Students' tastes decide: Chick-fil-A leaving UI

Students' tastes decide: Chick-fil-A leaving UI

Preferences, not flap over gay marriage, spur vendor change

URBANA — The Chick-fil-A Express restaurant at the Illini Union food court will close Friday, but University of Illinois officials say the decision has more to do with student food preferences than the fast-food chain's views on gay marriage.

Megan Laz, spokeswoman for the Illini Union, said Chick-fil-A's contract expires Friday, and the Union decided to pursue a different restaurant vendor based on student input.

In a survey this past semester, the Union asked students for their top five preferences for the food court in a variety of categories, including fast-food restaurants. Chick-fil-A was not among the top five in that category, finishing eighth on a list of about 15 candidates, said Scott McCartney, the Union's senior associate director of retail operations.

The top five were Five Guys, Wendy's, McDonald's, Steak 'n Shake and Culver's. Portillo's in Chicago was initially in the top five, but McCartney said he knew up front the restaurant wasn't interested. After getting approval from the Illini Union Board, a student advisory group, the Union contacted all five restaurants and eventually chose one, though the contract isn't finalized, he said.

"It's a pretty straightforward matter," Laz said. "It's unrelated to the controversy. It's a business decision."

McCartney said if Chick-fil-A had finished in the top five, he would have proposed that the contract be renewed, but that would have been up to the Illini Union Board. The student board members had discussed the gay-marriage controversy last summer, after Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy took a public stance against gay marriage. His comments prompted boycotts by gay-rights groups and efforts by city officials in Boston and Chicago to block the chain from opening restaurants in those cities.

In response, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, declared a "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day," urging supporters to eat at the restaurant. Opponents of Cathy's stance then planned "Kiss Mor Chiks" day, asking people of the same sex to show up at Chick-fil-A locations and kiss each other.

Locally, scores of customers lined up at the Illini Union's Chick-fil-A Express to support the chain, citing concerns about free speech and gay marriage. The effort was promoted by Mark Burns, president and general manager of Fisher-based "Great News Radio" stations.

McCartney said that when he took the job last summer, he decided to start surveying students every year for their restaurant preferences and try to "get a name they liked," rather than simply putting out a request for proposals and seeing which restaurants responded. Chick-fil-A was the first contract that came up for renewal; as other contracts expire, he plans to follow the same process.

The Illini Union Board approved the survey, which included 43 open-ended questions about student food and drink preferences, as well as others asking students to rank items from 1 to 5, such as cleanliness.

McCartney said the controversy had "no impact" on the survey, though he did receive some comments critical of Cathy's stance on gay marriage in the responses.

The food court has 11 vendors. Chick-fil-A had operated at the Union for four and a half years and had done fairly good business, he said, though not as good as some previous vendors. Sales had grown each year as students became more familiar with the chain, he said.

The contract was with MSE Branded Foods, a franchisee near Atlanta, which will continue to operate the Jamba Juice stand in the food court.

MSE Vice President Ed Jones declined to comment on the Illini Union's motivations Tuesday. The UI informed the company Friday that the contract wasn't being renewed.

"We've had a good relationship with the university, and we will continue to have a relationship with them," Jones said. "We've had a good relationship with Chick-fil-A and we'll continue that also, in other places."

Sections (2):News, Local

Comments

News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.

Login or register to post comments

Joe American wrote on May 29, 2013 at 8:05 am

So, burgers, burgers, burgers, burgers, and........burgers.

Thank you to all 37 students who participated in the "survey".

GeneralLeePeeved wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 am

Joe -

Evidently, you haven't been in the Illini Union, or on campus, lately.  As of now, there is only one (maybe two) place(s) in the Union that someone can even order a burger at, and that establishment specializes in crepes (unless it too, has closed recently).  The rest of the options are primarily ethnic choices or niche market businesses.......italian food, asian food, coffee shop, etc.  As for the general campus area, it too is void of burger joints.  I'm sure you can still order one at the bars that sell food, but for the most part the area is dominated with mexican food, asian food and the occassional pizza place.  This is no McDonalds, no Burger King, no Hardees, no Culvers or any other fastfood place specializing in "burgers".......sorry to rain on your stereo-typing.

 

Damien Tobin wrote on May 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

I'm eating a crepe right now (reheated, they close at 3 during the summer).  Yes, you can still buy from there.

lovie_01 wrote on May 29, 2013 at 12:05 pm

Sad to see Chick-fil-A go.  I hope that they may consider opening a restaurant that is not on campus.  Did only 37 students fill out the survey?  Why did McDonald's leave location?

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Yep. Joe American said it so it's an established fact and if you don't accept it you're just a brainwashed low info sheeple.

Vote Tea Party GOP Scandal Hunters -- we'll get to the bottom of how Obama forced Chick Fillet out of the Union by skewing this poll just like he skewed all those polls predicting his "victory" last November when we know the only reason he "won" is massive voter fraud and voting by illegals and CHICAGO THUGS making sure the votes were "counted correctly" across the nation!!!!!

TruthInspector wrote on May 29, 2013 at 2:05 pm

You said, "the decision has more to do with student food preferences than the fast-food chain's views on gay marriage." Then why would students turn down the #1 nationally ranked fast food chain in food quality, customer service and cleanliness unless it was politically motivated?

Nice Davis wrote on May 29, 2013 at 6:05 pm

I know it's fun to look for conspiracies in every outcome you don't like, but I would like to see these rankings you're talking about. Do you have a link you can share? Everything I can find online doesn't have Chikfila ranked first.

Also, even the number one restaurant nationally may not be the number one restaurant locally.

 

indubitably wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 am

Chick-fil-A always has the longest line of any of the food places in the union by far, every single time I go down there. The demand from students is there, so it has to be something other than food quality.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 2:05 pm

I blame Obama. And the IRS. And AG Holder. And bigfoot. And everyone involved in the cover up of the Benghazi gun running to al qaeda scheme. And the greys. And whoever faked Obama's 'birth certificate.' And that big faker Buzz Aldrin.

Vote Tea Party GOP!!!!1! We'll get to the bottom of this OBAMA SCANDAL!!!!!!!1!

Damien Tobin wrote on May 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

The demand for SOMETHING is there, but people would prefer to purchase from one of the other options they were given in that list.  And yes, the students desire for a different fast food joint may well have stemmed in part from political views.  The Board can claim that they were not motivated by politics and only listened to what students want in the Union.  The Board cannot claim to know why students asked for options other than Chik-fil-A.

Soph3 wrote on May 29, 2013 at 3:05 pm

It is my understanding, based on coversations with several vendors and employees of vendors at the time, that McDonald's left because the University wanted to play hardball when it came time to renew their contract.  It was basically a "take it or leave it" situation after a long period of no responses on the part of the University during earlier attempts at negotiations.  I heard that the owner of that franchise said that he had never had that much difficulty on any contract for his other locations.  He was fed up and left.  This is just what I heard from various people working in the food court restaurants at the time. I think that the University rep involved is also gone.  Not positive on that. 

I would like to see this open-ended survey myself...and it would be nice to know how many of the approximately 40,000 students participated.

Will miss having chicken as an option...and Chick-Fil-A in particular.  It would be nice if a full service version could open someplace in town.

Wonder how close they are with the replacement.  Hope it doesn't turn into another Cactus Grill/Taco Bell fiasco.  Still miss Cactus Grill.

Who really feel sorry for are the employees.  Did they find out that they were out of a job last Friday?  Today?

ialdabaoth wrote on May 29, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Glad to see them go, wish they could have prioritized equality and human rights over profit but hey this is america.

TruthInspector wrote on May 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Nice Davis, "In a survey that tallied the responses of 7,600 consumers, Chick-fil-A was voted number one." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/13/chick-fil-a-favorite-chicken-chain_n_2121461.html

"Chick-fil-A was voted as having the best food in the sector, followed by Culver’s, Golden Corral, Jamba Juice and Papa Murphy’s.Chick-fil-A topped the lists for cleanliness, service and value, while Caribou Coffee was deemed to have the best beverages and atmosphere." http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/03/business/la-fi-mo-average-restaurant-customer-technomic-20121003

“Vendors with the highest average customer satisfaction rating include Chick-fil-A, Westin Hotels, Southwest Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Amazon, Whole Foods, Starbucks, USPS and Publix.”
SpendSmart Report for Q1, 2013, Wall Street Journal (4-18-13)http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130418-906678.html

 

Nice Davis wrote on May 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Thanks for posting these. I appreciate it. I found plenty of surveys that did not have Chik-fil-a at the top of the list too, e.g.:
http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=1e290801-a6c2-4d01-80fd-4a040c0ee231
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/top-fast-food-restaurants-0909#slide-1
http://www.zagat.com/fastfood#
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-fast-food-2013-4?op=1
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/august/food/fast-food/overview/index.htm

In any event, I think it's clear that a fast food chain's amorphous "national ranking" has little to do with whether students here prefer it.

TruthInspector wrote on May 29, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Nice Davis, thanks for your posting, too. Another consideration is not only surveys, but actual sales. Chick-fil-A has had 45 consecutive years of annual sales growth since their inception in 1967. In 2011, they had $4.1 billion in annual sales, and in 2012 had $4.6 billion in annual sales. That's an increase of $500 million in just one year! And, this is in spite of all the hoopla last year. Another thing, as of February, 2012, CFA became debt-free and now run their business entirely from internal cash. Say what you will, but it looks to me like they are a very successful company.

Maybe you can do some research and see if you can find a company, in any industry, that has had 45 consecutive years of annual sales growth since their inception, without one single down year, and is currently debt-free and runs their business entirely from internal cash. I don't think you'll find one.

Branf6 wrote on May 30, 2013 at 1:05 am

That's not really the point though. It isn't as popular in the setting that it was in, so it's being removed from such a setting for something that is believed will be more successful. That's all there is to it. No one really cares about the statistics you're quoting, as other statistics have already been charted and used in consideration for the decision made that suits this situation specifically. 

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 7:05 am

I'm not disputing that they're a successful company. I'm just disputing what bearing that has on the students' decision to rank other restaurants higher.

As for the $500 million revenue bump, that certainly is impressive. I question your language choice of "in spite of all the hoopla last year." That implies to me that CFA's revenue bump would have been even higher but for the boycotts they underwent last year. That could be true, but I find it more likely that CFA benefitted more from "reverse boycotts" (e.g. people answering Huckabee's call to eat there more, people starting to eat CFA as a political statement who wouldn't have done so absent the controversy) than it was harmed by boycotts.

I couldn't find any evidence one way or the other. It's just my perception of how things played out last year that the political turmoil drove more customer dollars to CFA than the dollar driven away

mrseeu2 wrote on May 29, 2013 at 11:05 pm

This is to the management of Chick-Fil-A. You did not choose to leave this market, your contract was not renewed.  The students of the University of Illinois no longer wanted you in the community, not the citizens of Champaign-Urbana.  Evidently your sales were good if you wanted to renew your contract. This is a thriving, growing metro area.  Build a free standing full service restaurant here in our city and the people of C-U will support you. This is a no-brainer, get your plans together and tell us when you will start building or at least find a spot in the mall.

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 am

Maybe Chick-fil-A has plans to build a free-standing unit off campus; I don't know. However, I can tell you the success of CFA in the Chicago/Chicagoland area. Currently, there are 10 CFA stores in C/CL. One of these ten stores broke all-time sales records, out of 1700+ CFA stores, for Grand Opening Weekend (and their sales continue to "go through the roof"). And, another store in the CL area had the highest sales in the chain on CFA Appreciation Day last year. All 10 stores are doing very well, and more stores are planned. Overall, the people of Chicago love their Chick-fil-A. FYI - I do not work for CFA, but I know someone who does.  

Orbiter wrote on May 29, 2013 at 11:05 pm

"In a survey this past semester, the Union asked students for their top five preferences for the food court in a variety of categories, including fast-food restaurants. Chick-fil-A was not among the top five in that category"

We can assume that the Union made its decision based upon factors including this student survey.  To the extent that the survey impacted that decision, we cannot really infer much about the lack of student interst in CFA, as no explanation was requested of the students who were surveyed. But certainly the social aspects may have been one of the factors the students considered.  The reality is that if you do a student survey in the Union on one particular day, it can vary vastly from a survey done the following week, depending upon the news cycle, current headlines, the days different student organizations may meet in or near the Union, and which student groups may be protesting or demonstrating on the day of the survey.  But even if we grant that it was a fair and unbiased scientific survey with bias factors controlled, it is still unwise to assume too much about the reasons the students ranked CFA as they did.

outoftownie wrote on May 30, 2013 at 12:05 pm

 I don't understand why this is an issue, or why people are making a big deal out of it. Of course, the usual suspects are out here, so we have to make a mountain out of it.

If Chik-Fil-A is doing good business in town, then most certainly they will open up another location. Why wouldn't they? I like going there, the food is good, and healthier for people too, which is a nice change of pace. It is a little more expensive than some places, although that might be a location thing in my area (near St. Louis.)

Maybe the University thinks it is time to try something new. Food places are always moving in and out of the Union, this is normal. Stop trying to find a conspiracy in everything.

Bulldogmojo wrote on May 30, 2013 at 3:05 pm

It's funny how the conservative Ayn Rand-ish, "pull yourself up by your own boot straps",  "The market dictates it's own successes and failures and can manage itself" crowd, shift into indignant rebuttal of the first and only rule of business that they sternly preached to others. That being "don't disappoint your paying customers" when it comes back to bite them on the hand.

When a corporation publicly takes it upon itself to step into the fray of controversy that dares to intrude upon personal freedoms and human equality and attempts to manipulate the law to serve it's bigoted ends it can hardly complain if a public of growing conscience decides to withhold its patronage.

Paying customers are the job creators and they decide the success of every business.

 

 

 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 3:05 pm

You're just a brainwashed sheeple living on the DemonRat Plantation and you've been fooled by the fifth columnists in the leftist media and the fascist union thugs running the government schools functioning as socialist indoctrination centers and places of worship for their messiah, the sharia law loving Kenyan ObaMao who was running guns to al qaeda in Benghazi while using the IRS to target true conservatives for internment in FEMA concentration camps back home.

It's all so simple. Why don't you people see it?????????22?

Bulldogmojo wrote on May 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

LMFAO Mark Taylor's ghost Rules !!!!111@@122133!1!!!??

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

I almost forgot, Obummer is going to force all REAL AMERICANS to get gay married to illegal aliens AND undergo forced abortions.

He's just THAT evil and powerful!!!3.14159!!!

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm

I believe it is noteworthy to remind everyone that it was Democratic President Bill Clinton, along with both houses of congress in 1996, voted and signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. And, it was President Barack Obama that affirmed the same when running for Senator in 2004 when he stated, “I’m Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” Later, he reaffirmed the same belief in 2006, and when running for president in 2008. So, why is Mr. Cathy labeled a bigot when both Pres. Clinton and Pres. Obama held the same position on traditional marriage?

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 7:05 pm

Opposing marriage equality is reprehensible. Good for Presidents Clinton and Obama for realizing the error of their ways and supporting LGBT couples. Hopefully someday Mr. Cathy will realize that he is holding an outdated and prejudicial opinion and similarly realize that all consenting adult couples deserve equal treatment under the law.

Spence wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Profile Picture

There is already marriage equality, everyone has the equal right under the law to traditional one man one woman only marriage.  No one has to choose a same-sex partner and there is no good reason to redefine marriage.... play by the rules and quit whining

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Spence's argument, 1960s style:

"There is already marriage equality, every person has the equal right under the law to traditional same race marriage. Nobody has to choose a partner of a different race and there is no good reason to redefine marriage to include interracial unions.

Mildred Loving should play by the rules and quit whining."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Nice Davis. You said "All consenting adult couples deserve equal treatment under the law". Would that include allowing full marriage rights of consenting adults that happen to be mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister, sister/sister, brother/brother, etc.? Why/Why not? 

What about consenting adults that want to have multiple marriage partners such as one man and six women, one woman and six men, or two men and three women,  or any combination of numbers? Should the marriage laws be changed to accommodate these relationships to have full marriage rights? Why/Why not? Do you "hold an outdated and prejudicial opinion" when it comes to these relationships? On what grounds would you say that they should not be allowed to marry? 

Also, I noticed that you left off the initials 'I' and 'A' after "LGBT". Are you neglecting these groups? Maybe you didn't even know those categories existed. Well, before long, two more letters could be added to the list: 'P' for polygamous, and another 'I' for incestuous. Far fetched? Not when you have a relativistic generation that has lost its moral bearings.

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

I'd love to respond to your slippery slope concern trolling in text, but I'm thinking John Corvino's take on your (very sincere, I'm sure) question is better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk2XKwRW5u0

spangwurfelt wrote on May 30, 2013 at 11:05 pm

Bill Clinton has changed his mind, and now publicly regrets he signed the bill.

So try again.

TruthInspector wrote on May 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

Spangwurfelt. But, prior to "changing his mind", was Pres. Clinton a "hater", "bigot", "discriminator", "homophobe" and all the other words that gay activists repeatedly use to defame anyone that doesn't agree with them on the issue of marriage? And what about Pres. Obama. He didn't "evolve" (flip-flop) on this issue until last May (2012), so did gay activists use the same defaming words to describe him prior to that time?

Bottom line: Was Pres.Clinton and Pres, Obama "targets of wrath" of the liberal left when they held the exact same views on marriage as Mr. Cathy? The answer is "no"; these men were not attacked and demonized like Mr. Cathy. There is a double-standard here and you know it. Could it be that gay activists have a hatred and distain for conservative Christians simply because of their belief in traditional marriage. Why all the venom toward Mr. Cathy when he holds the same view of marriage as every US president from George Washington to Barack Obama? 

spangwurfelt wrote on May 31, 2013 at 6:05 pm

You know, whenever I encounter this kind of whining from poor, poor, conservative Christians having a self-pity party, I just feel like saying: here's the story, toots. In a democracy, nobody get everything they want. If you've got a problem with that, your problem is not with your fellow Americans but with the very concept of democracy itself. Conservative Christianity is the most powerful religious movement of the most powerful nation in the world, and yet you sob-sob-sob because you can't get EVERYTHING EVER ALL THE TIME.

TruthInspector wrote on June 01, 2013 at 1:06 pm

So, spangwurfelt, you decided to side-step my question altogether. I guess that's what liberals do when they can't defend their position. Go back and read my post again and tell me why there was a double standard in the way liberals treated Pres. Clinton and Pres. Clinton compared to Mr. Cathy when these men held the exact same position on marriage prior to "changing their mind". 

spangwurfelt wrote on June 02, 2013 at 12:06 pm

Translated: "Wah wah wah, Spangwurfelt thought my trolling was trolling."

If your memory wasn't so intentionally selective, you'd remember that both Obama and Clinton came in for quite a bit of criticism among liberals for their previous stances. But then, given that the facts undermine your "wah wah wah, the mean liberals are conspiring against conservative Christians, help, help we're being persecuted" self-pity, I can easily imagine why you have "forgotten" it.

dane wrote on May 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

The owner, not the corporation, made a statement of personal beliefs. No one has made a case against the company of acting with bias towards anyone. There are no charges of discirmation against any employees, or of refusal of service.

Bulldogmojo wrote on May 30, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Not the Company??? Guess again

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/29/memo-to-media-chick-fil-a-hasnt-ended-its-anti/192434

The ol' shell game. Which bigoted non for profit is the money under?

 

dane wrote on May 30, 2013 at 8:05 pm

The corporation is not publicly traded. It is Mr Cathy's business. He is making his own statements by doing things with his own business income. I don't personally care for his views. I do persoanlly care about his right to express them. And again, has he, through his business, discriminated against emplyees or customers? 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Boycotting this bigot's business in no way violates his right to engage in bigoted speech. He has a right to say whatever he wants and others have a right to judge whether they want to patronize his business. If they choose not to patronize his business because of his bigotry, then that's their right.

So many right wingers weirdly seem to believe that freedom of speech is a guarantee that there will be no consequences for the speech they choose to engage in. Obviously, they are wrong.

Spence wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Profile Picture

How is Mr Cathy a bigot??  A bigot is someone who is intolerant of a racial or ethnic group.  Homosexuals are neither an ethnic or racial group.  Behavior is the indentifier for homosexuals.... it's not like they can run a blood test to indentify someone as a homosexual. People like you need to get over the fact others have a right to judge behavior as good or bad. Opposing same-sex marriage is not bigotry or hate. Calling someone a bigot because they stand up for tradition one man one woman only marriage is hateful.

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

"A bloo bloo bloo, why don't you tolerate my intolerance!?"

--Spence, 5 minutes ago

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

According to Spence, a bigot is someone who is intolerant of a racial or ethnic group. Jews, Muslims, and Hindus are neither an ethnic or racial group. Behavior is the identifier for Jews, Muslims, and Hindus...it's not like they can run a blood test to identify someone as a Jew, Muslim, or Hindu. Opposing Jews, Muslims, or Hindus is not bigotry or hate.

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Mr. Cathy is a Christian. He simply expressed his religious views on marriage. According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, intolerant is "unwilling to grant freedom of expression especially in religious matters..." I guess that makes you intolerant and bigoted toward Mr. Cathy and any Christian that expresses their religious views on marriage.

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, intolerant is also "unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights." I guess that makes you intolerant and bigoted toward adults who want to share in to social and political right of marriage.

I got that definition from the same page you did. It's literally right under the definition you pulled. Did you see it? Did you stop and think? Did it give you pause? Or did you just say, "Nawwwww, nobody'll check out the definition. This dictionary argument is air. tight!"

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

In less than an hour, bigotry apologists have claimed that gays have the right to marry (someone of the opposite gender), that marriage equality will lead to polygamy and incestuous marriage (not to mention, dogs and cats living together I'm sure), and that refusal to tolerate intolerance is the real intolerance.

Any one of these by themselves, let alone all three together, would be a clear indication that they know they've lost the argument in most people's opinion. They're just in the stomping their feet and holding their breath phase of their tantrums.

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Is same-sex marriage too new for the court to assess its effect on marriage and children?

Justice Anthony Kennedy: "I think there's, there's substantial — that there's substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more."

Justice Samuel Alito: "Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in the Netherlands in 2000. So there isn't a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe. But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution which is newer than cellphones or the Internet? I mean, we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future."

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Thank you for pulling two stellar examples of people who are wrong on the issue of whether now is the appropriate time to stop restricting LGBT individuals from the right to marry

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

The christian bible has untold examples of polygamy and talks endlessly about numerous "concubines" of single men (who also had multiple wives).

How's that for "traditional families"?

Is that like super sized "family values"?

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Hey look, here's another Kennedy quote from the exact same article you appear to have copy-pasted your comment from:

Is marriage just about procreation,and what's best for children?

Justice Anthony Kennedy: On the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal--what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California, according to [a legal brief] that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/03/26/175374536/gay-marriage-arguments-cell-phones-the-internet-and-fertility-over-55

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

It shows he is genuinely struggling with the issue of what is best for society. The Supreme Court decision is expected any day now.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Bigotry is bigotry. If you want to wrap it in the mantle of your religion, fine. But don't expect that to be some kind of shield from criticism of your bigotry.

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

On exactly what basis are you attempting to limit the definition of bigotry only to prejudice regarding race and ethnicity? That is patently ridiculous.

How is Cathy a bigot? He expressed, repeatedly, prejudice towards and intolerance of homosexuals as a group and said they should be denied equal rights. Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other transparently disingenuous questions.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 30, 2013 at 11:05 pm

"Opposing same-sex marriage is not bigotry or hate."

Except when it is.

danrice56 wrote on May 31, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Sexual desire, not behavior, is the basis for homosexuality and any other sexuality. And I fail to see why anyone should care who another adults desires or doesn't desire.

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Nobody is infringing on his right to express his views.

Bulldogmojo wrote on May 30, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Dane...

What does publicly traded stock have to do with it? His COMPANY was writing off his crusade to marginalize other humans, on it's taxes!! That is EVERYBODY'S business!! 

His COMPANY also said they stopped donating to these organizations which is a lie. They are engaging in these public messages of bigotry and lies all on their own So it stands to reason their HR may lean toward the same ideology.

Googled the term: "chick-fil-a gay employee complaints"

Couple of nuggets popped up

Employee fired so she could be "Stay at home Mom"

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/29/chick-fil-a-sued-by-employee-who-was-fired-so-she-could-be-stay-home-mom/

Chick-Fil-A history of workplace discrmination 

http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/08/chick-fil-as-history-of-workplace-discrimination.html

and many more...

seems they are an equal opportunity hater of women wanting equality, muslims wanting equality, gay people wanting equality (see a pattern developing here?)

If it walks like a Dixiecrat and talks like a Dixiecrat...

 

TruthInspector wrote on May 30, 2013 at 11:05 pm

Bulldog, the people of American are just not buying your caricature of Chick-fil-A. As I stated in an earlier post, Chick-fil-A has had 45 consecutive years of annual sales growth since their inception in 1967. In 2011, they had $4.1 billion in annual sales, and in 2012 had $4.6 billion in annual sales. That's an increase of $500 million in just one year! And, this is in spite of all the hoopla last year. Another thing, as of February, 2012, CFA became debt-free and now run their business entirely from internal cash. Say what you will, but it looks to me like they are a very successful company.

