News

Eat mor chikin and help fund homophobia

BUILT on “Christian principles” by crazy Southern Baptist S Truett Cathy, Chick-Fil-A is an Atlanta-based junk food chain of some 1,6000 outlets that is helping to fuel homophobia in the US.

Billionaire bigot S Truett Cathy

It has just emerged that the chain spent $5 million between 2003 and 2010 to support anti-gay organisations and hate groups.

The company was founded in 1946 and trashes literacy by using the motto ”Eat mor chikin” in its advertising. Its founder is described by GiantsforGod.com as:

One of the finest Christian entreprenuers (sic) in American history, this person exemplifies what all Christian businessmen should strive to be in the workplace.

Two interesting things about the 91-year-old wingnut from Forbes:

• His is rich to the tune of $1.6-billion (well, he was in 2007).

• And he owns the Batmobile from Batman Returns.

According to a report released yesterday by Equality Matters, a part of Media Matters. Chick-Fil-A donated over $3 million to outfits like the Family Research Council and Exodus International between 2003 and 2009. And in 2010 alone, Chick-fil-A donated over $1.9 million to anti-gay causes, more than any other year for which public records are available.

Chick-Fil-A channels donations through its charitable arm, the WinShape Foundation which was set up by Cathy in 1984.

Some of the other anti-gay organisations and hate groups Chick-Fil-A’s money has supported include Marriage & Family Foundation, Fellowship Of Christian Athletes, and the Georgia Family Council. The Family Research Council (FRC), mentioned above, is a certified anti-gay hate group.

Florida teacher Jerry Buell, who last year wrote on Facebook that same sex marriage almost made him throw up, is a member of the Fellowship Of Christian Athletes.

Wikipedia adds:

S Truett Cathy is a devout Southern Baptist; his religious beliefs have a major impact on the company. The company’s official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists ‘To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us. To have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A’.

Cathy’s beliefs are also responsible for one of the chain’s distinctive features: All Chick-fil-A locations (company-owned and franchised, whether in a mall or freestanding) are closed on Sundays, as well as on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

 

49 Responses to “Eat mor chikin and help fund homophobia”

  1. Matt Westwood says:

    So Sunday is a good day to perform nefarious acts of mischief, then?

  2. barriejohn says:

    S Truett Cathy, Chick-fil-A, Eat Mor Chiken. This site gets worse by the day, Barry!

    Samuel Truett Cathy: Truth – ace tasty mule

  3. Ivan says:

    Many Roman Catholic priests are partial to chicken.

  4. AgentCormac says:

    “The company’s official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists ‘To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us’.”

    Don’t suppose the chickens would think they’re living up to that commitment.

  5. Stuart W says:

    Presumably One Million Moms have admonished Cathy and Chick-Fil-A for not remaining ‘neutral in the culture war’ as they did with JC Penny a few months ago.
    Perhaps not.

  6. Angela_K says:

    These idiots would rather give millions to fund bigoted organisations than help the poor; which goes against the teachings of their imaginary friend.

    These sort of food companies tend to use poultry that has been intensively reared in poor conditions. But that’s OK if you are a christian because gawd gave you dominion over the animals.

  7. fester60613 says:

    Just emerged?!?! We’ve been boycotting Chic-Fil-A in Chicago for THREE YEARS!

  8. Matt Westwood says:

    “1,6000 outlets” – get this straight: is it 1,600 or 16,000?

  9. Broga says:

    Aged 91! When Truett (ah love these names) drops of the perch he unfortuneately will not know that his beliefs are all chicken shit. This seems unfair to me. These nutters don’t discover that they have been believing bollocks much of their lives. I suppose he thinks the world was created 6,000 years ago and I don’t suppose he is an enthusiast for Higgs Bosun.

    Don’t want to be lookist but Truett does look like a seriously pukey person. Yuk!

  10. Carly says:

    Wait, I thought Freethinker meant someone who thinks for themselves, not blindly accepts someone else’s views? So why do I get the impression that only “acceptable” opinions are welcome here? Maybe you are not as free-thinking as you would like to believe. Don’t tell me what opinions I ought to hold: I’ll make my own mind up thank you very much!

  11. Daz says:

    Carly

    You’re welcome to post any view you like here. And we’re just as welcome to point at you in scorn and derision. Free speech; great, ain’t it.

    —————————————–

    who last year wrote on Facebook that same sex marriage almost made him throw up

    That’s okay matey. The thought of jumping out of an aircraft at 2,000 feet has the same effect on me. The difference being, I realise that all I have to do to avoid things I don’t like is, well, avoid doing them.

    Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t marry someone of the same sex.

  12. barriejohn says:

    Carly: Are you retarded? No one is being told what to think here.

    Eat mor chikin and help fund homophobia
    By Barry Duke– July 5, 2012

    The article represents the opinions of Barry Duke, as is made clear. If you disagree you are quite free to say so, as you obviously haven’t been barred from posting your own views, have you? If you support this moron you’ll probably be hauled over the coals for it by other visitors to the site, but that’s another thing entirely. As you say: it’s freedom of thought and expression!

  13. Daz says:

    Bariejohn, I resent you telling me to think that Barry isn’t telling me what to think. Mean, man nasty man, you are.

  14. the Woggler says:

    I think the batmobile from Batman Returns was ok. But the one in Batman Begins was just awesome. Now that’s a vehicle I’d love to own.

  15. barriejohn says:

    Daz: Stop thinking that way!

  16. Carly says:

    “No one is being told what to think here.” barriejohn.

    Except that they clearly are. This is not a news story; its an Op-Ed piece (Barry Duke is still the Editor I assume?), the whole tone of which suggests that any opposition to gay marriage, for whatever reason, is to be dismissed (with scorn and derision) as unconscionable. The use of language: “crazy Southern Baptist”, “wingnut”, “homophobia”, shows the author’s contempt for any opinion other than his own. Being an atheist does not automatically mean you have to support the Editor’s pet project, and, frankly, conflating atheism with gay rights activism seems a bit cynical and calculating to me. But that’s just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions…

  17. Daz says:

    This is not a news story; its an Op-Ed piece

    Wow! Well spotted.

    the whole tone of which suggests that any opposition to gay marriage, for whatever reason, is to be dismissed (with scorn and derision) as unconscionable.

    Well then, give me a case for opposing same-sex marriage that isn’t objectionable. So far I’ve never seen one.

    The use of language: “crazy Southern Baptist”, “wingnut”, “homophobia”, shows the author’s contempt for any opinion other than his own.

    Again, wow! Someone shows contempt for a person who advocates denying someone human rights? Know what? I share that contempt.

    Being an atheist does not automatically mean you have to support the Editor’s pet project,

    Indeed, please point to where the editor is forcing you to agree with him.

    and, frankly, conflating atheism with gay rights activism seems a bit cynical and calculating to me.

    Well if all we’re allowed to talk about is actual atheism, here’s how the conversation goes…

    “Do you believe in god?”
    “Nope.”
    “Me neither.”

    Fact is, most atheists, or at least those who take an active stance, tend to be in favour of human rights. Another fact is that the majority of anti-LGBT rights campaigns are promoted on religious grounds and funded by religious bodies—which makes it an issue any anti-theist atheist will be concerned with, even if only peripherally.

    But that’s just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions…

    I know what I think about your opinion…

  18. Stonyground says:

    Atheism and defending gay rights do tend to go together because most of the justification for treating gay people unfairly comes from religion. If gay people want to get married, I personally cannot think of a single good reason for preventing them from doing so. It appears to me that many religious folk cannot find happiness unless they have some out-group that they can hate and pick on.

  19. chrsbol says:

    Seems like the Moroccans aren’t that keen either. From what I remember of Morocco it had a very large gay communities and everyone got along fine.Some nasty comments on here folks.

    http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/02/224093.html

  20. Carly says:

    Daz, I can’t imagine that I need to write an essay on the nature of “Rights” for you; I’m sure you know the arguments well enough. I respect your right to your opinion and your right to express it, even if I don’t agree with it. The trouble with living in a “Rights Culture” is that it leads to a clash of Rights; hence the exponential growth of Human Rights Lawyers and reference to the Courts for arbitration. Some people think that claiming a Right gives them the unassailable moral high ground; and consequently end of discussion. Despite your assertion, opposition does not only come from a religious perspective; liberals can have objections as well. You might like to read http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12539/ before jerking your knee at that suggestion. love and peace.

  21. remigius says:

    ‘This is not a news story; its an Op-Ed piece (Barry Duke is still the Editor I assume?).@

    Er Carly. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means. An Op-Ed, meaning an article opposite to the editorial page, is written by someone who has no connection the editing of a publication.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

    Maybe you meant opinion piece?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_piece

  22. AgentCormac says:

    Personally, I’ve always admired the fact that the lunacy, inhumanity, mean-spirited nature and sheer wrongness of religion gets given a bloody good kicking in every department here at The Freethinker.

    So whether the subject (I’m going to miss lots of them, but I’m sure you’ll get my drift) is child abuse, hypocrisy, mutilation, misappropriation of funds, wasting tax-payers’ money on papal visits, fanaticism, the separation of church and state, creationist theme parks, inappropriate proselytising, child neglect due to religious beliefs, iron-age laws being asserted in 21st-century society, intolerance, the denigration of women and yes, even homophobia, it’s good to know that perpetrators of religious hatred and its associated claptrap will be held down and given a bloody good hitchslapping by regulars and occasional visitors alike.

    Of course, the entire process is always made infinitely more enjoyable when apologists decide to drop in and attempt to defend the indefencible or explain away the inexplicable.

    So, Carly, welcome to the fray. Despite what you assert we really aren’t being told what to think here. Like Barry Duke, we all just happen to hold religion, in its very many revolting manifestations, in utter and absolute contempt.

  23. remigius says:

    Daz. Stop persecuting Carly!

  24. Daz says:

    Carly

    This really is very simple. There is no conflict of rights. (By the way, did you spot where I used the word ‘majority’? I put it in that sentence for a purpose, not just as decoration.)

    Unless you can show me actual evidence that same-sex marriage causes harm just by existing, then gay people, as human beings, deserve the same right to marry that heterosexual people enjoy.

    To clarify. I don’t want opinions, or philosophical treaties, or arguments about what might be the effect. Without actual evidence, the default position on any social equality issue should always be on the side of equal rights, with such rights only being denied or removed in the face of very strong evidence that such denial is in the best interest of society.

    If you cannot show me such evidence, but continue to oppose same-sex marriage, you are, in actuality, denying gay people equality with other human beings: you are denying them human rights.

  25. Carly says:

    As do I, Cormac, as do I.

  26. Daz says:

    remigius

    You never let me have any fun!

  27. Carly says:

    Ok Daz, I was wrong; seems that I DO need to write you an essay on the nature of Rights. And you “don’t want opinions”, unless of course they agree with yours. Nice. Seems like that knee of yours just help jerking, can it? Which only goes to show what we already know; its not only religious zealots who close their minds. Peace out.

  28. remigius says:

    ‘…seems that I DO need to write you an essay on the nature of Rights.’

    Ooh. This should be good!

    Looks like we’ve got our own Thomas Paine.

  29. Daz says:

    Carly

    Please, take your essay and shove it where the sun doth not shine.

    Gay people are human.
    Human beings are (supposed to be) equal in the eyes of the law.
    To treat one group as not being equal, with no sound, evidence-based reason for doing so, is unethical.

    That’s all the essay I need on rights, thanks.

  30. Stonyground says:

    @Carly
    What on earth makes you think that we don’t want opinions that we disagree with? Open discussion is by far the best way to arrive at the truth. If you think that you have a case then present your evidence and make it. If your case stands up to scrutiny then we will acknowledge it. If your case is flawed then we will point out where we think that you are wrong. Why is this a difficult concept?

  31. Ivan says:

    @ Carly

    Why not write an essay, send it in to Barry and ask him to publish it so we can all see what you’ve got by way of actual evidence and comment accordingly?

    My guess is that you’ll fall at the first fence by ascribing human rights to ideas as opposed to, well, humans or at the second fence by not recognising the necessary superiority of intrinsic qualities over mere opinion when it comes to a “clash of rights”. But there you go, prove me wrong.

    PS. Send a side copy to Nelson Mandella, Ban Ki Moon, Desmond Tutu and Presidents Obama, Clinton and Carter to name but a few to see if they change their minds.

  32. The Vicar says:

    • His is rich to the tune of $1.6-billion (well, he was in 2007).

    • And he owns the Batmobile from Batman Returns.

    And he sells really crummy chicken, to boot, which fast food customers continue to buy in spite of superior products being available.

    In other words, he’s the fast food equivalent of Rob Liefield.

  33. Broga says:

    @Carly: I would like to read your essay on human rights. Let’s see what you’ve got. It is one thing to shoot from the hip with a few sentences at something written at length by someone else. Quite another to lay out one’s own opinion and, if necessary, defend them. I look forward to reading your comments at more length.

  34. barriejohn says:

    Carl: You have misread Daz’s comment. He actually says, “To clarify. I don’t want opinions…about what might be the effect”, etc. That’s all. And no one wants to read mere prejudices wrapped up as informed opinion (a speciality of the religious) either! (I speak as an ex-evangelical, BTW, and can assure you that most of the time they are trying as much to convince themselves as anyone else.) I don’t agree with all that Frank Furedi says, but his conclusion is basically sound: that marriage needs redefining, and should serve the needs of those involved. He seems to overlook the many elderly people who have married as a way of sealing a close and loving relationship. If we accept the church’s narrow definition of marriage, surely they should refuse to carry out unions in such circumstances, and the state should not recognize them as anything more than partnerships? They certainly aren’t setting up family units when in their nineties! And FF clearly has no deeply held and irrational prejudice against gay people or gay marriage, which is what most of us object to.

    PS Your rant about the “rights culture” could have come straight out of the Daily Mail. Bring it on, I say, even if it means the narrow-minded and bigotted also claiming their “rights”. As others have said, these things need to be thrashed out in public so that we all know where we stand and what our rights really are.

  35. Daz says:

    He actually says, “To clarify. I don’t want opinions…about what might be the effect”, etc.

    Thanks for pointing that out Barriejohn. Twould probably have been easier to read if I hadn’t borked the emphasis tag, but even so, that’s twice Carli has ‘conveniently’ missed a crucial word. Cherry-picking, or merely bad at reading for comprehension, I wonder?

  36. AgentCormac says:

    I’m sincerely delighted to learn that you’re actually one of us, Carly. The more sane people out there the better, as far as I’m concerned.

    As for the ongoing little spat you seem to be having here, the following, for what it’s worth, represents my two-penneth on the subject.

    Me, I’m 100% heterosexual. But I can fully understand why the tenets of religion are particularly hurtful and abhorrent to the gay community. Just as to my mind those tenets should seem equally repellent and unjust to every single woman on the planet as religions of all flavours seem to have little if any respect for them/you. At best.

    I do not and would never advocate unthinking adherence to any creed. That’s precisely what we criticise the religiots for. But I do believe that if we are to succeed in overthrowing the appalling control that religious institutions exercise over societies, governments and the minds of billions, then it really would seem counterproductive to start picking futile arguments with other non-believers over what, to me, would appear to be damaging distractions over immaterial differences of opinion regarding reasons to unite against the monstrosity of religion.

    History shows that such schisms are the fast-track route to ineffectuality, obscurity and irrelevance. (Read Hitch 22 and you’ll see what I mean.) And I trust that none of us here would want to end up going down that particular road. Especially at a time when (according to the lead article in the latest edition of The Freethinker magazine) abominations such as the RCC have never been weaker or more vulnerable to attack.

    While we all may very well have different reasons for working towards the demise of religion, the common goal should, I honestly believe, take precedence over personal affiliations and loyalties.

