Poll: Chicken, With a Side of Culture Wars

The lines are drawn for fast food chain Chick-fil-A, where in Walnut Creek Sept. 20 a planned opening is expected to draw gay rights protesters; Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was Wednesday in Fairfield and around the country. What's your view?

I'll have my chicken sandwich with lettuce, tomato and a side order of social consciousness and free speech rights.

Chick-fil-A is becoming more famous for cultural values than for chicken. There was a family values backlash Wednesday with "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day" around the country, including Fairfield.

Walnut Creek is soon to be such a culture wars flashpoint Sept. 20 with a planned gay rights protest to coincide with the planned opening of a Chick-fil-A on North Main Street. 

“It’s a First Amendment right issue. He (Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy) has his right to think and say whatever he likes,” Fairfield diner Jerry Pollard told CBS San Francisco.

Last month Cathy, in an interview in July with The Baptist Press, said, "We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Actor John Goodman has lampooned the controversy with a new video in which he plays the late Colonel Sanders, founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, making a play for gay customers. Caveat parents — Goodman says a naughty word.

Former presidential candidate and Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee had the idea for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, according to Fox News.

Register your Chick-fil-A opinion in a Patch poll at the bottom. We offer three different views in the poll, but there are many more opinions with different nuances — add a comment below.

Brand approval

Chick-fil-A has suffered a loss of brand approval since the posting of Cathy's interview, according to Polling organization YouGov.

Just before Cathy's interview was published, Chick-fil-A's Index score was 65, well above the Top National Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) Sector average score of 46. Just four days later, however, Chick-fil-A's score had fallen to 47, while last week, the chain had a score of 39, compared to the Top National QSR Sector average score of 43, according to a piece in the Huffington Post.

Chick-fil-A is expanding in Northern California. Would you like to see the chain open up in Napa? Tell us in the comments.

Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 06:25 PM
And still no understanding of Matthew 7, relying on dehumanizing personal insults while making no attempt to provide any legitimate excuse for denial of equal rights. But since there is no legitimate excuse, insults are all you have.
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 06:26 PM
"it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage,(2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment." ""If we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions." "Conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice." "To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others." (In re marriage)
Mark Mathews August 31, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Yea, yea, yea... Now THIS is funny, all things considered; I predict an attempt at even MORE special privileges/rights to protect this bunch from those tax land-minds: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-column-feldman-idUSBRE87Q0ZL20120827?envprodusx=0
Dan Johnson September 01, 2012 at 03:12 AM
Equal treatment under the law does not qualify as special privileges/ rights. This article does a good job of detailing some of the many extra burdens created by the denial of equal legal rights. Equal treatment under the law would end the harmful disparities caused by discrimination. DOMA adds extra harmful burdens while fulfilling no legitimate governmental interest: "The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further." "Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves." Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution" (Golinski.)
Dan Johnson September 01, 2012 at 03:20 AM
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it. This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit. (Gill)


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »