Chick-fil-A for lunch today

[Sundowner]

Congratulations!

Regards
Sun


Chick-fil-A confirms 'record-setting day' on 'Appreciation Day'

Chick-fil-A announced Thursday morning that supporters who flocked to the restaurant for "Appreciation Day" propelled the company to a "record-setting day."

The statement confirmed anecdotal claims that the long lines seen at Chick-fil-A's across the country Wednesday fueled unprecedented sales. The turnout came after CEO Dan Cathy came under fire in some circles for his opposition to same-sex marriage.

"We are very grateful and humbled by the incredible turnout of loyal Chick-fil-A customers on August 1 at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country. We congratulate local Chick-fil-A Owner/Operators and their team members for striving to serve each and every customer with genuine hospitality," the company said in a statement. "While we don't release exact sales numbers, we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day."

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Fox News host who initially made the call for patrons to show up for "Appreciation Day," also said Thursday that the turnout went beyond "anything I could have imagined."

Huckabee said the call for an "Appreciation Day" was in response to what he described as "economic bullying" by people trying to put Cathy "out of business."

"It was just getting out of hand," Huckabee said.

The protests against Cathy included local mayors threatening to keep the restaurant out of their city.

But on Wednesday, stores were packed and lines poured into the streets.

"It's gone beyond anything I could have imagined," Huckabee told Fox News. "Every one of (the stores) that I know have reported record, historic sales yesterday. ... A lot of the stores ran out of chicken before the end of the day.".....<snip>.....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/02/huckabee-chick-fil-appreciation-day-beyond-anything-could-have-imagined/#ixzz22Qqj9FOb

[Ardy123]

Time to invest in companies that specialize in heart disease treatment....

[Wildcat1]

I have no problem conversing with someone of different opinions or beliefs

But when someone 'believes in the Bible' (your own words) they are basically admitting to a level of intelligence which makes them completely worthless when it comes to any kind of rational or logical discussion

It's that absolutist attitude that makes people like you look worthless at any "logical" discussion.

I believe in the Bible, and I support Dan Cathy, but I keep an open mind because it doesn't bother me. sure, the Earth was formed over billions of years, but I believe that that was God's idea of seven days. Just because I'm Christian, that automatically means I'm an absolutist biggot who denounces all of modern science?

It's unfortunate that the availability heuristic of a Christian is some conservative, judgemental old crow. like I said, I like to keep an open mind and be free of judgement, it reduces stress and frees my head.

believe what you want, but be careful about being so absolute about your veiw of "Christian" people.

and I can't believe this is still up. when His Skuzziness sees this tomorrow, we're all going to be banned

[coombz]

Just because I'm Christian, that automatically means I'm an absolutist biggot who denounces all of modern science?

Not at all! I wasn't slamming all Christians, or all people who believe in some kind of God...

just those like lambo who cling to blind faith and ignorance instead of embracing evident truths...there is no point talking to that kind of person, whereas you seem like a perfectly rational fellow

[Tank-Ace]

There are many benefits to be being married. For example obtaining medical insurance through a spouse's employer, the ability to file tax returns jointly, estate benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.

Domestic partnership give the same benefits? If so, then gay-rights activists can shut the hell up about 'marriage'. If people don't want to let gays and lesbians 'marry' for reasons of religious or tradition, thats perfectly fine and dandy.

If they continue to argue over what its called, they can see as much discrimination as people can dish out. And not because they're gay, but because their being stupid, and stiring up trouble over something unimportant.

And there are many same-sex couples that have children, both biological and adopted.

Ummm..... kinda irrelevent, and really just missing the point.

The biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Just de facto cohabitation does the same thing.

[Reaper90]

Not picking on you, DeadMan; your's was just a good jumping off point for my thoughts on this. First, it is indeed a first amendment issue, and Government doesn't need to be involved for someone's right to free speech to be infringed. However, in this case, government officials DID in fact become involved, issuing statements in their official capacity as mayors that this particular business (of a type otherwise allowed in many areas of their respective cities) was not welcomed, and only because of the belief expressed by the CEO of said company.  This is essentially applying a religeous test to the application of civil authority, which is so obviously a violation of the Constitution that both mayors have since backed off those statements.  A lot of the people who showed up yesterday to eat a CFA were people of like mind to Cathy, but many were just there to insure that people like Rahm Emanual understand that we still believe and support the constitution.  It is also perfectly in line with the 1st Amendment to refuse to eat at CFA because of Cathy's beliefs, and to state as much (so long as not acting in the capacity of a government official, where it might be construed as policy).

Regarding Cathy's statements, I'd like to point out a bit of hypocracy (well, perhaps more than just a "bit").  I recall hearing direct from President Obama's lips that he believed in the the traditional view of marriage as being between one man and one woman; this was only a year or two ago, as I recall, before his position "evolved".  I don't recall him being villified or told his "values aren't Chicago values", or otherwise told he wasn't welcome there or in Boston.  Yet, we have the brew-ha-ha now when a private citizen makes essentially the exact same statement. Consider, please.

