Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Chick-fil-A boss tweets, then deletes, message against repeal of DOMA

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Idiot right-wing christaliban nitwits really can’t get the hang of modern technology, cant they. You cannot unring the bell.

    That brand is going to be associated with bigotry for a long time – And may those who thought sucking down quantities of fried fast food chicken in bulk worked as a protest against equality continue to do so…. They are a dying demographic, after all.

  2. When I see Chick-Fil-A’s attitude towards LGBT people, I fully understand why the chicken crossed the road!

  3. That There Other David 27 Jun 2013, 9:43pm

    Who would you rather trust with shaping a nation, a group of experienced judges or a deluded peddler of junk food?

    Chick-Fil-A is obviously made from an arse (and I don’t mean the food).

  4. Chicken.

  5. No sale, I do not patronize companies that do not support my civil rights. Besides, they sell nutritionally suspect junk food.

  6. Coward. Even worst than a bigot is a coward bigot.

  7. Scott Larsen 28 Jun 2013, 3:23am

    With a last name like ‘Cathy’ and the C.O.O. of a restaurant chain called ‘Chick-Fil-A’ I don’t think he has room to comment…

  8. Because of their view about us that this fool keeps making very clear, the thought of eating food there makes me feel sick.

    There are plenty of places to eat that do not hold that view and have delicious food, I will give my hard earned cash to them.

  9. Colin (London) 28 Jun 2013, 10:02am

    Please fellow supporters of human rights and equality…..VOTE WITH YOUR FEET AND YOUR CASH……STAY AWAY FROM CHICK-FIL-A’s

  10. That There Other David 28 Jun 2013, 10:25am

    I’d rather chow down on dog vomit. It would leave less of a bad taste in the mouth.

  11. In a capitalist society one of the most democratically effective things you can do is vote with your money. Consumer campaigns have changed the behaviours of other large corporations like McDonalds. They have changed the way that animals are reared across countries. They have impacted wasteful practices in the fishing industry here in the UK.

    With no conscience or intellect to guide your choices, you are at best a sheep and at worst a parasite.

  12. So let’s say you discovered your local fast food chain funded the KKK or other white supremacist groups and more or less promoted that ideology in their mission statement, that wouldn’t factor into whether or not you gave them your hard-earned cash?

    Why is being actively hostile to gays such a different proposition?

    Seems like chargrilled chicken on crisp lettuce with mayo in a sesame bun can make just about anything palatable, huh?

    1. If you are resolutely apathetic to what is happening in society around you, then you either have no moral standards or you are a coward.

      It is totally dishonest and factually incorrect to state that this company is passive in what you would have us believe is “just a different view”. Nazi’s “just had a different view” of minorities too.

      You seem to be trying to imply that a lack of legislation regarding a viewpoint is moral justification for it. Clearly this is nonsense that only someone with no moral standards of their own would utter.

      It is factually incorrect and offensive to couch homosexuality as a “lifestyle”.

      Your track record in this thread to date shows that you are ignorant and morally bankrupt. I really don’t know why you think anyone cares to hear from you.

      1. Midnighter 28 Jun 2013, 3:16pm

        I find it quite pathetic that you clearly have no concept of personal morality and yet you are motivated to invent multiple personae to troll a thread to advocate an abdication of moral judgement. To now criticise others for actually having moral standards is laughable.

        To answer your question, my morals are a result of my own judgements and experiences. Unlike the religious, I take responsibility for my own morality and do not abdicate my conscience to a ‘higher authority’.

        In this specific case your puppets have called for a lack of morality, which suggests to me you are some kind of sociopath. I’m not asserting you need to follow my morals, I just suggest you find some morals.

  13. Why should be be tolerant of their intolerance? Propounding division and hatred is hardly something to respect.

    Your naive advocacy sounds like something out of the company’s own advertising literature. I suspect you are either a brainwashed fool and/or in their employ.

    1. Midnighter 28 Jun 2013, 3:18pm

      as long as those views don’t promote violence
      Well then, on that criterion alone you should change your suppliers by your own logic.

      1. Midnighter 28 Jun 2013, 3:50pm

        Yes. I went vegetarian for over a decade to attempt to influence the welfare of animals in the food industry. Since that time the market introduced free range produce and other standards.

        Where I am educated about specific companies and object to their actions in some way, I most certainly do make conscious choices. In practice, compromises are sometimes necessary, of course.

  14. Midnighter 28 Jun 2013, 3:46pm

    You haven’t been paying attention.

    “You are rather presumptuous to assume that your own moral code is the correct one just because you say so.”
    Where have I stated my moral code and told you to abide by it?

    What I have ACTUALLY stated multiple times now, is that I object to your advocacy of a lack of morality.

    While I share society with someone who has no morals, I will do all in my power to see them excluded from that society as a danger to that society. I see no rational reason to hand over my life and liberty to a person who places no value on them.

    1. Midnighter 28 Jun 2013, 5:11pm

      I have not commented on your morals, I have commented on your advocacy of a LACK of morals. Perhaps if I keep repeating the point you might eventually take notice of it and stop strawmanning.

      This is not about policing thoughts and beliefs as you wish to make it in your strawman arguments, but very much about stopping anti-social actions resulting from those thoughts. Those who have no morality, or whose morality fails to acknowledge the rights of other members of society have no place in that society. It is for this express purpose that society has a justice system. It is disturbing that you do not understand that.

      Your ignorance about how morality applies to society is terrifying. While your thoughts and opinions are your own, you do not have the absolute right to act on your own standards of behaviour where those actions affect others.

      1. Midnighter 28 Jun 2013, 9:43pm

        “Where have I advocated not to have morals”
        Wherever you or your puppets have advocated ignoring the opportunity to make the moral choice.

        “You have not stated which source supports your view …”
        Yes I have, explicitly and repeatedly. I’ve done so again in this very response.

        “You are a bigot by definition!”
        No, merely intolerant of bigotry itself.

        “I have every right to acty on my own standards as long as tmy actions are within the law.
        My point exactly; you are limited by law, your standards HAVE to conform to those of society.

        I too am all for freedom of expression. Unlike you however, I am also for free debate. What I am doing is criticising your poisonous attempt to suggest that bigotry such as yours and that of Cathy should not be challenged.

        Convince me apathy is a superior moral code – give up on this argument and take the moral high ground. I dare you :P

  15. You (via your puppets) have advocated apathy several times already. E.g.:

    I do not care about the legally held views of businesses or their politics .”
    or
    ” I also happen to be against abortion but if I found out that Esso’s (the cheapest)CEO is pro abortion, I would not feel compelled to get petrol somewhere else”

    I’m not actually asking you to explain why you think it is superior, I’m simply calling you out on your advocacy of apathy.

    I see I can now add “dishonest” to that charge, unless you now wish to start cutting your puppets’ strings.

    Perverted is a very morally subjective term, so because of this and the fact that I haven’t once mentioned sexual practices it is not clear which practices you are referring to.

    Which moral values have I asked you to believe?

    Where have I suggested you should not express your views? On the contrary, I am advocating that one expresses views and even more than that, ACT on them rather than “not care”.

    1. Midnighter 29 Jun 2013, 1:25pm

      Selective apathy is, however, still apathy. It is naive to ignore the actions of some of the largest entities in society who are in a position to have the most impact.

      In contrast, choosing to post here in a forum which you are hostile to is a very selective and notable action. You are thus not “merely” stating your opinion in that context.

      To answer your second point, yes I did; persuading others was the entire point. They were free to listen or to ignore me. I find it unlikely you are genuinely struggling with that concept since you yourself are here evangelising your own anti-gay views and attempting to manufacture a strawman “free speech” argument when I debate you.

      I’ve already answered your last point in an earlier post. I have also illustrated where you have advocated apathy. You have just done so again.

      If you are simply going to continue to ignore my responses and restate the same questions then save yourself some time as I will simply direct you to my earlier posts.

  16. Midnighter 29 Jun 2013, 3:34pm

    1) I am calling you out on your apathy to your OWN view, not my view.
    2) Show me where I have stated or implied you have no moral code. My criticism is with you advocating a (now selective) suspension of morals.
    3) I answered this same point 23 hours ago.
    4) I have stated no moral views on homosexuality. You are creating another strawman argument.

    Replies 1-3 have been given multiple times, so I shall not respond to these specific questions any further. You need to develop your argument.

    It is laughable to falsely claim I am not addressing your points where you have demonstrably dodged several challenges to your statements and claims;
    * Which moral values have I asked you to believe?
    * Where have I told you to abide by MY morals?
    * Why should we be be tolerant of intolerance?
    * Convince me apathy is superior to a moral choice
    * Where have I suggested you should not express your views?

    I assert you have not answered because you CANNOT. They were false claims and bluster.

    1. Midnighter 29 Jun 2013, 8:29pm

      There is no need to qualify the statements since
      a) the first is already qualified by the phrase “in this thread to date”
      b) the second is qualified by the premise of the previous sentence “You seem to be trying to …” and is a conclusion clearly dependant on it.

      Again you are attempting to move the goalposts away from my stated contention. Having said that I have already responded as to the source of my own morality, and expressly stated it does not come from authority.

      Legality has nothing to do with subjective morality, that was the entire point (which you seem to have missed).

      No dishonesty on my part: you originally asked if I “practice[sic] what I preach” and I answered this. Repackaging scenarios is not a new question. In the spirit of saving your head exploding, I haven’t driven a car for over a year out of choice concerning matters including the environment.

  17. Midnighter 29 Jun 2013, 8:40pm

    So I reminded you of questions you have avoided and your response is to avoid some more. What a singularly pointless debating technique.

    You will note your “reply” does not list any morals that I have asked you to believe, per the question.

    You will also note that your “reply” makes a new and untrue claim; I have made no such assertion. You keep repeating this misapprehension and I have corrected it each previous occasion.

    You have then skipped the remaining questions and irrelevantly repeated an earlier flawed statement which again I have already corrected. To remind you, you cannot claim to have absolute (i.e. unlimited) right to behave as you will while – as you now admit yourself – you are limited by law.

    Your “argument” has devolved into a bizarre spiral of repeated failures; I suggest you take some deep breaths before posting and try to work out exactly what your purpose in continuing is, or you are just wasting both our time.

    1. Another ridiculous and dishonest claim. It seems I am forced to repeat myself yet again: “Repackaging scenarios is not a new question.” Do you genuinely not agree that your new scenario still falls under this original question of whether “practice[sic] what I preach”? Were you really unable to deduce from my answer that a car that is not driven requires no fuel?

      In debates between grown-ups there is no obligation to answer the potentially infinite “scenarios” that illustrate any given point, for the simple reason it is terribly tedious and time-wasting to do so and it doesn’t advance the debate. Your’s is a classic tactic frequently used by theologians and politicians (for example) to manufacture an argumentum ad nauseam that you may recognise as “filibustering.”

      By contrast I have posed- and even listed for your convenience – several direct questions which you have not addressed. The horse is alive and kicking since you keep running away from it.

      1. Again, I refer you what has already been said. If you give it a teensy bit of thought you’ll see that this particular question is irrelevant since it is simply a rehash of a question I have already answered.

        If this really bothers you, then how about this; I’ll hold my answer hostage until you respond to the several direct questions you have already failed to address. Sound fair?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all