    But hey, that’s just my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.

  37. jay says:

    There is one point that bugged me a bit about the piece: the describing the organizations as ‘anti gay’ (which they are) but that kind of frames the picture in a simplistic way … there is much more to these groups than that–it’s like calling Islam an ‘anti pork’ religion.

    They are pro-creationism, anti science, pro ‘abstinence’, pro theocracy, *anti atheist*, anti choice, anti birth control,… the list goes on and on… ‘anti gay’ is just one small bit of this iceberg and it seems that quite a few atheists seem to have become obsessed with this one issue.

    There are things going on that are more of a threat than the resistance to gay marriage.

  38. barriejohn says:

    One more thing, to which I have referred before:

    The Freethinker is an anti-Christian organ, and must therefore be chiefly aggressive. It will wage relentless war against Superstition in general, and against Christian Superstition in particular. It will do its best to employ the resources of Science, Scholarship, Philosophy and Ethics against the claims of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; and it will not scruple to employ for the same purpose any weapons of ridicule or sarcasm that may be borrowed from the armoury of Common Sense.

    G W Foote’s words, of 1881, quoted in About. There is more in the same vein as to how the war upon superstition is being continued today. Being a freethinkker doesn’t mean that your mind is open to any sort of nonsense!

  39. Buffy says:

    Stuart,
    Presumably One Million Moms have admonished Cathy and Chick-Fil-A for not remaining ‘neutral in the culture war’ as they did with JC Penny a few months ago.

    To the anti-gays, “remain neutral” means “side with us”.

    I’m glad to say I never ate at Chik-fil-a, even when I lived in the vicinity of them. I hate the idea of funding my own oppression.

  40. Marky Mark says:

    I never ate at a Chick-Fil-A, nor will I now.

    And the “crazy Southern Baptist” is the reason for our Civil War since they believed it is their god given right to enslave others for their own personal financial gain…this including beatings and torture, families being yanked apart…ect.

    And they still do it, only to every race, even their own. It is the south where the prisons for profit took a foothold…demanding a 90% incarceration rate, so many lesser crimes are punished by stiffer sentences. Than they farm out the prison workers to corporations like American Airlines, most likely a prisoner from Alabama is taking your airline reservation. The corps love the cheep labor, less people to hire on the outside that would demand a fair living wage.

  41. Daz says:

    Barriejohn

    Being a freethinkker doesn’t mean that your mind is open to any sort of nonsense!

    Good video on that very subject. Link

  42. Daz says:

    OT

    Talking of teh gheys, this is kinda fun: Guy comes out, gets criticised. Nothing new you’d think. But look what he gets criticised for. Link.

  43. remigius says:

    Daz. I’m like totally with his mates. When you gayed up Dixie Flatline last week I was a bit shocked. Not that I’m antipretty or anything, just that I surf on a Kindle when I’m aht-an-abaht and now your blog just looks like a black mess!

  44. barriejohn says:

    Daz: Obviously his friends are all gay but he doesn’t realize it!

  45. Daz says:

    Remigius

    Is it that bad? Any way you can get a screenshot on a Kindle? If it’s really horrendous I’ll let WordPress know about the issue (which is where a screenshot would be handy), and change to a better theme that works better on mobile devices.

    Re the link. Personally I was disgusted. There’s just no excuse for anyone to be using plain HTML instead of CSS in this day and age!

    And back on topic: Despite my ‘stick it where the sun don’t shine,’ I’m quite looking forward to Carly’s Tom Paine impersonation, should she ever return.

  46. Rosemary Lyndall Wemm says:

    I am always disgusted by people who say they feel disgust at the very concept of (male) homosexual relationships but apparently never consider that

    1. males with same sex preferences might have a similar reaction to the thought of having a sexual relationship with a woman,

    or

    2. males with same sex preferences might nevertheless feel revulsion at the thought of having sex with this bigoted male,

    or even that

    3. many women with a heterosexual preference might feel disgust at having a sexual relationship with the bigot.

  47. David says:

    No Mor Chikin!