manage to not go try it. I did go in a Hobby Lobby a couple of times before I found out what it was, and it bums me out not to go in there, but...I'd probably feel creeped out and ashamed of myself if I went in there. I'm not exactly their desired clientele and they probably aren't so thrilled with people I like either.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2015
There is that.
I've never tasted Chik-Fil-A. I want to, because I am a fried chicken whore and love that shit, but since I don't know what I'm missing, I can still manage to not go try it. I did go in a Hobby Lobby a couple of times before I found out what it was, and it bums me out not to go in there, but...I'd probably feel creeped out and ashamed of myself if I went in there. I'm not exactly their desired clientele and they probably aren't so thrilled with people I like either.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:59 PM on October 9, 2015
It always astounds me when people do not believe that where they spend their money is a moral decision. Surely if I were purchasing handbags made from the skins of tender third-world babies, this would universally be acknowledged as an immoral purchasing decision. Yet somehow there's no morality involved when it's a delicious sandwich (previously) funding mean-spirited bigotry? That makes no sense at all. None at all.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:00 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by five fresh fish at 3:00 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: I'm going to judge hard.
posted by cardboard at 3:02 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by cardboard at 3:02 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
It's a matter of degree though, five fresh fish.
For me the LGBT thing was the last in a long line of frustrations that made me think "you know, I really should just stop going there if I give a shit about anything I really care about, and I think I'd like it people agreed with me because it doesn't feel like I'm making some hardline radical stance here to wish for more people to stop going there."
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
For me the LGBT thing was the last in a long line of frustrations that made me think "you know, I really should just stop going there if I give a shit about anything I really care about, and I think I'd like it people agreed with me because it doesn't feel like I'm making some hardline radical stance here to wish for more people to stop going there."
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
> because your allies may have a difference of opinion about how and in what manner they should advocate in defense of justice for LGBT persons, it doesn't make them nonallies.
And nowhere have I said it doesn't. But allies are not the ones who get to set the priorities for the people they claim to be allies for. If they choose to walk away when people they say they support say "hey, this isn't really feeling like support," (for various values of "this"), that's not me saying "go away."
posted by rtha at 3:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
And nowhere have I said it doesn't. But allies are not the ones who get to set the priorities for the people they claim to be allies for. If they choose to walk away when people they say they support say "hey, this isn't really feeling like support," (for various values of "this"), that's not me saying "go away."
posted by rtha at 3:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Also, thank-you to those people who are attempting to make concious moral purchasing decisions. It is impossible to always do it, impossible to know everything, impossible to avoid purchases that increase harm in this world. But at least you are trying. At least you try.. Thank you.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you're an ally, do it because it's the right thing to do.
But we don't need people who want do the right thing. We need a majority.
posted by politikitty at 3:05 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
But we don't need people who want do the right thing. We need a majority.
posted by politikitty at 3:05 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
what about people who are making those moral purchasing decisions but their math came out a little different? i boycotted them, they changed their behaviors, i stopped boycotting them, i understand that it was too late or not enough for some people. that isn't me not trying, that's me coming up with a different answer...
posted by nadawi at 3:07 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:07 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
as far as allies - i feel like lgbt people get to decide what upsets them and that we're not a monolith and that we shouldn't have to be nice to get allies and not all lgbt people agree about how good an ally is based upon their fast food choices.
posted by nadawi at 3:08 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 3:08 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
Allies whose support is conditional on being praised and jollied up are a dime a fucking dozen. Especially when they're trying to use self identified ally status to tell lgbtq people to stop talking about their own stated opinions about lgbtq issues.
Seriously, I am incredibly unimpressed.
posted by sciatrix at 3:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
Seriously, I am incredibly unimpressed.
posted by sciatrix at 3:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [12 favorites]
It always astounds me when people do not believe that where they spend their money is a moral decision. Surely if I were purchasing handbags made from the skins of tender third-world babies, this would universally be acknowledged as an immoral purchasing decision.
It's because this wretched fucking system makes us all at least a little bit complicit in it no matter what we do. like, I am such a ridiculously west coast hippie non-car-driving vegetarian-for-climate-reasons opinions-about-the-Kronstadt-rebellion-having leftist prick, but nevertheless I'm posting my drivel from a phone made by hyperexploited Foxconn workers while wearing clothing sewn by children, fucking children, and eating food picked by farm laborers who work in miserable conditions for a pittance.
We can't be pure. We can never be pure. It's very hard for us to wrap our heads around the simultaneous facts that 1: our consumer choices are moral issues and 2: even total saints are occasionally forced by circumstance into making very morally bad consumer choices, because doing otherwise would force us into marginal social positions. Like, I could stop wearing new clothes and buy everything used instead, but I'd have to spend every single weekend combing thrift stores for the rare pairs of pants that actually fit my giant butt. (side effect of biking everywhere: you end up being really skinny, but with a gigantic ass. this makes pants shopping... Difficult...)
But yeah. people don't acknowledge that their consumer choices have moral valences, because that requires acknowledging that as first worlders we can't not be at least a little bit completely fucking evil, at least not without going full on dropout freegan, which has its own problems as a lifestyle and which typically is only available to people who otherwise fit into categories of privilege (being a white freegan is way less likely to get you shot than being a black freegan is, for example).
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [15 favorites]
Laura Palmer's Cold Dead Kiss: Welcome to metafilter! I appreciate you paying 5$ to make that comment.
I as well, although at a dollar a word, LPCDK's user name balances out the cost of a membership here. Coincidence?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:12 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
I as well, although at a dollar a word, LPCDK's user name balances out the cost of a membership here. Coincidence?
posted by ricochet biscuit at 3:12 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
We can't be pure. We can never be pure
I don't really think anyone expects that.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:13 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't really think anyone expects that.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:13 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I was speaking to echocollate, for what it's worth. I did say upthread that I don't actually care too much about what other people do in terms of decisions, but I really resent arguments framed in terms of ally palatability.
I'm sorry your comment got caught in the crossfire/sorry for the miscommunication, qcubed.
posted by sciatrix at 3:16 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I'm sorry your comment got caught in the crossfire/sorry for the miscommunication, qcubed.
posted by sciatrix at 3:16 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is Chick-fil-A seriously that good? I mean holy shit, I don't think I've ever seen as much praise for the food of any other fast food chain - no, any restaurant - on Metafilter.
I sometimes wonder if it's a forbidden fruit thing, because so many of the comments are like "Chick-fil-A sandwiches are so good BUT I can't eat there because their owner is a bigot!" Which is probably the best possible publicity you could give them.
Before the whole brouhaha about the Chick-fil-A owner and gay marriage started up, I had a vague memory of eating it in a mall food court once, and maybe in my university food court. I don't remember it being particularly great. I also don't remember anyone talking about how good their food was back then.
But seriously - ever since the controversy began - it's always people talking about how delicious their chicken sandwiches are, to the point where I just HAVE to try it now! They opened a Midtown location, definitely going sometime. Any publicity is good publicity...
posted by pravit at 3:19 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I sometimes wonder if it's a forbidden fruit thing, because so many of the comments are like "Chick-fil-A sandwiches are so good BUT I can't eat there because their owner is a bigot!" Which is probably the best possible publicity you could give them.
Before the whole brouhaha about the Chick-fil-A owner and gay marriage started up, I had a vague memory of eating it in a mall food court once, and maybe in my university food court. I don't remember it being particularly great. I also don't remember anyone talking about how good their food was back then.
But seriously - ever since the controversy began - it's always people talking about how delicious their chicken sandwiches are, to the point where I just HAVE to try it now! They opened a Midtown location, definitely going sometime. Any publicity is good publicity...
posted by pravit at 3:19 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Metafilter: we can never be pure.
pravit, I am also wondering on this forbidden fruit thing, but see above as to why I'm not gonna screw with myself and temptation to find out.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:20 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
pravit, I am also wondering on this forbidden fruit thing, but see above as to why I'm not gonna screw with myself and temptation to find out.
posted by jenfullmoon at 3:20 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Chick-Fil-A food is still crap and we all know it. People just don't like having what they put in their mouth questioned.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:21 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:21 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Chick-fil-a is one of the exemplars of those companies whose products I wished I liked enough to actually boycott as opposed to never eating in the first place. Is there some long compound word for that we can borrow from the German language?
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:21 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:21 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
praise for chick fil a has always been a thing down south where i've lived. it's like whattaburger, some people love it, some people think it's gross, and for ex-pats it can weirdly taste like home when you've been away for too long. but, i mean, i think chipotle is supremely over hyped and my brother hates taco bueno. tastes aren't really something someone can be wrong about.
posted by nadawi at 3:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 3:23 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
tastes aren't really something someone can be wrong about.
This isn't true. For example: The British.
posted by el io at 3:25 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
This isn't true. For example: The British.
posted by el io at 3:25 PM on October 9, 2015 [6 favorites]
When you're from texas and living in seattle though, Chipotle suddenly becomes the greatest place to get a bite of "Tex-Mex" (with the most questionable of air quotes you can muster).
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:26 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:26 PM on October 9, 2015
People just don't like having what they put in their mouth questioned.
And they don't like their food choices questioned either!
hey-o!
posted by GuyZero at 3:31 PM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
And they don't like their food choices questioned either!
hey-o!
posted by GuyZero at 3:31 PM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
"Chick-fil-A sandwiches are so good BUT I can't eat there because their owner is a bigot!"
Yes, this is what bugs me, the "forbidden fruit" narrative.
Whether or not it's forbidden, it was never worth really worrying about in the first place. It's a false narrative from the start.
It is, at best, the forbidden turnip.
posted by GuyZero at 3:33 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, this is what bugs me, the "forbidden fruit" narrative.
Whether or not it's forbidden, it was never worth really worrying about in the first place. It's a false narrative from the start.
It is, at best, the forbidden turnip.
posted by GuyZero at 3:33 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
hen you're from texas and living in seattle though, Chipotle suddenly becomes the greatest place to get a bite of "Tex-Mex" (with the most questionable of air quotes you can muster).
ha. and see, that right there is the difference. i can jaunt to the next street over and get lengua tacos, so while arkansas doesn't have as good of mexican or tex-mex as texas, we're not starving for it.
posted by nadawi at 3:36 PM on October 9, 2015
ha. and see, that right there is the difference. i can jaunt to the next street over and get lengua tacos, so while arkansas doesn't have as good of mexican or tex-mex as texas, we're not starving for it.
posted by nadawi at 3:36 PM on October 9, 2015
When you're from texas and living in seattle though, Chipotle suddenly becomes the greatest place to get a bite of "Tex-Mex" (with the most questionable of air quotes you can muster).
I've heard that some of the taco trucks that park in the Rainier Valley are really good, but well my tastes in Mexican-ish food run toward Bay Area style rather than Tex-Mex so I dunno.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:37 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've heard that some of the taco trucks that park in the Rainier Valley are really good, but well my tastes in Mexican-ish food run toward Bay Area style rather than Tex-Mex so I dunno.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:37 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
When you're from texas and living in seattle though, Chipotle suddenly becomes the greatest place to get a bite of "Tex-Mex" (with the most questionable of air quotes you can muster).
I've heard that some of the taco trucks that park in the Rainier Valley are really good, but well my tastes in Mexican-ish food run toward Bay Area style rather than Tex-Mex so I dunno.
/waves hand in the air
I know! I know! Gorditos in Greenwood! Bay area style burritos that are giant and affordable. The fish burrito is fantastic.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:40 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I've heard that some of the taco trucks that park in the Rainier Valley are really good, but well my tastes in Mexican-ish food run toward Bay Area style rather than Tex-Mex so I dunno.
/waves hand in the air
I know! I know! Gorditos in Greenwood! Bay area style burritos that are giant and affordable. The fish burrito is fantastic.
posted by Existential Dread at 3:40 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Taco Bell isn't very good, but I'm super super tired of the idea that Taco Bell = magic laxative.
posted by Pyry at 3:43 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 3:43 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
But yeah. people don't acknowledge that their consumer choices have moral valences, because that requires acknowledging that as first worlders we can't not be at least a little bit completely fucking evil
Not true. I think the very notion that a consumer choice should have a moral valence is fundamentally evil. It's choosing to withhold economic survival to people because they're objectionable. It's fundamentally incompatible to economic justice.
It is the most devastating aspect of hatred outside straight up genocide because the effects outlive that initial prejudice into perpetuity. The racists views of our founding fathers are still affecting the economic outcomes of minorities.
It doesn't make it okay to shoot at someone just because you know you're a lousy shout and unlikely to do any damage. Not only is that a terrible excuse, but it makes you blind to the instances when your moral valence is part of the privileged group oppressing other minorities.
A guaranteed basic income changes those scales. But only if it's on a worldwide scale that does not exclude those unfortunate enough to be born elsewhere.
I'll still gladly work with anyone who holds these objectionable views, both economically and politically. But that doesn't mean that very human impulse is flat out reprehensible in my book.
posted by politikitty at 3:47 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Not true. I think the very notion that a consumer choice should have a moral valence is fundamentally evil. It's choosing to withhold economic survival to people because they're objectionable. It's fundamentally incompatible to economic justice.
It is the most devastating aspect of hatred outside straight up genocide because the effects outlive that initial prejudice into perpetuity. The racists views of our founding fathers are still affecting the economic outcomes of minorities.
It doesn't make it okay to shoot at someone just because you know you're a lousy shout and unlikely to do any damage. Not only is that a terrible excuse, but it makes you blind to the instances when your moral valence is part of the privileged group oppressing other minorities.
A guaranteed basic income changes those scales. But only if it's on a worldwide scale that does not exclude those unfortunate enough to be born elsewhere.
I'll still gladly work with anyone who holds these objectionable views, both economically and politically. But that doesn't mean that very human impulse is flat out reprehensible in my book.
posted by politikitty at 3:47 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Bay area, San Diego, and southwest styles abound in PacNW. But a good cheesy burrito with ranchero sauce for some reason eluded me up there.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:48 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:48 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
Not true. I think the very notion that a consumer choice should have a moral valence is fundamentally evil. It's choosing to withhold economic survival to people because they're objectionable. It's fundamentally incompatible to economic justice.
Strongly worded but very true.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:52 PM on October 9, 2015
Strongly worded but very true.
posted by Annika Cicada at 3:52 PM on October 9, 2015
Typed out a whole comment, got mad, sad, deleted it. Super depressed, eat the chicken. Sureheyowhynot. Ain't your beef. Quite literally.
posted by triage_lazarus at 4:51 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by triage_lazarus at 4:51 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I think the very notion that a consumer choice should have a moral valence is fundamentally evil. It's choosing to withhold economic survival to people because they're objectionable. It's fundamentally incompatible to economic justice.This... makes no sense to me. I'm going to buy some craft supplies this weekend. I could buy them at Hobby Lobby, but I'm not going to do that, because Hobby Lobby is awful in all sorts of ways. Instead, I'll probably buy them at Joanne's. So I'm denying economic survival to Hobby Lobby. But if I bought them at Hobby Lobby, wouldn't I be denying economic survival to Joanne's? Why is Hobby Lobby any more entitled to my money than Joanne's is? Am I allowed to forgo shopping at Hobby Lobby because I am annoyed by the muzak version of hymns that they play on a loop, or is that also fundamentally evil and incompatible with economic justice? And if it's acceptable to avoid the annoying muzak, why is it ok to withhold economic survival to people because they're annoying but not because they're objectionable?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 4:52 PM on October 9, 2015 [11 favorites]
So, the Montgomery bus boycott was fundamentally evil, but if I withhold economic survival to Chick Fil-A because I prefer the taste of Popeyes, I'm in the clear?
posted by dirigibleman at 4:57 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by dirigibleman at 4:57 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
> Is Chick-fil-A seriously that good?
I tried it for the first time (except for some long forgotten childhood meals) on Tuesday, just 3 nights ago. It's pretty good. It's not extraordinary. The chicken was tender and moist, two cuts above a lot of fastfood chicken I've had, but the overall experience was pretty ordinary.
> I withhold economic survival to Chick Fil-A because I prefer the taste of Popeyes, I'm in the clear?
Popeyes has better sides, without a doubt. I can't answer the moral issues for you.
posted by Sunburnt at 5:01 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I tried it for the first time (except for some long forgotten childhood meals) on Tuesday, just 3 nights ago. It's pretty good. It's not extraordinary. The chicken was tender and moist, two cuts above a lot of fastfood chicken I've had, but the overall experience was pretty ordinary.
> I withhold economic survival to Chick Fil-A because I prefer the taste of Popeyes, I'm in the clear?
Popeyes has better sides, without a doubt. I can't answer the moral issues for you.
posted by Sunburnt at 5:01 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
the idea of consumer boycotts being an immoral impingement on the right to make a living presupposes that it's immoral to base consumer decisions on anything but purely self-interested preferences. This is gibberish - gibberish that denies the possibility of consumer choice as a lever of power. I'll concede that typically consumer choice isn't an effective lever of power in most situations, but I won't concede that in general the use of organized campaigns to economically harm people who are attempting to, like, anathemize my friends is somehow an immoral distortion of the market.
I will gladly campaign to get Dan Cathy his share of a guaranteed minimum income, even though he doesn't need it. but if I eat one of his company's sandwiches, it'll only be if it's either stolen or pulled out of the trash.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:10 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I will gladly campaign to get Dan Cathy his share of a guaranteed minimum income, even though he doesn't need it. but if I eat one of his company's sandwiches, it'll only be if it's either stolen or pulled out of the trash.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:10 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
So, the Montgomery bus boycott was fundamentally evil, but if I withhold economic survival to Chick Fil-A because I prefer the taste of Popeyes, I'm in the clear?
The Montgomery bus boycott was targeted at a government funded, government run monopoly. Their policy of discrimination on the foundation of race threatened the economic survival of those affected by their discrimination and unable to turn to other options.
If you are choosing between two indistinguishable goods, you can use whatever method you want to determine how to spend your limited dollars. But if your only rationale is really to deny someone from paying their bills, you're strengthening a social norm that has been used to commit lasting damage to vulnerable groups.
There is no end in sight for social justice. So don't foster a political climate that will make those folks worse off.
posted by politikitty at 5:19 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Montgomery bus boycott was targeted at a government funded, government run monopoly. Their policy of discrimination on the foundation of race threatened the economic survival of those affected by their discrimination and unable to turn to other options.
If you are choosing between two indistinguishable goods, you can use whatever method you want to determine how to spend your limited dollars. But if your only rationale is really to deny someone from paying their bills, you're strengthening a social norm that has been used to commit lasting damage to vulnerable groups.
There is no end in sight for social justice. So don't foster a political climate that will make those folks worse off.
posted by politikitty at 5:19 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think if just five more people express their personal, entirely subjective opinion that Chik-Fil-A doesn't taste good, that will successfully invalidate the subjective opinions of those who think it does. That's what we're shooting for, right?
Or maybe just you, because your opinion is the special one we've all been waiting for.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:20 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or maybe just you, because your opinion is the special one we've all been waiting for.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:20 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I've never had a Chik-Fil-A but now I kind of want one just so I can weigh in on the all important "Tastes like manna from heaven / garbage from hell" debate.
posted by Justinian at 5:22 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 5:22 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
How do you feel personally about knowing a violent criminal might be the person who answers your call for a cab? A sex offender?
The impulse to make moral judgements that affect economic survival is not costless and is not limited to just political views. We know that this discrimination creates social issues, and ultimately backfires.
The Democrats abandoned the South. Fuck the racists, but god we've created some ugly poverty in the process. And it hasn't exactly made the South rethink their opinion on race.
posted by politikitty at 5:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
The impulse to make moral judgements that affect economic survival is not costless and is not limited to just political views. We know that this discrimination creates social issues, and ultimately backfires.
The Democrats abandoned the South. Fuck the racists, but god we've created some ugly poverty in the process. And it hasn't exactly made the South rethink their opinion on race.
posted by politikitty at 5:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
But if your only rationale is really to deny someone from paying their bills, you're strengthening a social norm that has been used to commit lasting damage to vulnerable groups.
Yes, and so what? Sometimes tactics aren't pretty, because sometimes politics and economics are agonistic processes rather than pretty mutually beneficial friendly ones. Sometimes we have to throw punches, even if that might normalize the act of throwing punches.
(hah! as if economic violence wasn't already normalized under capitalism! as if capitalism isn't in fact built on a solid foundation of relentless economic violence!)
You're basically arguing that economic self-defense is immoral. it's a silly argument.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes, and so what? Sometimes tactics aren't pretty, because sometimes politics and economics are agonistic processes rather than pretty mutually beneficial friendly ones. Sometimes we have to throw punches, even if that might normalize the act of throwing punches.
(hah! as if economic violence wasn't already normalized under capitalism! as if capitalism isn't in fact built on a solid foundation of relentless economic violence!)
You're basically arguing that economic self-defense is immoral. it's a silly argument.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [7 favorites]
Ok, politikitty, what about the Don't Buy Where You Can't Work campaigns, in which activists boycotted and picketed white-owned businesses in black neighborhoods that were happy to take black consumers' money but wouldn't hire black employees?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:31 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
I don't buy that capitalism is the cause of economic violence. People are the root of violence. Socialism only succeeds in populations where there are few differences. That's no more realistic on a large scale than capitalism.
posted by politikitty at 5:34 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by politikitty at 5:34 PM on October 9, 2015
No business is entitled to my dollars or custom. If I can withhold money from a business because I don't like their food, I can certainly withhold it from them because I don't like their business practice e.g. worker exploitation or because they turn and give profits to causes I object to or that work to directly counter my interests.