Nice Davis wrote on May 30, 2013 at 11:05 pm

Nobody is arguing that Chick-Fil-A isn't financially successful

TruthInspector wrote on May 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

My point is that Chick-fil-A could not be so financially successful if the people of America didn't support them. In spite of all the attacks and demonization by the left, they continue to be one of the most successful companies in the US and maybe even the world!

I challenge you to find another company from any industry that has had 45 consecutive years of annual sales growth without one single down year since their inception, and is currently debt-free and run their company entirely from internal cash. Further, it should be understood that this did not happen with stockholder-infused capital. CFA is a private, family-owned business that grew from one little mall store in 1967 to over 1700 mostly free-standing restaurants today. And, because of their unique franchise arrangment with its operators, CFA, Inc. ownes all buildings and property of every store. 

spangwurfelt wrote on May 31, 2013 at 6:05 pm

So when Apple officially came out against California's Proposition 8, and posted a notice right on the front page of their company website saying so, and donated a hundred thousands of dollars to its defeat, and then the iPhone and iPad came out and Apple ended up sitting on a hundred billion dollars in cash, then we can presume by your logic that this shows how much America really wants gay marriage to be legal - because look at how successful Apple is!

dane wrote on May 31, 2013 at 10:05 am

"It's fair to have an opinion. but not yours"

Quote from one of the first comments in one of the referenced articles. And a shining example of my main point..

I don't care for Cathy's view point. If you want to say that he requires some special regulatory status because of how he uses his money and what his opinions are, then you better be ready for the converse: Someone in power will take exception to your opinions and you will have live with the same restrictions. Maybe people you don't like should get special attention from the IRS? But not people you do like?

I'm pretty sure you don't do business with him, and you are free to encourage others to do the same. After the big flap started a few months ago the company's policies were made public, and they are in line with law. That in a company that large there have been duffaces that misapplied policy, or people that used their own perceptions to grind an axe, or somewhere in between, should come as no surprise. Also it would seem that there has had to be some revision of policies: good. Lots of info here about complaints, what are the outcomes?

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/illinois/lynwood/company-sued-by-former-mcdonald-s-employees/article_d1e42f28-417e-5215-bf18-560390c95b78.html

Cathy gets to say stuff, and then he has to deal with consequences (can anyone say Dixie Chicks?)

Bulldogmojo wrote on May 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

So you're going with the American addiction to saturated fat = credible and benevolent company argument? Their HR record and suspect tax returns indicate otherwise.

If they are so self sustaining why do they need to bother trying to write off their contributions to these "Family values" hate groups?

Don't you love how the "Christians" love one another...

“Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience.” ~Christopher Hitchens

 

TruthInspector wrote on May 31, 2013 at 9:05 am

Chick-fil-A offers healthy lifestyle options with 10 menu items with 10 or fewer grams of fat.

Also, Chick-fil-A cooks in 100 percent refined peanut oil which is NATURALLY TRANS-FAT AND CHOLESTEROL FREE. In fact, THE ENTIRE MENU IS FREE OF TRANS FAT.
 

Try the grilled chicken sandwich on whole grain bread, with a fruit cup and low-fat milk. The entire meal is only 430 calories: Grilled chicken sandwich (290), fruit cup (50), low-fat milk (90).

spangwurfelt wrote on May 31, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Gee, for an utterly disinterested party, why verily just a random passer-by, you sure seem to know a lot about the chain.

Coincidence. What else could it be but coincidence?

TruthInspector wrote on May 31, 2013 at 10:05 am

Bulldog:

George Washington stated: "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Thomas Jefferson said: "The Bible is the cornerstone of liberty.... I have always said, I will always say, that the studious perusal of the sacred volume will make better citizens, better fathers, better husbands."

John Adams said: "So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin to read it the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful citizens of their country and respectable members of society."

mark taylor's ghost wrote on May 31, 2013 at 11:05 am

Ah, theocracy. Always a good idea. In America we've always had our own taliban.

Newsflash: other people are not required to live their lives in accordance with your interpretation of some of your religion's canon. And we are not required to adopt, and legislate, the bigotry that comes from how you chose to interpret your religion.

TruthInspector wrote on June 01, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Mark, you may not believe in God, or the Bible, but you have a religion. It is a set of beliefs called Secular Humanism. In that religion you consider yourself to be your own god. You make up your own morals as you go. It is based on no outside standard; just your own personal opinion.

Every law legislates morality. It's just a matter of whose morality: yours, mine or someone else's. This country was built on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Without it you wouldn't be enjoying your freedom.

Oh, by the way, just because one don't believe in God doesn't change the fact that He exists. Something to think about: If there is no God (as you alluded to), then why is there something rather than nothing?

alabaster jones 71 wrote on June 02, 2013 at 12:06 am
Profile Picture

"It is based on no outside standard; just your own personal opinion."

God forbid that people think for themselves.

 

TruthInspector wrote on June 02, 2013 at 3:06 pm

alabaster jones, if you believe morality is a matter of personal definition, then you surrender the possibility of making moral judgments about others' actions, no matter how offensive they are to your intuitive sense of right and wrong. You may express your emotions, tastes, and personal preferences, but you can't say they are wrong.

There can be no accountability in relativism. Those who answer to themselves utimately answer to no one of consequence. And this makes it impossible to distinguish relativistic morality from self interest or ethical egoism.

Relativism denies a standard of right and wrong, good and evil. But, this presents a problem. Consider this from a one-time atheist, C.S. Lewis:

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But, how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? . . . Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed, too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies." 

If relativism is true, the objection against God based on evil vanishes. There is no true evil to discuss, only differing opinions about what is pleasant or unpleasant, desired or not desired.  

spangwurfelt wrote on June 02, 2013 at 7:06 pm

I wonder what C. S. Lewis thinks about plagiarists.

TruthInspector wrote on June 02, 2013 at 9:06 pm

When liberals lack a good answer to the argument, all they know to do is side-step the issue and resort to name-calling.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on June 02, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Profile Picture

spangwurfelt is not name calling at all...he/she is simply stating a fact.

You're entirely side stepping the fact that you have plagiarized multiple times in your comments on this article.  You haven't defended it or even acknowledged it...all you've done in response to him/her calling out your plagiarism is side-stepped and name-called yourself.  Then you project your own side stepping and name calling onto spangwurfelt.  You're more transparent than a pane of glass.  

We all really admire your dedication to your employer Chick Fil A, though.  You created an account just to comment on the article and defend them.  I'm sure they appreciate your efforts.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on June 02, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Profile Picture

Your moral judgments are based entirely upon your own personal beliefs and perceptions too.  The only difference between my judgments and yours is that you appeal to the authority of religion to prop yours up, whereas I take credit for mine.

TruthInspector wrote on June 02, 2013 at 9:06 pm

My moral judgments are based on an objective standard outside myself. By what standard outside yourself do you measure what is right and wrong, good and evil?

So, are you saying I am wrong to believe as I do?

alabaster jones 71 wrote on June 02, 2013 at 10:06 pm
Profile Picture

They're based on what you mistakenly believe to be an objective standard outside of yourself.

In reality, they are your own biases and beliefs, and you are so arrogant as to believe that God has the same beliefs as you do and that he put you on this earth to spread those beliefs.

I don't believe it's wrong for you to believe in God, if that's what you're asking.  I think it's wrong of you and so many others to blaspheme Him by claiming to know how He feels about modern political issues, and to claim that His beliefs somehow match up perfectly with your own.  How convenient for you!

mark taylor's ghost wrote on June 03, 2013 at 2:06 am

They look at their own existing beliefs and prejudices and call them "gods" or "God." Then they demand that we "respect their beliefs" and, further, insist write our laws must be based on what they tell us their beliefs mean.

And when we decline, they call us arrogant.

spangwurfelt wrote on May 31, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Next time you read the Constitution, look for the part where it says "And by the way, since the United States is definitely a Christian country, Christians will get special rights, such as deciding who should or shouldn't get married, and we will all do our best to try to run the government as we think Christianity says it should."

Somehow the founders seem to have left that part out.

Bulldogmojo wrote on May 31, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Truthinspector

Once you've looked through the hubble telescope the burning bush story means nothing. Funny you are quoting dead rich property owners and in some cases slave owners rather than your precious bible itself which Jefferson altered with a razor to suit his ideas.

Religion and belief in non existent deities is what is at the heart of this discriminatory issue in the first place.

I always find alarming how the religious believe that there is such a thing as exclusive bigotry and that they are the device of it's divine administration by any worldly manipulation necessary.

 

mark taylor's ghost wrote on June 01, 2013 at 12:06 am

Once you've looked through the hubble telescope the burning bush story means nothing.

Isn't it wonderful how the perspective granted to us by science and learning is informative, enriching, and humbling (just for starters) all at the same time?

Thankfully, most of our religious friends tend to be quite anti theocratic. Most recognize that the wall of separation protects in both directions.

TruthInspector wrote on June 01, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Bulldog, if there is no God (as you say), why is there something rather than nothing? In light of the evidence that the universe had a beginning, and therefore was not eternal, then we are only left with two options: either NO ONE created something out of nothing, or else SOMEONE created something out of nothing. Which view is more reasonable? Nothing created something? No.Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could! The most reasonable view is God.

Why couldn't natural forces have produced the universe? Because scientists know as well as anyone that natural forces - indeed all of nature -- were created at the Big Bang. In other words, the Big Bang was the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to the Big Bang. Since a cause cannot come after its effect, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, there must be something OUTSIDE OF NATURE to do the job. That's exactly what the word supernatural means.

There are only two possibilities: either the universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. All scientific evidence points to the fact that the universe cannot be eternal. So by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other option - something OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE is eternal.

TruthInspector wrote on June 01, 2013 at 2:06 pm

 

Bulldog, this is continued from my previous post.

Since the universe had a beginning, it must have had a Beginner. In light of all the evidence for a space-time universe, the Beginner must be outside the space-time universe. If I say that God is the Beginner, then you might ask, "Who made God?" If everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause, too. Right?"

Wrong. The Law of Causality is the very foundation of science. Science is a search for causes and that search is based on observation that everything that has a beginning has a cause. So, why doesn't God need a cause? The Law of Causality does not say that EVERYTHING needs a cause. It says that everything that COMES TO BE needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn't need a cause.

So what is this First Cause like? The First Cause is:

Self existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial. In other words, he is without limits, or infinite.

Unimaginablly powerful, to create the universe out of nothing.

Supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision.

Personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices).

These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics that theists ascribe to God. These characteristics are not based on someone's religion or subjective experience. They are drawn from scientific evidence.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

Bulldogmojo wrote on June 01, 2013 at 7:06 pm

What an absurd postulate. This can be easily turned to suggest the same of your god[s]. You're saying the universe had a begining so there must be a deity that created it? Then what created your deity? Another deity? Who created that deity? and so on and so forth.

All mysteries once solved are solved in the language of science and there has never been an exception to this.

If your benevolent god existed, which it doesn't, your religion[s] certainly have twisted the idea of it to your own murdering, raping, bigoted and oppressive ends as a rationalization for your own hatred. Documented history will tell you that. Your sitting passively every Sunday with your handquilted bible cozy in the back pew does not exonerate you from the bloody legacy that is your god delusion. You all share the same yearning and teaching for an apocalyptic end to humanity. If you want to surrender your reason to these archaic external reinforcements that you would be unable to conduct yourself with any humanity without. Feel free, but keep your delusions out of my life, my taxes, my laws, and my public schools.

Now get a dictionary, your chik-fil-A sandwich and watch what a REAL intellect will educate you about on Jefferson and start thinking for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7UImBPq4WI

 

 

TruthInspector wrote on June 03, 2013 at 5:06 pm

Bulldog, you said, "You're saying the universe had a begining so there must be a deity that created it? Then what created your deity? Another deity? Who created that deity? and so on and so forth." 

 

I didn't say that God was created. He is etermal. Therefore, no one created God. The truth is that someone or something had to be eternal. Either the universe had to be eternal, or a supremely intelligent and powerful being (God) had to be eternal. There is no other option. The universe could not have created itself. We know from all scientific evidence that the universe had a beginning, and is therefore not eternal. We know from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that the universe is running out of usable energy. It's like leaving a flashlight "on" overnight. The next morning the flashlight is dim because the battery has used up most of its energy. Similarly, the universe is like a dying flashlight and only has so much energy left before it goes out. But, since the universe still has some energy left, it can't be eternal because if it did it would have run out by now. Follow me? The 2nd Law is also known as the Law of Entrophy which means everything is breaking down, or going from order to disorder (old car, old house, old body, etc.). Like a clock it is running down. But, if it is running down, then someone had to wind it up. Currently, just like we have some usable energy left, we still have some order left or we would have arrived at complete disorder by now. Again, this shows that the universe had a beginning and is therefore not eternal. The only other option is an eternal being outside of time, space and matter had to create this awesome and wonderfully complex universe. Look around you. See the beauty of the colorful flowers, the incredible sunrises and sunsets, the ability to love and be loved, to experience the birth of a child, to find meaning and purpose in life, and so much more. This cannot be attributed to mere blind, random, chance processes. 

spangwurfelt wrote on June 02, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Hey, look, I found where TruthInspector is stealing his big blob of cut-and-paste from without giving proper credit. I guess that's what conservative Christians do when they're stuck in a corner inte - they steal others' words and try to pass them off as their own.

It's from an evangelical book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Athiest." Google for it and you'll see how TruthInspector is just stealing straight from it, cut and paste, word for word, without giving the real authors credit.

Shame on you, self-appointed "truth inspector." Stealing other people's work is bad. Go to your room until you apologize for the plagiarism.

TruthInspector wrote on June 02, 2013 at 3:06 pm

When one can't refute the message, they attack the messenger.

spangwurfelt wrote on June 02, 2013 at 6:06 pm

When one can't refute the plagiarism charge because one knows it is true, one tries to change the subject.

Are all conservative Christians this disingenuous, or are you just bringing dishonor to them through your lies and evasions, such as your claiming the words of the authors you plagiarized as your own?

Do tell.

TruthInspector wrote on June 02, 2013 at 9:06 pm

The original discussion was on whether God created the universe or whether the universe created itself out of nothing. You were the one that changed the subject to something totally different. Like most liberals, when you don't have a logical, reasoned answer you side-step the issue and resort to name-calling rather than dealing with the main issue at hand.

spangwurfelt wrote on June 03, 2013 at 6:06 am

"The original discussion was on whether God created the universe or whether the universe created itself out of nothing."

Actually, the original discussion was about Chick-Fil-A. Then you wandered in, asserted your superior morality, and then stole two posts worth of writing from people you still haven't admitted you stole from. When caught out, you started slanging "liberals" as a way to change the subject.

"You were the one that changed the subject to something totally different."

I attack plagiarism, no matter which side it appears on. That you wrap your arguments about your allegedly superior moral stance in words you can't bring yourself to admit you've stolen outright does you no credit.

What does your religion tell you to do to make amends when you've stolen something? Now is the time to do it.

alabaster jones 71 wrote on June 03, 2013 at 7:06 am
Profile Picture

I think his religion tells him to further dodge the question and to call you a liberal some more.

Oh, I'm sorry....that's what God is telling him to do.