Who's more bigoted and intolerant

[GURPS]

Consider the overt bigotry of this headline statement: Chick-fil-A’s “emphasis on community…suggests an ulterior motive. The restaurant’s corporate purpose begins with the words ‘to glorify God,’ and that proselytism thrums below the surface of its new Fulton Street restaurant, which has the ersatz homespun ambiance of a megachurch.”

[clip]

Yet, Piepenbring is actually arguing that a chicken sandwich chain owned by Christians is somehow culturally dangerous enough to warrant exclusion and ostracizing from society. This is exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination that rights of conscience bills are designed to protect against, so that someone like Piepenbring cannot stop a business from operating simply because he hates the business’ religious messages.

My bet is that this attack piece would never have been published if it were against any other religion or suspect class under law. Can you imagine a mainstream publication claiming kosher restaurants are “infiltrating” and aren’t part of the rightful community of New Yorkers because the writer is anti-Semitic and wants Jewish restaurants eradicated from his city?

Or what if a Midwestern opinion writer objected to a Muslim Halal butcher coming into their community and used the word “infiltration?” Too many Qu’ran references behind closed doors at corporate. Wouldn’t the guardians of religious freedom at The New Yorker object to that pejorative characterization? Why are only Christians the target of their ire?


Who's more bigoted and intolerant: Chick-fil-A or the New Yorker writer who attacked it?

 

[GURPS]

New Yorker To Christians: We Don’t Want Your Kind Around Here
Evidently, Dan Piepenbring can’t understand why Chick-fil-A is so popular with New York City residents, given the city’s progressive political and social leanings.



That makes this recent New Yorker article by Dan Piepenbring—memorably entitled “Chick-fil-A’s Creepy Infiltration of New York City”—all the more incoherent. According to Piepenbring’s screed, which lacks content beyond Ewww-These-People-Aren’t-Like-Me, Chick-fil-A’s arrival in the Big Apple “raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.” Evidently, Piepenbring can’t understand why the restaurant is so popular with NYC residents, given the city’s progressive political and social leanings. How can this be?

Why People Keep Buying Chick-fil-A

Since he’s having trouble grasping this, I’ll help him out. First of all, Chick-fil-A food is delicious, as anyone who’s ever tasted an Original Chicken Sandwich or a Chicken Biscuit well knows. Second, Chick-fil-A is beneficial to communities because it treats its workers well and screens its franchisees rigorously, ensuring a high standard of quality across all the chain’s restaurants.

Third, Chick-fil-A is a pleasant environment because its employees are friendly and respectful and its facilities are spotless. Also, for what it’s worth, when pressed about perceived “anti-LGBT” stances, the restaurant focused its donations elsewhere. So, by any sensible standard, Chick-fil-A should be a model company for any progressive interested in workers’ rights and community reinvestment. What more could Chick-fil-A do to be one of the “good guys”?

But Piepenbring is having none of it. In perhaps the article’s most ludicrous segment, he criticizes Chick-fil-A’s cow-driven advertising campaigns by “asking why Americans fell in love with an ad in which one farm animal begs us to kill another in its place. Most restaurants take pains to distance themselves from the brutalities of the slaughterhouse; Chick-fil-A invites us to go along with the Cows’ Schadenfreude.”

 

[GURPS]

The New Yorker Publishes Hate Piece Against Chick-fil-A’s Christian Ethos
Liberals can’t stand the success of a Christian-run company selling folks fried chicken sandwiches successfully with a smile.



[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/984842437641240583[/TWITTER]


The article’s quick history of the restaurant cherry-picks Christian beliefs to justify its bias against Christianity.

Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays. Its C.E.O., Dan Cathy, has been accused of bigotry for using the company’s charitable wing to fund anti-gay causes, including groups that oppose same-sex marriage. ‘We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation,’ he once said, ‘when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’’ The company has since reaffirmed its intention to ‘treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,’ but it has quietly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups.​

It’s true, the late S. Truett Cathy was an outspoken Christian who integrated Christian ethos into the company’s vision and mission. Orthodox Christianity has since its beginning and through today opposed homosexual behavior, so there’s no surprise here. Because of its owners’ also Christian views about Christ’s love for sinners, the company has shown love and grace—through fried chicken sandwiches, of course—to communities in need over and over again, including communities grieving over gay loved ones. Apparently showing love to imperfect people is too confusing a stance for New Yorker writers to handle.

Following the shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, local folks gathered in line to donate blood. Employees of a nearby Chick-fil-A opened the restaurant, although it’s normally closed on Sundays to give employees time with their families, and gave donors food while they were waiting. Stories like this abound, yet there’s no mention of this kind of repeated generosity from the company.

[clip]

Piepenbring is right about a couple things: Chick-fil-A is successful. The company generates more revenue than any other fast food restaurant does, and it’s not even open seven days a week. In 2016, the average sales per restaurant were $4.4 million. That same year, the chain generated $8 billion in revenue.

 

[vraiblonde]

But Piepenbring is having none of it. In perhaps the article’s most ludicrous segment, he criticizes Chick-fil-A’s cow-driven advertising campaigns by “asking why Americans fell in love with an ad in which one farm animal begs us to kill another in its place. Most restaurants take pains to distance themselves from the brutalities of the slaughterhouse; Chick-fil-A invites us to go along with the Cows’ Schadenfreude.”

 

[Kyle]

and just think… The insides of their minds look like this, in many cases, without the addition of drugs.

 

[SamSpade]

It's been my meager experience that the left is not actually tolerant at all.
They think they are, because the scope of what they accept, they feel is broader than others - but that's not tolerance.
Tolerance is your behavior towards things you DON'T agree with, what you DON'T like.
And they have ZERO room for that.

 

[GURPS]

Just look at how Sappy treats Christians on here .........

 

[Hijinx]

Well a black man can use the toilet without buying a sandwich, They have Starbucks beat.

 

[littlelady]

It's been my meager experience that the left is not actually tolerant at all.
They think they are, because the scope of what they accept, they feel is broader than others - but that's not tolerance.
Tolerance is your behavior towards things you DON'T agree with, what you DON'T like.
And they have ZERO room for that.

You summed up a very convoluted and complicated situation in a very concise and knowledgeable way.

 

[black dog]

Well a black man can use the toilet without buying a sandwich, They have Starbucks beat.

What I find interesting is, when you watch some of videos with what's happening at Starbucks, they have mentioned and shown a pushbutton combo door lock on the restroom doors in some locations.. There's more to this than what's being reported..
I'm not buying it's a race issue, Starbucks is about as diverse as it gets with hiring folks. I'm betting in certain stores there is just to much free use and abuse and it's impacted the bottom line in those stores. Unless you buy, you ain't gonna pee.

 

[GURPS]

I’m Not Religious, and I Eat Chick-fil-A


Yes, Chick-fil-A’s CEO is a Christian. So what?

The New Yorker published an essay by Dan Piepenbring condemning Chick-fil-A’s existing in New York City — claiming that its “Christian traditionalism” makes the presence of the chain feel like a “creepy infiltration.”

Chick-fil-A’s “headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet,” Piepenbring continues. “Its stores close on Sundays.”

(Oh the horror!)

Piepenbring also explains that Chick-fil-A’s CEO, Dan Cathy, is opposed to gay marriage and that in the past he has donated to groups that oppose gay marriage.

Personally, I’m not religious. So . . . do I feel like this Christian-owned chicken chain is infiltrating my city? Do I associate the smell of its fried food with bigotry and hate?

Nope. I associate it with chicken. Piepenbring may attest that Chick-fil-A’s locations in New York City feel like an “infiltration,” but to me, it just feels like I can get a delicious sandwich only one block from my office. I can have that sweet chicken biscuit in the morning and that delectable lunch sandwich, with extra pickles, in the afternoon.

Let me be clear: I say all of this as someone who supports gay rights. To say that I disagree strongly with the view that homosexuality is immoral would be an understatement. I absolutely do believe that gay people should be able to get married; I don’t think that the government should have the power to tell any consenting adults that they can’t get married. I also sometimes like to eat some chicken.

For what it’s worth, Cathy has also made it clear that he respects people regardless of their sexual orientation. According to a statement on Chick-fil-A’s official Facebook page:

“The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.”

 

[GURPS]

Return of the Feckless Chick-Fil-A-Phobes


Chick-fil-A's corporate mission to "glorify God" and "enrich the lives of everyone we touch" leaves The New Yorker scribe terminally heartsick about the "ulterior motive" of its restaurant execs. So do the founding family's commitments to faithful marriages, strong families, Sundays off and the highest standards of character for their employees. The frightened New Yorker critic is especially perturbed by the "Bible verses" enshrined at Chick-fil-A's Atlanta headquarters and by the restaurant's popular bovine mascots -- which he dubs "morbid" and the "ultimate evangelists" -- whose ubiquity on New York billboards and subway corridors is akin to a "carpet bombing."

Notice, by the way, how these hysterical Chick-fil-a-phobes have no qualms about the success of Jewish-owned delis or the spread of Muslim halal food shop operators in New York City who openly pay tribute to their faiths. Imagine a reporter freaking out over Quran verses or Torah citations hung up on a business owner's wall. Welcome to Social Justice 101, where discriminating against Christian-owned business in the name of opposing discrimination is the definition of tolerance.

We've been here before, of course. It was a liberal activist reporter and gay marriage advocate at The New York Times, Kim Severson, who helped launch the first nationwide witch hunt against Chick-fil-A in 2011. The former vice president of the National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association used her straight-news platform to invoke fear of "evangelical Christianity's muscle flexing" and spread false and libelous attacks on Chick-fil-A founder Truett Cathy and his family as "anti-gay." Her propagandizing in the radical rag of record helped stoke boycotts and regulatory crackdowns by pandering Democrat Mayors Thomas Menino in Boston, Rahm Emanuel in Chicago, and New York City's Bill de Blasio.

Ultimately, those media-manufactured efforts to stifle Chick-fil-A's free enterprise and First Amendment rights failed. The company's products have proved irresistible to customers on all sides of the political spectrum. Gastronomical satisfaction trumps anti-Christian zealotry and zealous anti-Trumpism.