I ain't pure by any means but arguing that boycotts are immoral is ridiculous.
posted by rtha at 5:35 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
I ain't pure by any means but arguing that boycotts are immoral is ridiculous.
posted by rtha at 5:35 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
Gay dude here for what it's worth..
Look, we live lives that are morally challenging in a world where there are few if any absolutes. Unless you grow your own food you are in some way complicit in someone's or something's suffering. Fact of life y'all. But wait, where did your seeds come from? Who's been displaced for you to occupy that land? Who in the town market suffers through lack of your business? What about the bugs killed to defend your veggies?
It's complicated, right? So you happen to prioritize (choose your battle) lgbt human lives over bugs and secondary or tertiary consequences of your actions. Bully for you. But who are any of us to judge what others deem important or not and what their battlelines are? Especially when our own choices, no matter how supposedly pure, STILL result in suffering in some way or another?
We all do the best we can with what we have.
Yes, even assholes.
posted by the lake is above, the water below at 5:44 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Look, we live lives that are morally challenging in a world where there are few if any absolutes. Unless you grow your own food you are in some way complicit in someone's or something's suffering. Fact of life y'all. But wait, where did your seeds come from? Who's been displaced for you to occupy that land? Who in the town market suffers through lack of your business? What about the bugs killed to defend your veggies?
It's complicated, right? So you happen to prioritize (choose your battle) lgbt human lives over bugs and secondary or tertiary consequences of your actions. Bully for you. But who are any of us to judge what others deem important or not and what their battlelines are? Especially when our own choices, no matter how supposedly pure, STILL result in suffering in some way or another?
We all do the best we can with what we have.
Yes, even assholes.
posted by the lake is above, the water below at 5:44 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Ok, politikitty, what about the Don't Buy Where You Can't Work campaigns.
On par with riots, I think? When done by a privileged group, very clearly a terrible way to handle winning a sports event. Done by an underprivileged group, an understandable act of aggression that happens when the democratic process fails to address a social problem.
You can't tell me that it's good to set a bus on fire. But in the latter case, the responsibility lies more on a broken political system than the person with the torch.
posted by politikitty at 5:50 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
On par with riots, I think? When done by a privileged group, very clearly a terrible way to handle winning a sports event. Done by an underprivileged group, an understandable act of aggression that happens when the democratic process fails to address a social problem.
You can't tell me that it's good to set a bus on fire. But in the latter case, the responsibility lies more on a broken political system than the person with the torch.
posted by politikitty at 5:50 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Pyry : Taco Bell isn't very good, but I'm super super tired of the idea that Taco Bell = magic laxative
If you can prove that Taco Bell isn't the Pitocin for the miracle of Turdbirth, your Nobel prize is waiting.
posted by dr_dank at 5:51 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
If you can prove that Taco Bell isn't the Pitocin for the miracle of Turdbirth, your Nobel prize is waiting.
posted by dr_dank at 5:51 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
> an understandable act of aggression
Talking about why I won't spend my money at a particular place, and encouraging other people to do the same, is an act of aggression on par with torching buildings and breaking windows. Okay.
posted by rtha at 5:55 PM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
Talking about why I won't spend my money at a particular place, and encouraging other people to do the same, is an act of aggression on par with torching buildings and breaking windows. Okay.
posted by rtha at 5:55 PM on October 9, 2015 [10 favorites]
For that metaphor to work, you're only encouraging rioting. It's only when you actively choose not to spend your money that you're throwing rocks.
It's not that the damage is comparable. As I mentioned, underprivileged populations are rarely able to inflict economic damage. You're throwing rocks you know can't land. The similarity is that culpability is diffused from the perpetrators to the broken political system.
posted by politikitty at 6:10 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not that the damage is comparable. As I mentioned, underprivileged populations are rarely able to inflict economic damage. You're throwing rocks you know can't land. The similarity is that culpability is diffused from the perpetrators to the broken political system.
posted by politikitty at 6:10 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also I'm pretty sure the photo ID homeless thing is something of a red herring. Not that it's not a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure lots of promotional competitions require you to have, for example, a mailing address. Chick fillet is only being singled out because of the (well deserved) grudge that many people have against it.
posted by bracems at 6:18 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by bracems at 6:18 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
In-N-Out vs Five Guys is a stupid argument. They are in different classes of the hamburger-restaurant world. Five Guys burgers are twice as expensive as In-N-Out's. Of course there's going to be a noticeable difference. In-N-Out does not make the best burgers, they make the best cheap burgers.
posted by clorox at 6:29 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by clorox at 6:29 PM on October 9, 2015
Five Guys tastes like a "high end" fast food joint used all of their resources and creativity and still only managed to come up with a sloppy, oversized version of the Whopper. Plenty of fine people disagree with me on that, I know.
But surely we can all agree the portions on the fries are horrifyingly large, as though they want to make sure positively anyone who eats there leaves the place feeling overcome with both indigestion and shame.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
But surely we can all agree the portions on the fries are horrifyingly large, as though they want to make sure positively anyone who eats there leaves the place feeling overcome with both indigestion and shame.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
In-N-Out vs Five Guys is a stupid argument. They are in different classes of the hamburger-restaurant world. Five Guys burgers are twice as expensive as In-N-Out's.
I ate at a Five Guys for the first time the other week, and was somewhat nonplussed to receive twice as much burger as I had intended to order. Their food is ok but their menu could use clarity.
The combination of bad politics and merely adequate food is enough to keep me out of Chic-fil-a. I'll compromise my morals for good food, but so-so fast food just isn't very compelling. I'm glad that they seem to have shifted from actively hostile to passive aggressive, but they could be doing better than that.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:05 PM on October 9, 2015
I ate at a Five Guys for the first time the other week, and was somewhat nonplussed to receive twice as much burger as I had intended to order. Their food is ok but their menu could use clarity.
The combination of bad politics and merely adequate food is enough to keep me out of Chic-fil-a. I'll compromise my morals for good food, but so-so fast food just isn't very compelling. I'm glad that they seem to have shifted from actively hostile to passive aggressive, but they could be doing better than that.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:05 PM on October 9, 2015
For that metaphor to work, you're only encouraging rioting. It's only when you actively choose not to spend your money that you're throwing rocks.
This only works if people have some obligation to spend money with a specific retailer. When someone's rioting, you can see that they're rioting without having to know why they're rioting. Why am I not currently spending money at Chick-fil-a? You don't know. Maybe they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Maybe there's none within range. Maybe I don't like fast food. Maybe I was never in a position to want to give them money.
When did they get a claim on my economic power that redacting it would cause harm to them by?
Am I committing economic violence right now?
posted by CrystalDave at 8:10 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
This only works if people have some obligation to spend money with a specific retailer. When someone's rioting, you can see that they're rioting without having to know why they're rioting. Why am I not currently spending money at Chick-fil-a? You don't know. Maybe they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy. Maybe there's none within range. Maybe I don't like fast food. Maybe I was never in a position to want to give them money.
When did they get a claim on my economic power that redacting it would cause harm to them by?
Am I committing economic violence right now?
posted by CrystalDave at 8:10 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Covered.
If you are choosing between two indistinguishable goods, you can use whatever method you want to determine how to spend your limited dollars. But if your only rationale is really to deny someone from paying their bills, you're strengthening a social norm that has been used to commit lasting damage to vulnerable groups.
posted by politikitty at 8:17 PM on October 9, 2015
If you are choosing between two indistinguishable goods, you can use whatever method you want to determine how to spend your limited dollars. But if your only rationale is really to deny someone from paying their bills, you're strengthening a social norm that has been used to commit lasting damage to vulnerable groups.
posted by politikitty at 8:17 PM on October 9, 2015
My biggest problem with Chick-Fil-A (now that they've stopped supporting hate groups) is that everyone keeps saying one opened in Seattle when it actually opened in Bellevue which is a) another city entirely and b) all the way across Lake Washington, like it's an hour bus ride away, that's ridiculous. At least Ezell's is close.
posted by drinkyclown at 8:29 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by drinkyclown at 8:29 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
> But if your only rationale is really to deny someone from paying their bills,
No, my rationale is to deny someone from using my money.
Why are they entitled to my money if they think my reasons for not spending it on their product is political rather than aesthetic? If I am a vegetarian for political rather than religious reasons, do I have to go to a steakhouse even if all I'm going to eat is broccoli rather than going to the vegetarian restaurant next door?
posted by rtha at 8:53 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
No, my rationale is to deny someone from using my money.
Why are they entitled to my money if they think my reasons for not spending it on their product is political rather than aesthetic? If I am a vegetarian for political rather than religious reasons, do I have to go to a steakhouse even if all I'm going to eat is broccoli rather than going to the vegetarian restaurant next door?
posted by rtha at 8:53 PM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
They aren't even close to comparable items, so no.
Do you feel that you should be denied employment for your sexuality? A conservative employer might feel strongly about you using their money.
posted by politikitty at 9:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do you feel that you should be denied employment for your sexuality? A conservative employer might feel strongly about you using their money.
posted by politikitty at 9:04 PM on October 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Do you feel that you should be denied employment for your sexuality? A conservative employer might feel strongly about you using their money.
There is no right to my consumer dollars. There is no law requiring me to spend my money equally, regardless of the political affiliation or sexual orientation of the business owners. I am the market, and I can decide whom to patronize, and for what reasons.
Why is the example of a vegetarian choosing to go to the vegetarian restaurant over the veggie dishes that the steakhouse inapt? Can you explain why that's not the same as me not buying a chicken sandwich from a particular company? I don't understand.
posted by rtha at 9:28 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
There is no right to my consumer dollars. There is no law requiring me to spend my money equally, regardless of the political affiliation or sexual orientation of the business owners. I am the market, and I can decide whom to patronize, and for what reasons.
Why is the example of a vegetarian choosing to go to the vegetarian restaurant over the veggie dishes that the steakhouse inapt? Can you explain why that's not the same as me not buying a chicken sandwich from a particular company? I don't understand.
posted by rtha at 9:28 PM on October 9, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is a strange argument. Following this line of reasoning, wouldn't it then be ethically wrong to ever vote to cut defense spending? After all, that would be a political act that could cause some people who work in that industry to lose their jobs. Yet it would seem totally absurd to suggest that therefore, the budget must be maintained at its present level indefinitely.
posted by en forme de poire at 10:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by en forme de poire at 10:03 PM on October 9, 2015 [3 favorites]
I feel like the people who 'vote with their money' are coming from the mindset (which I share) that your money isn't just like a bunch of figures sitting in your bank account that magically produces mountains of clothes and bulk cat food, it's actually a really powerful tool that controls and regulates human behavior in countless ways and is fundamentally at the heart of modern society. it's, at its core, agency, and it's probably one of the last vestiges of agency an individual can leverage in an increasingly complex, highly-populated, and corporation ruled world
I feel like the people who like the brand don't see it in this way? and, I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. that above mindset isn't for everybody
but I think one of the mediating factors that really gets to me, at least, is the fact that this latter mode of thought, that chicken patties are good, trades on a lot of affected apathetic cool. like, dude, why are you so serious about animal rights / social justice / etc, it's just a couple bucks, eat it, it's tasty. but if you're standing there knowing that your abstracted labor is ending up in the coffers of a brand that puts in millions of dollars towards homophobic lobbying groups then it's going to feel like a really personal violation of your already limited agency
and, I guess for those of us who maybe grew up as minorities and kids who were bullied a lot and picked on (just me musing and projecting; obviously that's not the motive for everyone here but it is for me), even losing the tiniest shred of that agency and knowing that the agency of others are being willfully violated feels like a kind of personal betrayal
posted by runt at 10:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I feel like the people who like the brand don't see it in this way? and, I mean, there's nothing wrong with that. that above mindset isn't for everybody
but I think one of the mediating factors that really gets to me, at least, is the fact that this latter mode of thought, that chicken patties are good, trades on a lot of affected apathetic cool. like, dude, why are you so serious about animal rights / social justice / etc, it's just a couple bucks, eat it, it's tasty. but if you're standing there knowing that your abstracted labor is ending up in the coffers of a brand that puts in millions of dollars towards homophobic lobbying groups then it's going to feel like a really personal violation of your already limited agency
and, I guess for those of us who maybe grew up as minorities and kids who were bullied a lot and picked on (just me musing and projecting; obviously that's not the motive for everyone here but it is for me), even losing the tiniest shred of that agency and knowing that the agency of others are being willfully violated feels like a kind of personal betrayal
posted by runt at 10:11 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
All of these analogies between people being shot, losing their jobs, buses being burned, etc. do not match up at all with someone refraining from buying sandwiches that cost a few dollars apiece from a company with five billion dollars in annual revenue. That's more equivalent to a conservative employer providing one less paperclip to one employee based on their sexuality, except orders of magnitude still smaller than that.
Even if you are operating on some principle like "the only harm it's possible to do to someone is financial harm", politikitty, it's going to be trivial to find a proportional financial harm so miniscule which Chick-fil-A has caused each of its individual consumers with its opposition to same-sex marriage. For example through the knock-on effects of denying the wedding industry the business from same-sex weddings that your moral system supposedly obligates to the members of that industry.
Unless you're saying it's immoral for a business entity to refrain from conducting further commerce with a supplier who burdens it with indirect costs or otherwise jeopardizes its business interests, the buyers of chicken sandwiches selecting a different supplier for said sandwiches or even a substitute good in the form of some other foodstuff, based upon economic reasons stemming from Chick-fil-A's political activities, is a perfectly reasonable business decision.
So even within your bizarre system of "economic justice", boycotting Chick-fil-A comports with morality.
posted by XMLicious at 10:37 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
Even if you are operating on some principle like "the only harm it's possible to do to someone is financial harm", politikitty, it's going to be trivial to find a proportional financial harm so miniscule which Chick-fil-A has caused each of its individual consumers with its opposition to same-sex marriage. For example through the knock-on effects of denying the wedding industry the business from same-sex weddings that your moral system supposedly obligates to the members of that industry.
Unless you're saying it's immoral for a business entity to refrain from conducting further commerce with a supplier who burdens it with indirect costs or otherwise jeopardizes its business interests, the buyers of chicken sandwiches selecting a different supplier for said sandwiches or even a substitute good in the form of some other foodstuff, based upon economic reasons stemming from Chick-fil-A's political activities, is a perfectly reasonable business decision.
So even within your bizarre system of "economic justice", boycotting Chick-fil-A comports with morality.
posted by XMLicious at 10:37 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
"Almost all boycotts fail, but especially those staged as proxy battles in the culture wars."Not true! We just boycotted a coffee shop to death because of a direct and proxy battle in culture wars (in this case, rape culture and PUAs). Boycotts work.
That's the exception that proves the rule. The article specified that the boycotts fail because 1) the boycotters are often not actual customers and 2) it's hard to keep up a boycott of something people actually want to the degree that it will matter. Neither of those seems true in this case:
1) Waking Life Espresso was located in "the state’s hippie haven." Hippies like coffee; they are customers.
2) It appears to have been a small independent business, and thus likely more precarious and more sensitive to lost business than something like Chik-fil-a. Also, it seems reasonable that the shop had competitors that were more-or-less identical, so the boycott probably unusually easy to sustain and likely did not have to have a very big impact or last very long to be effective.
If those guys had been the owners of Starbucks (or even some regional chain), I bet they'd still be in business now.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 11:03 PM on October 9, 2015
But we don't need people who want do the right thing. We need a majority.
The first step to a majority is to do the right thing even though it's not a majority yet.
It's because this wretched fucking system makes us all at least a little bit complicit in it no matter what we do.
One doesn't give up trying. As much as you can you do the right thing. Choose the origin of your clothing, your food, your device. Sometimes there really is no choice, but where there is, one takes the initiative to choose.
I don't know what the right thing is to do about Chik-fil-a today, but sure as hell the right thing to do when they were funding anti-equality politics was to shun them.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:27 PM on October 9, 2015
The first step to a majority is to do the right thing even though it's not a majority yet.
It's because this wretched fucking system makes us all at least a little bit complicit in it no matter what we do.
One doesn't give up trying. As much as you can you do the right thing. Choose the origin of your clothing, your food, your device. Sometimes there really is no choice, but where there is, one takes the initiative to choose.
I don't know what the right thing is to do about Chik-fil-a today, but sure as hell the right thing to do when they were funding anti-equality politics was to shun them.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:27 PM on October 9, 2015
Continue shunning them. They fucked up. Until they say or demonstrate "we were wrong," continue to make the goddamn choice that the rights of the people you claim to be allies with trump your desire for a fucking sandwich.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:30 PM on October 9, 2015 [4 favorites]
(demonstrating "we were wrong" would take the form of e.g. totting up what they donated to hate groups over the years and donating at least that much to something like GLAAD--as long as it is absolutely and resolutely trans-positive as well)
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:32 PM on October 9, 2015
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:32 PM on October 9, 2015
So I've been in NYC on tour (animal rights stuff) and even ignoring that I'm vegan, I just can't imagine why anyone would want to eat at a Chic Fil A when so many wonderful food options abound. Like I parked our van the other day and went back to it to eat lunch only to find that I had accidentally parked it next to a cafe with vegan baked goods. These past couple weeks have been some of the best food weeks of my life.
so awesome
posted by Gymnopedist at 11:32 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
so awesome
posted by Gymnopedist at 11:32 PM on October 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I sometimes wonder if it's a forbidden fruit thing, because so many of the comments are like "Chick-fil-A sandwiches are so good BUT I can't eat there because their owner is a bigot!" Which is probably the best possible publicity you could give them.
For what little it is worth, the things I've read that I detest sound a lot more like "Chik-fil-a sammiches are so good that I'll eat there even though the owner is a destructive bigot!"
posted by five fresh fish at 11:35 PM on October 9, 2015
For what little it is worth, the things I've read that I detest sound a lot more like "Chik-fil-a sammiches are so good that I'll eat there even though the owner is a destructive bigot!"
posted by five fresh fish at 11:35 PM on October 9, 2015
There's a lot of hilarious assumptions here.
1) I was not aware that vegetarian restaurants have such paltry offerings, the closest alternative is steamed broccoli from an establishment that isn't well regarded for its vegetables. If the situation is that dire, I will gladly support a bill to research more delicious ways to provide nutritionally complete meals without meat.
2) A capitalist economy necessarily has a huge amount of destruction. The needs of the populace are constantly changing. This is ugly, but also necessary. Choosing how to allocate a limited amount of resources to your changing needs is not immoral, though I feel most of us agree that refusing to deal with the effects of job loss to minimize poverty is immoral. That is fundamentally different from discriminating against vendors for reasons that are irrelevant to the service they are providing.
It's wrong for an employer to refuse to hire someone based on their sexuality. It's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race and gender. There are plenty of studies showing that economic discrimination has a direct impact on everyone, not just women and minorities. The discrimination ex-felons face is equally harmful, though public opinion hasn't quite gotten around to giving much of a shit about that one.
Our liberal heroes of the past were shitty in many ways. As a feminist, I have to accept that the same people who taught successfully for my rights also thought eugenics held the keys to social progress. While I do my best to fight for the best possible policies, I also feel a duty to work towards a political framework capable of fixing all the shortfalls of my generation. This is a fundamental part of that. Mitigating the harm to folks who don't have the visibility or social standing today. To do otherwise is hubris.
And like I said, I'll gladly work with people who think differently. But quite a few comments led me to believe that it was perfectly within my rights to state my beliefs without it being perceived as an attack.
posted by politikitty at 11:50 PM on October 9, 2015
1) I was not aware that vegetarian restaurants have such paltry offerings, the closest alternative is steamed broccoli from an establishment that isn't well regarded for its vegetables. If the situation is that dire, I will gladly support a bill to research more delicious ways to provide nutritionally complete meals without meat.
2) A capitalist economy necessarily has a huge amount of destruction. The needs of the populace are constantly changing. This is ugly, but also necessary. Choosing how to allocate a limited amount of resources to your changing needs is not immoral, though I feel most of us agree that refusing to deal with the effects of job loss to minimize poverty is immoral. That is fundamentally different from discriminating against vendors for reasons that are irrelevant to the service they are providing.
It's wrong for an employer to refuse to hire someone based on their sexuality. It's wrong to discriminate on the basis of race and gender. There are plenty of studies showing that economic discrimination has a direct impact on everyone, not just women and minorities. The discrimination ex-felons face is equally harmful, though public opinion hasn't quite gotten around to giving much of a shit about that one.
Our liberal heroes of the past were shitty in many ways. As a feminist, I have to accept that the same people who taught successfully for my rights also thought eugenics held the keys to social progress. While I do my best to fight for the best possible policies, I also feel a duty to work towards a political framework capable of fixing all the shortfalls of my generation. This is a fundamental part of that. Mitigating the harm to folks who don't have the visibility or social standing today. To do otherwise is hubris.
And like I said, I'll gladly work with people who think differently. But quite a few comments led me to believe that it was perfectly within my rights to state my beliefs without it being perceived as an attack.
posted by politikitty at 11:50 PM on October 9, 2015
You've got the right to say whatever you want of course, but coming into a thread where the topic of discussion is "the complicated politics of urban consumerism" where there are a bunch of people who have made consumer choices for moral reasons and saying
Maybe there's been some sort of misunderstanding, since many of the things you've said have seemed contradictory to me, but you have appeared to consistently analogize or equate making consumer choices for moral reasons with various violent and extremely exploitative acts.
posted by XMLicious at 12:47 AM on October 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
is going to draw very strong reactions under any circumstances and I really can't see how you have a right to have no one you've said that to perceive it as an attack. I would venture to say that in general, if you tell anyone that what they're doing is fundamentally evil and the next worse thing to genocide they're probably going to perceive that as an attack, even if said person is participating in a war or something like that and intentionally trying to physically hurt others. And we're primarily talking about buying or not buying chicken sandwiches here....the very notion that a consumer choice should have a moral valence is fundamentally evil. It's choosing to withhold economic survival to people because they're objectionable. It's fundamentally incompatible to economic justice.
It is the most devastating aspect of hatred outside straight up genocide...
Maybe there's been some sort of misunderstanding, since many of the things you've said have seemed contradictory to me, but you have appeared to consistently analogize or equate making consumer choices for moral reasons with various violent and extremely exploitative acts.
posted by XMLicious at 12:47 AM on October 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
discriminating against vendors
But this is where you lose me - what does it mean, exactly, to discriminate against a vendor, and why should that action automatically be held as morally equivalent to discrimination in hiring? Right now you're not providing an argument that these are morally similar actions. (For one thing, a person is not very much like a company.)
It's not even clear to me that discriminating against a vendor is particularly well-defined -- what does it mean for a reason to be "irrelevant" to the service a particular company provides? When you're being hired or hiring someone, there is usually an explicit list of the duties the employee will be expected to perform. This is not the way it works when you buy something: when you're hungry, you don't typically post a bulletin stating that you're seeking a chicken sandwich satisfying the following eight requirements, and then pick the most qualified company to fulfill that brief as written.
Beyond that, people obviously make purchasing decisions based on things as intangible as branding or "vibe", let alone whether or not they perceive that company as environmentally friendly, or run fairly, or participating in fair trade, or (e.g., in the case of Toms or Warby Parker) involved in charitable giving. Are these people discriminating, and which ones? Who decides which aspects of a service or a company are the ones you're allowed to consider and which ones are off-limits?
posted by en forme de poire at 4:02 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
But this is where you lose me - what does it mean, exactly, to discriminate against a vendor, and why should that action automatically be held as morally equivalent to discrimination in hiring? Right now you're not providing an argument that these are morally similar actions. (For one thing, a person is not very much like a company.)
It's not even clear to me that discriminating against a vendor is particularly well-defined -- what does it mean for a reason to be "irrelevant" to the service a particular company provides? When you're being hired or hiring someone, there is usually an explicit list of the duties the employee will be expected to perform. This is not the way it works when you buy something: when you're hungry, you don't typically post a bulletin stating that you're seeking a chicken sandwich satisfying the following eight requirements, and then pick the most qualified company to fulfill that brief as written.
Beyond that, people obviously make purchasing decisions based on things as intangible as branding or "vibe", let alone whether or not they perceive that company as environmentally friendly, or run fairly, or participating in fair trade, or (e.g., in the case of Toms or Warby Parker) involved in charitable giving. Are these people discriminating, and which ones? Who decides which aspects of a service or a company are the ones you're allowed to consider and which ones are off-limits?
posted by en forme de poire at 4:02 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
In-n-out is pretty much unbeatable as a three-dollar burger. Five Guys is definitely the go-to six-dollar burger. Blacows is kind of untouchable as a nine-dollar burger.
These things are all delicious but all very different, and it's probably not fair to compare them directly. (Also, I really need to start exercising.)
(What were we saying? Oh yeah, fuck Chick-fil-A.)
posted by rokusan at 5:38 AM on October 10, 2015
These things are all delicious but all very different, and it's probably not fair to compare them directly. (Also, I really need to start exercising.)
(What were we saying? Oh yeah, fuck Chick-fil-A.)
posted by rokusan at 5:38 AM on October 10, 2015
I feel like the people who like the brand don't see it in this way?
nope. there is a way to vote with your dollars and think that chick-fil-a is past the point of requiring a boycott (while still respecting those that disagree). it's not about being apathetic cool or not knowing what it was like to bullied (i've never been cool, i was horribly bullied). some people just do the math differently. this repeated notion that i'm some sort of self-hating queer who doesn't care about where my money goes is not true.
posted by nadawi at 5:59 AM on October 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
nope. there is a way to vote with your dollars and think that chick-fil-a is past the point of requiring a boycott (while still respecting those that disagree). it's not about being apathetic cool or not knowing what it was like to bullied (i've never been cool, i was horribly bullied). some people just do the math differently. this repeated notion that i'm some sort of self-hating queer who doesn't care about where my money goes is not true.
posted by nadawi at 5:59 AM on October 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
That is fundamentally different from discriminating against vendors for reasons that are irrelevant to the service they are providing.
This is, frankly, a stupid and confused statement. Individuals discriminating where they will spend their money is the whole point of a market economy.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:05 AM on October 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
This is, frankly, a stupid and confused statement. Individuals discriminating where they will spend their money is the whole point of a market economy.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:05 AM on October 10, 2015 [9 favorites]
think that chick-fil-a is past the point of requiring a boycott
I know quite a few people who care deeply about these issues and who have reached this conclusion. The company moving away from being actively awful was enough for them, though it clearly isn't enough for others. For me, the not-very-good food means that eating there still isn't compelling, but my tastes are not what is driving the company's profits (luckily for them).
But the overwrought claims above that boycotts equate to genocide are just plain dumb.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:06 AM on October 10, 2015
I know quite a few people who care deeply about these issues and who have reached this conclusion. The company moving away from being actively awful was enough for them, though it clearly isn't enough for others. For me, the not-very-good food means that eating there still isn't compelling, but my tastes are not what is driving the company's profits (luckily for them).
But the overwrought claims above that boycotts equate to genocide are just plain dumb.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:06 AM on October 10, 2015
Not to mention that Chik-Fil-A supporting agenda is an externality, and externalities need to be incorporated into the pricing structure, so even by dumbass Econ 101 logic, those arguments fail.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:08 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:08 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
eh please don't use my comment to keep fighting whatever weird marxist argument is going on. i ain't a part of that. i'm fully supportive of boycotts.
posted by nadawi at 6:09 AM on October 10, 2015
posted by nadawi at 6:09 AM on October 10, 2015
Mod note: One (earlier) comment deleted. Don't make this personal about other people in the thread.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:59 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:59 AM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
The fetishization of fast food is one of the most pathetic aspects of American culture. The homophobia, sexism, transphobia and racism is of course a lot worse, but going on and on about how some fast food sandwich is the best sandwich ever is I'm pretty sure one of the things that makes much of the rest of the world roll their eyes hardest about us.
posted by osk at 10:16 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by osk at 10:16 AM on October 10, 2015 [2 favorites]
is I'm pretty sure one of the things that makes much of the rest of the world roll their eyes hardest about us.