For those who have expressed the belief that a town should be able to decide what businesses can open in their towns, it has already been pointed out that while a city government can decide what type of business can open in an area (often done through zoning laws), that decision must be applied universally to all businesses of that type. To put it in perspective, what if a town's mayor or city counsil said that a particular business owner's establishment was banned (or even just stated they'd be "unwelcomed") because the owner was gay?  I hope that I would be every bit as offended as what the mayors of Boston and Chicago attempted to do to CFA.  Would you?

Finally, to address the issue of what the bible says about morality and punishment, I would point out that something changed between the Old Testiment and the New Testiment; Jesus Christ.  Putting people to death for adultery, as an example, was called for in the Old Testiment. However, when Jesus had an adultering woman brought before Him, He bacially saved her.  This did not mean adultery was now okay.  No, what he said was that her sins were forgiven and to "go, and sin no more".  So, Cathy is not being inconsistent with the Bible simply because he is not insisting that horrible punishments be meeted out for things like adultery or fornication and such.  Christ did not change what was or was not sinful in God's eyes, only how we treat the sinners; with forgiveness when asked and with love, always.

Sabre
P.S. Went to CFA lastnight at 7:30PM and place was still slammed, but not a word of grumbling or incivilety.  Good chicken.

Thank you, Sabre. Nothing I can add that you haven't aleady fully covered.  

<--- we all had CFA tonight..... we previously rarely ever ate there, but we're now going to make it a regular thing, at least once every week or so. Heck, I don't even agree with or support Cathy's beliefs, but I absolutely detest leftists in government tring to use their power to discriminate against his business plans based solely on his expression of his personal beliefs, when in fact there have been NO instances of discrimination by his company or any of his employees.

[coombz]

Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all

They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them 

Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot

[SuperDud]

Good for you. Are you ready to stone your daughter in front of the village for premarital sex? You can't have one without the other.

Maybe it's easier for you to just take 50 sheckles for your daughter's virginity taken by a rapist rather than prosecute him for rape of a minor. The Bible says so.

Wow what a disgusting personal attack over what some rich guy said... classy!


I hope you get banned.

[shiv]

Domestic partnership give the same benefits? If so, then gay-rights activists can shut the hell up about 'marriage'. If people don't want to let gays and lesbians 'marry' for reasons of religious or tradition, thats perfectly fine and dandy.

If they continue to argue over what its called, they can see as much discrimination as people can dish out. And not because they're gay, but because their being stupid, and stiring up trouble over something unimportant.
 Ummm..... kinda irrelevent, and really just missing the point.

The biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Just de facto cohabitation does the same thing.

Settle down please. Domestic partnerships do not confer the same rights as marriage, hence, it's an issue for gay couples.

I'm not the one missing the point. You said:

...To be frank, I've always felt the biggest reason for marriage is to create a stable enviornment in which to raise children. Since gays are incapable of reproducing with eachother, its really kind of a non-issue. As for addopted children raised by gays, having two dads would draw more FlaK from haters than having 'parents' who aren't married.

And I pointed out that many same sex couples have children.

Very volatile issue, indeed.

[VonMessa]

Why has the whole "beef discrimination" issue not been addressed, yet?

 

[Reaper90]

Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all

They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them 

Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot

Are you referring to me, or Mr. Cathy?  I've already stated my position that I do not agree or support his beliefs. I do however support his right to hold those beliefs and not to be persecuted for his beliefs, as long as his beliefs have not lead him to behave in a manner that is outside of the law or violates someone else's rights. So far, I have seen evidence of neither.

And he is no more a bigot than those who are intolerant of the thought of him holding those beliefs.

[TonyJoey]

Yeah his company doesn't discriminate at all

They just use their profits to support organisations that do it for them 

Obsfucation and mincing words, the last refuge of a bigot

Not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination. The presence of two different kinds of relationships leaves open the possibility of two different sets of benefits. Whether you believe those relationships are close enough to each other to warrant the same benefits or not is up to you. I'm not rendering an opinion either way. Keep in mind the difference between the rights granted to a particular type of relationship, such as a business partership, civil union, marriage, etc, and inalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which are granted to every person no matter their race, gender, creed, or religion.  

[Melvin]

Why has the whole "beef discrimination" issue not been addressed, yet?

 

Harrumph!

[TheAssi]

So after the kiss in tomorrow, will there prayer-ins at interior decorator stores?

[Tank-Ace]

And I pointed out that many same sex couples have children.

Very volatile issue, indeed.

Two men can't reproduce, two women can't reproduce. If they are going to adopt children, or go with artificial insemination, then they're probably about as stable as they're going to get. Just slapping the lable 'married' on the couple isn't going to change a thing.


The only valid reason for arguing the thing is the associated rights. And I'm sure there would be less objection to getting the same rights for domestic partnerships as marriages have.

Honestly, I think the biggest cause of resistance to gay 'marriage' is religion, followed by tradition. You try and fight either one with logic, and you're fighting above your weight.