Wed
Aug 1 2012
04:37 pm

The Alcoa store is packed and causing a traffic jam.

Background...

Topics:
95
like
Hildegard's picture

This country is going nuts.

This country is going nuts.

redmondkr's picture

Hating For Jesus

The 'Christians' are out in force with their pitchforks again. Why can't they just be happy playing with their snakes?

cooperhawk's picture

Amusing trick. Looks like

Amusing trick. Looks like there is plenty of hate to go around.

metulj's picture

Yup. Though I wonder if it

Yup. Though I wonder if it has ever been the case for a corporation to actually have a stated policy of hate?

Somebody's picture

Though I wonder if it has

Though I wonder if it has ever been the case for a corporation to actually have a stated policy of hate?

I think the answer is "yes."

 Judge Not's picture

Policy of hate?

Who said that they hated anybody? It is quiet possible to disagree with the subject and not hate because of it. Your assumption is incorrect. Perhaps you are the one with the preconceived notions about hate and a particular group of people.

metulj's picture

Yeah, not allowing certain

Yeah, not allowing certain people to eat at a lunch counter at a Woolworth's was all about disagreeing with a subject.

fischbobber's picture

Just A thought

“I think liberals are missing a vital point in their blind hatred of Chick-fil-A,” Minor said in a statement sent to Fox News. “Being against gay marriage is not being anti-gay.”

Read more: (link...)

That statement might wash if conservative legislatures had made any attempt whatsoever to ensure the homosexuals had the same civil rights as heterosexuals with regards to their lifelong unions, but they haven't. In fact, just the opposite has occurred. A common law wife has rights that a member of a homosexual union won't ever have even if he/she were to have a written civil contract. The idea of equality on any level of this issue is a joke.

Billy Cleuster / Lonnie's picture

I am all for free speech,

I am all for free speech, however, I understand that Chick-fil-A owner has helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in an anti-gay campaign. Some things are not what they appear at first glance.

mld

Andy Axel's picture

Eat Bet'r Chickn.

The only thing this demonstrates is that homophobes also have incredibly shitty taste in food.

Factchecker's picture

+1

Consistently lowest common denominator. I think this has country overachieved at leisure and laziness as byproducts of well-meant attempts to continually improve our standard of living. We have essentially arrived at the citizen level of the masses depicted in WALL-E. It would be much harder to explain the sad state affairs any other way.

These idiots will be shown to have been on the wrong side of history. And many will be skating around type 2 diabetes most of their lives and then will expect the government to care for them.

Factchecker's picture

The difference between you and us

I don't hate the Cathys or anybody at CFA, cooperhawk. I hate very few conservatives, in fact, and the ones I do it's only because of their repeated and willful destructive actions, not who they are. I do hate the corporation CFA (and virtually the entire fast food industry), though, for the damage I believe they do to society. CFA just gets a double whammy, and justifiably so.

Only conservatives who believe that corporations have human rights would rationalize their hatred of humans with equivalence to progressives who hate bad institutions.

cooperhawk's picture

Corporations are not anything

Corporations are not anything without people. They don't think by themselves. They are run by and for human beings, so yes, if you hate corporations, you hate the people involved in them. Your stating that someone who disagrees with someones lifestyle "hates" that person only verifies your hatred.

Rachel's picture

Corporations are not anything

Corporations are not anything without people.

Sure they are. So sayeth Mitt Romney. According to him, corporation ARE people.

Not disagreeing with Mitt, are ya?

cooperhawk's picture

Did you respond to my

Did you respond to my statement without reading it?

R. Neal's picture

fair and balanced

I see the KNS has two articles about this, one is an online article on the "social media" reaction and the other about some local yahoo getting some free PR. Both seem quite celebratory and approving, with little mention of the discrimination and basic civil rights aspects. The comments are even worse. Where's the button to suggest removal of the articles along with the comments?

Somebody's picture

It seems like who has a right

It seems like who has a right to do what is getting a little muddled in all this. My take is as follows, for what it's worth, which I'm sure is not enough to purchase a chicken sandwich, anywhere:

Mr. Cathy has his rights under the First Amendment, which include his own interpretation of his own religion, and his own right to express his subsequent views.

As the owner of a privately held company, he has the right to associate those views with his company. His right to make some of those views actionable through company practices have limitations. Consideration of various aspects of sexual preference is not really "settled law" at this point, so it may be that Chik-Fil-A can test the boundaries, if they so choose, and leave it to the courts and legislatures to more clearly define those boundaries.

Jim Henson and Co. are within their rights to disassociate themselves from Chik-Fil-A, assuming they address any contractual agreements already made.

Consumers have the right to boycott Chik-Fil-A, based on Mr. Cathy's statements and upon real or perceived policies of the company.

Consumers have the right to line up to make purchases from Chik-Fil-A as a political statement of support, based on Mr. Cathy's statements and upon real or perceived policies of the company.

Government officials may make statements of support or opposition to Mr. Cathy's or his company's political positions.

Government officials may take policy or punitive actions against the company, but only if the company can be shown to be violating existing laws, or that the company fails or would fail to meet eligibility thresholds or other requirements that are equally applicable to other similar businesses.

Ultimately, as a business, Chik-Fil-A and its leadership must decide whether taking certain political positions are worth any subsequent economic impact on their business. Taking such positions will attract some customers and will cause others to stay away. If those positions violate or test the boundaries of law, they will represent a legal expense that must also be balanced against any impact to the bottom line.

Personally, I think Cathy made a mistake by so overtly pushing an agenda. Previously, it was well known that his business is operates under a a vague 'wholesome Christian' persona, but for most consumers, that concept took a back seat to better-than-average fast food, and a long-running, effective and entertaining advertising campaign. Now, and for the near to mid-range future, the business will be chiefly branded by a political issue, and some number of prospective consumers will make consideration of politics a part of their decision whether to eat there or somewhere. My guess is that after a brief bump, this will cost the business money, as the number of people who opt to stay away because of politics will eventually eclipse the number of people who make it a point to eat there. This is because the people who don't like the politics will have plenty of other restaurants to choose from, and so will the people who do like the politics. As a result, the former will find it easy to simply continue to stay away, and the latter will eventually tire of 'eating mor chikin,' and will return to their pre-uproar frequency of visits to Chik-Fil-A. For me, I'll find it easy to stay away.

R. Neal's picture

Good summary. Almost everyone

Good summary. Almost everyone is within their rights, even the bigots. I think you have to draw the line, though, at a local government prohibiting a store from opening because of their religious or political or other beliefs. Same as a mosque or whatever.

If there is some form of discrimination going on that is contrary to federal civil rights laws, that's a different story. Sadly, in this case the public, public officials, the media, and anyone who wants to is free to discriminate because the victims are not a protected class in that regard. They should be, and they should have equal rights.

reform4's picture

If I were a franchisee

That just plopped down $1M investment in a Chick-Fil-A, I'd be furious. I feel sorry for the franchisees that don't agree with the CEO.

bizgrrl's picture

Saw in the Maryville Daily

Saw in the Maryville Daily Times that Chik-fil-A in Alcoa asked the local police for help with the traffic congestion. They declined, said they didn't have the manpower. For whatever reason, good for them.

Andy Axel's picture

One request for Chik-Fil-A's CEO...

Ask Susan G Komen Foundation if openly grinding political axes makes good business sense in the long term.

Min's picture

As someone over on Facebook noted...

...you never see that many Christians lined up to help at a food bank or a homeless shelter.

Hildegard's picture

You never see that many

You never see that many non-Christians line up to help at a food bank or a homeless shelter, either. Being a shitty, selfish person is nondenominational.

I know, but Jesus said.... Nobody listens to Jesus. Even the people who like what he said but don't believe he was divine don't put his teachings into practice. I hear all these atheists and agnostics holding forth on how much better they understand the philosophy of Christ and how his followers are such hypocrites, but those assholes don't do anything either, except feel smug and superior in their Dawkins-inspired sense of humanist progress.

Everybody needs to get off their ass and help the poor. It isn't just a Christian debt.

Dave Prince's picture

When a person doesn't help

When a person doesn't help the poor despite having the means to do so, that's one thing, but when that person is directed to do so by a doctrine that they themselves claim informs their every decision and shapes the very foundation of their lives, that person is demonstrably worse than the person whose actions stem from no such source. Hypocrisy may not be the most rigidly quantifiable of properties, but given enough knowledge about the subject, it's nonetheless fairly easy to test for.

And diluting the entire range and scope of atheism and agnosticism down to a single-minded group of "assholes who don't do anything either, except feel smug and superior in their Dawkins-inspired sense of humanist progress" is about as insultingly simplistic as standing up the average Cathyist as the only example necessary to define Christianity.

cooperhawk's picture

Unless that doctrine is true.

Unless that doctrine is true.

metulj's picture

Prove it.

Prove it.

cooperhawk's picture

Prove what?

Prove what?

Dave Prince's picture

It seems to me that claiming

It seems to me that claiming to adhere to the hypothetical demonstrably true religious doctrine (which couldn't exist anyway without basically destroying at least one of the fundamental pillars of the average religion, but whatever) but not actually abiding by its tenets would be even worse.

Calypso's picture

Great poise under pressure

I admire her, but he is a jerk.

(link...)

Factchecker's picture

Didn't corporations BUILD THAT?

Corporations are not anything without people.

Tell us about that. That whole notion came from the right and is law by virtue of your likely heroes, Justices Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. (Well, you may have since thrown Roberts under the bus.)

Anyway, you've never hated an inanimate object? Your point is junk.

cooperhawk's picture

Wouldn't hating an inanimate

Wouldn't hating an inanimate object be kind of a waste of time? Or is it just an easy way to justify true hate for people without having to name names & therefore deflecting criticism?

Somebody's picture

To be fair, Romney's oft

To be fair, Romney's oft repeated quote about corporations being people, too, my friend, has been willfully misinterpreted. If you track the context, Romney was really saying that corporations are made up of the people who own them and work for them. He wasn't making a statement about the abstract concept of the corporation itself being the legal equivalent of a person, which is how the conservative wing of the Supreme Court justifies unlimited corporate money in politics. Romney is undoubtedly in accordance with the Court's dubious and destructive opinion, but that wasn't really what he was getting at with his offhand comment.

Corporations are indeed made up of the people who own and work for a given corporation. The more direct concern is where accountability lies. In the case of corporations, that accountability leads to shareholders and the bottom line, usually interpreted in short-term quarterly profit numbers. Understanding that, and taking into account the significant accumulation of resources within corporations, it creates a distortion of political power when corporations are allowed to express cumulative political 'opinions' through unlimited monetary expenditures. In that context, corporations are not the people who own them, plus all the people who work there; they are only top management and the Board of Directors. As a result, corporate 'speech' represents only the top echelon, but uses the cumulative resources of everyone who works there to amplify that narrow perspective. That's where the problem lies. This is what generates anger toward and dislike of corporations in a political context.

smalc's picture

I was reminded this morning

I was reminded this morning while reading a facebook post that some Christians have been boycotting Home Depot for their support of LGBT issues. (I don't recall what it was, a parade or something?)

So apparently they do support boycott of businesses that offend their morals, after all.

Factchecker's picture

In implying that God sees

In implying that God sees homosexuals as evil, Cathy declared open season on us.

(link...)

BoB W.'s picture

time will tell

It will be interesting to see how Chik-Fil-A's financial picture will be affected in the future. I predict that they will prosper greatly.

My opinion is that true Christians exhibit acceptance without hate or scorn.

reform4's picture

Unlikely

Anit-gay supporters won't buy more chicken. Call the, 30% of pre-flap customer base.

20% of customers will stop altogether (adjusting for fact that lefties probably don't eat as much fast food)

The other 50% won't change their habits much, maybe a quarter of them will seek other alternatives first, buy less overall.

I predict An overall drop of 25% over the next few years. If I were a franchisee, I'd be pissed at Cathey and consider suing him.

Factchecker's picture

Doesn't seem so Christian to me

The further out we look back, the more foolish this will look regardless of any short term profit gain by CFA. How Christian was it for businesses to bar African-Americans until the '60s? The only difference here is that CFA does it by activism instead of refusal of service and their business model is selling unhealthy "food" that comes from cruel, environmentally disastrous factory farms and then packaged in styrofoam that will pollute space for a thousand years.

These people could show real Christianity by instead spending a little time, money, and effort helping the poor, sick, and elderly. But these are different times and we're dealing with modern Republican "Christians."

Factchecker's picture

More cruelty headed for tables like those at Chik-Fil-A

Every week or so a semi truck passes me on I-40 with hundreds of caged chickens riding almost like the Romney family dog Seamus did, except most are buried by other chicken cages. I can only think WTF?!

But I suppose with enough salt and grease and other special seasonings, it's heaven to the willfully ignorant. Then as they head toward getting Type 2 diabetes, these so-called Christians increasingly rely on medical care from their health insurer, if they're lucky enough to have one. God forbid the government get involved in that.

We're doomed.

Up Goose Creek's picture

Diabetes

Factchecker, I'm getting a little tired of this tendency to blame the country's problems on type 2 diabetes. Yes I inherited the condition form my father, I also aquired d*#n good cholestorol and a love of gardening and hiking in the woods from him. So ya know, it balances out.

I don't see why we are doomed because some of us need to take a few dollars worth of medicine a month. Metfomin is a generic after all.

Please find someone else to pick on. Or better yet, try to get to a place where you won't feel the need to pick on anyone at all.

Factchecker's picture

Dear Bob W., Were you

Dear Bob W.,

Were you suggesting that the near term financial numbers of CFA should be used as the moral arbiter of which side is correct? Or were you suggesting that the Cathys are just crazy like a fox to pull this whole Christianity/anti-gay card for their own financial benefit?

Factchecker's picture

I'm very sorry to hear about

I'm very sorry to hear about your affliction, Goose, really I am. I wasn't making fun of any medical condition that's not preventable by a little common sense. Yours obviously wasn't. Correct me, though, but isn't type 2 diabetes becoming a growing epidemic, not from genetics but from bad lifestyles? Sure there's a gray area between risk factors and causality, but eating has become the new smoking. Like a lot of other things, climate change being one, society is in denial about its self-induced predicament.

It seems like people who suffer from this through no fault of their own would be especially incensed by those who do but could have prevented it.

We're not doomed by disease. We're doomed by idiocracy. I'm sorry I gave you the wrong impression. I don't try to pick on anyone who doesn't deserve a little push back.

Dave Prince's picture

In old and therefore

In old and therefore irrelevant news, UT Dining sent out a postcard to incoming students this week with a coupon for free Chick-fil-a waffle fries at what I'm assuming is their all-but-torn-down University Center location.

"We're really concerned that our school would continue to facilitate such a controversial organization," said absolutely nobody.

Dave Prince's picture

I knew as soon as I said

I knew as soon as I said something about UT student apathy that a counterpoint would randomly pop up somewhere.

The UTK petition is just shy of 180 right now. A college in North Carolina stopped serving Chick-fil-a at campus events after their student petition reached 500. Of course with an enrolled population of 1920 vs. UTK's 28000+, the UTK petition would have to reach nearly 7300 signatures to be an equal percentage of the student body, and that's not even accounting for the fact that UTK has an actual location on campus with all the associated paperwork and agreements.

Factchecker's picture

This'll show 'em

MEDIC also gives out free CFA coupon cards. I used to give them to coworkers, but now they go straight to my recycle bin.

Factchecker's picture

Don't know where you're going

Have you ever hated an idea or concept? This is an absurd debate. Certainly people on the right don't hate, is I guess what you're saying. Good luck with that.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Lost Medicaid Funding

To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Local Media Blogs

Shopper Columns

Local News

News Sentinel

State News

Wire Reports

Site Statistics

Last 7 days:
  • Posts: 27
  • Comments: 530
  • Visits: 15,497
  • Pageviews: 41,916
Last 30 days:
  • Posts: 102
  • Comments: 1495
  • Visits: 45,837
  • Pageviews: 116,643

TN Progressive

Nearby:

Beyond:

At large: