The Bucknuts Hot Spot

typical lib way ... they are not for freedom of views

Agreed. We don't eat a lot of fast food but when my family does it will be Chick Fil A. While we are at, I'd suggest organizing a travel boycott of Chicago and send that Napoleon complex flaming liberal mayor a message of our own (I normally host a significant business conference there each year but I think we will head south for our next one)... http://www.suntimes.com/news/13988905-418/emanuel-goes-after-chick-fil-a-for-boss-anti-gay-views.html

They are based here in Atlanta so I have been eating at them for decades. A huge fan. Also the Chick-fil-A Bowl is in Atlanta and hope it gets a piece of the new playoff picture (they are on the short list).

I'm a huge fan of theirs like others. The best run fast food chain by far. Hands down, no comparison. Their high school workers get scholarship money. How cool is that?

They refuse to open on Sunday's leaving literally millions on the table in the process due to their value system. I really respect that. Unfortunately too many times I crave one on a Sunday and then I cuss them. LOL

They should have kept their mouths shut on this issue. Who really cares what they think? It will pass.

But concerning the hypocritical left, here is a good article.
_______________________________________________________________

THE DISTURBING ATTACKS on Chick-fil-A

2:07 pm July 26, 2012, by Kyle Wingfield

There’s one part of Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s recent remarks that the left seems especially intent on disproving: the part where he said,

… we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.

The rest of Cathy’s comments, if you haven’t already heard, concerned his opinion of the propriety of gay marriage from a biblical perspective. As retribution for his voicing this opinion, some liberals in Chicago and Boston want to deny Cathy and his company the right to operate in their cities.

This is disturbing on a number of levels, two in particular.

The first is the idea that local governments might deny a business license to a company because of the beliefs of its owners. In Chicago, Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno threatened to do just that in his ward. (The city’s mayor, former Obama aide Rahm Emanuel, was more oblique, voicing sympathy with Moreno’s perspective but saying only that a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Chicago “would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”)

As Elizabeth Scalia notes, this is how fascism works. As the far-from-right-wing Boston Globe editorialized, in response to Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s statement that “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston” and that the company shouldn’t be allowed to open a store near famed Faneuil Hall along the city’s — first irony alert! — Freedom Trail:

… which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license. … If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.

Menino has since backtracked on his threat. Moreno appears to be digging in, although some of his fellow aldermen take a different view.

The second is the way Menino and Moreno are twisting the definition of the word “discrimination” to apply it to Cathy’s objection to — second irony alert! — the redefinition of the word “marriage” to apply to same-sex couples.

“You can’t have a business in the City of Boston that discriminates against a population,” Menino told the Boston Herald to explain his desire to keep Chick-fil-A out of his city.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Chicago Tribune.

But I have yet to see the first shred of evidence Chick-fil-A is actually discriminating against gay couples. Menino and Moreno cited no reports that same-sex couples in a Chick-fil-A restaurant have been denied service or asked to leave, nor any instances of gay employees or job applicants being dismissed due to their sexual orientation. This is hardly comparable to a Southern lunch counter turning away black customers half a century ago.

Nor could anyone accurately describe Cathy or Chick-fil-A as influential political agitators who are enabling some sort of “discrimination.” While much was made back in March of the company’s donations to groups that promote the traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the company is practically silent in terms of donations to politicians and political organizations. According to the Sunlight Foundation, the sum total of all political donations by the company, its employees and its PAC, between 1989 and 2012, was just $177,410 — about $7,400 a year. And even this meager spending does not appear to have been tied to the issue of gay marriage.

If a mere difference of opinion with elected officials is enough to qualify as “discrimination,” then in some way or another virtually every employer would be, as Cathy put it in the interview that sparked this episode, guilty as charged. Civil society itself would be fractured irretrievably. As Scalia asked,

… where does the “punishment” spiral stop? The press declares Chick-fil-A “homophobic” (a dishonest word) and then the local governments start penalizing them for it; Jim Henson’s outfit stomps off. What next? Will people against gay marriage start boycotting Muppet stuff? Pyres of Elmo in support of Chick-fil-A’s right to be itself?

We’re already seeing a preliminary version of this: Activists are encouraging same-sex couples to visit Chick-fil-A stores next Friday for a “National Same-Sex Kiss Day”; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is encouraging fellow social conservatives to “buycott” the company by patronizing its restaurants en masse next Wednesday.

Does anyone see this thing headed toward reconciliation?

The idea at the foundation of our freedom of speech is often said to have been summarized by the French philosopher Voltaire: “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It’s a long way from Voltaire’s France to Menino’s Boston and Moreno’s Chicago, and the direction is a very disheartening one.

– By Kyle Wingfield

It's pretty disturbing to see that municipalities were talking of restrictions to keep them out - which is nothing less than censorship. However, what is most troubling is that one such person is Rahm Emanuel, who served in the President's administration during the time that the President had the same stance on the subject as Chick-fil-A's CEO until Obama decided it was politically expedient to "evolve" his position prior to this election. Funny, but I seem to forget Rahm banning the President from visiting Chicago prior to the President's evolution on the subject.

Funny!

An excerpt from the article I posted.

… which part of the First Amendment does Menino not understand? A business owner’s political or religious beliefs should not be a test for the worthiness of his or her application for a business license. … If the mayor of a conservative town tried to keep out gay-friendly Starbucks or Apple, it would be an outrage.

I agree, let the buying public not use their product, but the Mayors should stay out, if Religion is the reason...

Edit
After talking to my Lawyer, he said, they have no grounds to stop them from opening a store... He also said, he thought the Mayors said, "they didn't want them in their City".... Which is not the same as they can't....

I eat Chick Fil A and Ben and Jerry's. Does that make me an Independant?

Lol, not even Ben and Jerry's can make that happen! +1

the Windy city....just call it little Mexico....

I don't have a problem with people boycotting anything for any reason.

As a Capitalist, I support boycotting. Its a sincere method of self-policing a market economy and we should celebrate it.

If you truly want to help Chik-fil-a, then you should eat there every day.

Just as I don't have a problem with people who refuse to eat there because of someone's stance on gay marriage, I also don't have a problem with someone who chooses to eat there exclusively because it as well.

Personally, I support Gay marriage. But I'm going to eat there if I get a craving. However, I don't have to boycott them. I never eat there anyway because every damn time I want a chicken biscuit its on a Sunday. So Chik-fil-a has effectively made business decisions that exclude me from their market either way.

Anyone who is a true supporter of a free market economy should have no issue with consumers making the decision to boycott. The beauty of this freedom is consumers making these decisions. Businesses all over America are trying to connect with consumers on issues outside of their marketplace. Such as the economy, education, poverty, environment and certainly morality. Because they actively participate as such, they certainly deserve to be judged by these decisions.

If the President of Chik-fil-a didn't want the bad press, he probably shouldn't have said anything.

Admittedly, it is kind of odd that this comes as a surprise to people. Did the Gay community not know the guy was seriously religious? I thought everyone knew. Its not a secret.

I agree!

People are a creature of habit, unless something impacts that habit..... On Tuesday, they are having chick day, where supporters of saids opinion will eat..... Those that support the Owner will make an effort to eat there, then the vast majority will go back to their habits..... But those that are truly offended will block chick from their choices...

Will it effect me, no. I have eaten there less than 5 times in my life, and I eat out at least 5 times a week.... My not eating there had zero to do with his position, as I wasn't aware of his political views....

Just read this thread for the first time. One of the funniest I've ever seen.

Chicken Guy talks and behaves in ways very insulting to the gay way of life. Some supporters of gay rights formed a boycott of his eateries. Cons on here jump all over the evil, hateful, crazy libs for daring to boycott the grease pits which they see as interfering with Chicken Guy's right to free speech.

The huge irony and hypocrisy here is absolutely hilarious. Here are just some of the posts that are guilty of both:

"typical lib way ... they are not for freedom of views" (printed twice so no one would miss the point I guess)

"I guess he lost his first amendment right . People have lost their minds"

Agreeing with the above: "Agreed. We don't eat a lot of fast food but when my family does it will be Chick Fil A. While we are at, I'd suggest organizing a travel boycott of Chicago and send that Napoleon complex flaming liberal mayor a message of our own (I normally host a significant business conference there each year but I think we will head south for our next one)"

"I normally only eat fast food once a week but I might have to stop in a few extra times to show my support."

"Silly posters! Don't you know freedom of speech only applies to liberals?"

And so forth.

So it is okay to jump all over the libs" own 1st Amendment Rights to respond to what most gays consider hate speech, by claiming they are interfering with the first Amendment rights for their anti-gay guy. Amazing the depth of the hypocrisy.

As for the sample posts I copied above, as they show their disgust and claim the boycotters are anti-free speech even though we know the SC has ruled that money is speech. They claim libs are not for freedom of views and while criticizing the libs for this they are disagreeing with the libs' different view. Libs have lost their minds because "he" lost his first amendment right - because evidently libs exercised their free speech rights wrongly.

One of my FCsF agrees the libs' boycott cost the Chicken Guy his first amendment right and then wants to organize a boycott for all of Chicago, bragging that from his thrown he will do so for his own company, because he does not agree with the views of the mayor. Our own Jules Winnfield: And I Will Strike Down Upon Thee With Great Vengeance and Furious Anger Those Who Attempt to Post and Disagree with My Views."

Evidently one poster meant cons instead of libs, rights are for cons silly wrabbit.

And for the pièce de résistance of preposterous irony and hypocrisy, those who slammed the libs for boycotting the Chicken Guy, claiming it rose to the level of actual denial of his right to free speech, evidently are planning to do an anti-boycott and do a Norquistian pledge to eat deep fried chicken parts
on buns and waffle fries. Some are doing it despite it meaning that they have to break their health rules and Mr. Let's-compare-resumes-because-I-am-a-corporate-god is claiming he will lower his standards to eat fast food, though I think he has mistaken waffle fries for truffle fries.

I would suggest eating there for all meals for a couple months, except of course on opposite Sundays when Chicken Guy goes to church to praise Jesus' love for all, so he is covered with the Big Guy as he talks gay hate the other six days while trying to force his religious views on others without regard to their 1st Amendment Right to freedom of religion. Eat there often for long enough then you will finally appreciate the patients' rights woven into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.