I'm pretty sure that's pretty far down the list, myself.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:17 AM on October 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that's pretty far down the list, myself.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:17 AM on October 10, 2015 [6 favorites]
is the eye rolling why so much of american fast food ends up overseas and is extremely popular?
posted by nadawi at 11:48 AM on October 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by nadawi at 11:48 AM on October 10, 2015 [8 favorites]
Sure it's popular outside the US, but in my experience more as a quick way to get food for cheap on your way to work or for your kids on the way home. I doubt many people in Taiwan or Japan for example are going to sit there and proclaim KFC as the be all end all best fried chicken in all the land like people do here.
posted by osk at 12:06 PM on October 10, 2015
posted by osk at 12:06 PM on October 10, 2015
I don't know. I was in Tokyo for Christmas last year and learned that KFC for Christmas is a thing in Japan.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:20 PM on October 10, 2015 [4 favorites]
I cannot believe we've come this far without discussing Bojangles.
posted by thivaia at 12:52 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by thivaia at 12:52 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can't really say that at this point I bear Chik-Fil-A much malice at this point. So if at any time I am lost and on my last legs in the desert that is Sunnyvale, I will be willing to, with my last vestiges of strength, crawl into a Chik-Fil-A restaurant and order a chicken sandwich. Because I might not survive the hundred yards to the Ginger Cafe. Which is Asian fusion, anyway, and you don't want to feed that to a person dying of starvation.
OK, so is everybody happy now?
posted by happyroach at 4:33 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
OK, so is everybody happy now?
posted by happyroach at 4:33 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I would be happy, except for how I'm having nightmarish flashbacks to when I lived in silicon valley without a car.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:49 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 5:49 PM on October 10, 2015 [3 favorites]
I doubt many people in Taiwan or Japan for example are going to sit there and proclaim KFC as the be all end all best fried chicken in all the land like people do here.
When I was in France all the kids in my classes thought McDonald's was the greatest and would hang out there after school.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 6:39 PM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
When I was in France all the kids in my classes thought McDonald's was the greatest and would hang out there after school.
posted by ultraviolet catastrophe at 6:39 PM on October 10, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't think the interesting question is "Why do people say a fast food place is so good?" I think the question is, why do people have no concept of relative praise? It's so good for a fast food place. No, it's not actually the finest cuisine in the United States. Don't be obtuse. No one is saying that.
Many of the people who enjoy the food at Chik-Fil-A--and probably most of the ones doing so on this site--are legit foodies who can probably rattle a half dozen restaurants off the top of their head that would blow your mind. But they're not grading Chik-Fil-A on the same scale as, I don't know, their favorite fine dining place or their favorite chef-driven local place, or even their favorite mom and pop local junk food place.
I mean, I thought John Dies at the End was a terrific horror comedy. That doesn't mean I'd pick it on an absolute scale over say, Bela Tarr's films or my favorite noirs. Don't be a goob. There are different scales for these things. Food is the same way.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:36 PM on October 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
Many of the people who enjoy the food at Chik-Fil-A--and probably most of the ones doing so on this site--are legit foodies who can probably rattle a half dozen restaurants off the top of their head that would blow your mind. But they're not grading Chik-Fil-A on the same scale as, I don't know, their favorite fine dining place or their favorite chef-driven local place, or even their favorite mom and pop local junk food place.
I mean, I thought John Dies at the End was a terrific horror comedy. That doesn't mean I'd pick it on an absolute scale over say, Bela Tarr's films or my favorite noirs. Don't be a goob. There are different scales for these things. Food is the same way.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:36 PM on October 11, 2015 [1 favorite]
What about Zaxbys, though?
posted by all about eevee at 12:47 PM on October 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by all about eevee at 12:47 PM on October 12, 2015 [1 favorite]
On a family trip with my in-laws a couple years ago I encountered my first Chik-Fil-A. My pastor brother-in-law spotted one and told us that he thought we should all go as a family there. I asked why? Because it looked like a generic fast food place to me. He told me that he really respected the executive for being outspoken about their beliefs. He continued by saying he thought the franchise management was really good at instilling values among the staff. Stupidly I thought he was talking progressive values!
So we went later that day and I was flabbergasted at the line ups inside and outside. Hundreds of people. They had cops directing traffic. This seemed shocking to me, I mean this many people for fast food? So I thought this has got to be the best damned fried chicken ever! I was wrong about that but I was impressed how well the staff were able to manage the amount of people and how attentive they were to their customer's needs.
I didn't think much of this place until I got home to Canada and started to read about Chik-Fil-A's beliefs and, more importantly, actions as a corporation. I'm not a huge political eater, and I respect that there can be a brain / stomach divide, but their executive choices are just flat out wrong and as a company they are not shy about broadcasting their beliefs & actions. They are proud about the choices they make. You can do what you want but if these are issues you care about, you really shouldn't give them your money.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:14 AM on October 14, 2015
So we went later that day and I was flabbergasted at the line ups inside and outside. Hundreds of people. They had cops directing traffic. This seemed shocking to me, I mean this many people for fast food? So I thought this has got to be the best damned fried chicken ever! I was wrong about that but I was impressed how well the staff were able to manage the amount of people and how attentive they were to their customer's needs.
I didn't think much of this place until I got home to Canada and started to read about Chik-Fil-A's beliefs and, more importantly, actions as a corporation. I'm not a huge political eater, and I respect that there can be a brain / stomach divide, but their executive choices are just flat out wrong and as a company they are not shy about broadcasting their beliefs & actions. They are proud about the choices they make. You can do what you want but if these are issues you care about, you really shouldn't give them your money.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:14 AM on October 14, 2015
whew. so i finally made it through the full post, like, five days later. i think chick-fil-a is great (for fast food chicken). i love their brined, and deep-fried, buttery goodness. unfortunately, when i learned about their positions and activities related to LGBTQ, i made a decision to join the boycott. this is a little difficult for me, since i like chick-fil-a, and there are several that i walk or drive past on a daily basis. this is the heart of the thing for me. personally. it's a hardship to do without, but it's a minor hardship, especially in the context of the hardship for others, that is created by the practices of the chick-fil-a corporation.
i'm glad to hear they've improved many of those practices, but the company in general still does, and i imagine will always give me the creeps.
so... if i'm at an event, and there is pre-purchased chick-fil-a as the only food option, i'll eat the hell out of it (this happened once).
posted by rude.boy at 9:58 AM on October 14, 2015
i'm glad to hear they've improved many of those practices, but the company in general still does, and i imagine will always give me the creeps.
so... if i'm at an event, and there is pre-purchased chick-fil-a as the only food option, i'll eat the hell out of it (this happened once).
posted by rude.boy at 9:58 AM on October 14, 2015
And in my opinion, there's a world of difference between the Chik-fil-A and Hobby Lobby. Chik-fil-A does not discriminate in hiring or serving, the didn't take their anti-gay BS to court, the old man just talked about it, that's it.
Another difference: apparently Hobby Lobby's owners have a taste for illegal antiquities.
The Hobby Lobby Crazies Are Up to No Good (Again) - Now with international intrigue!
posted by homunculus at 7:10 PM on October 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
Another difference: apparently Hobby Lobby's owners have a taste for illegal antiquities.
The Hobby Lobby Crazies Are Up to No Good (Again) - Now with international intrigue!
posted by homunculus at 7:10 PM on October 27, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet Awarded Nobel... | This Could Be Bad For Movie Stars Everywhere! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by NoxAeternum at 8:50 AM on October 9, 2015 [5 favorites]