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 09, 2012 at 04:50 PM
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. Henry A. Wallace The Holocaust illustrates the consequences of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. It forces us to examine the responsibilities of citizenship and confront the powerful ramifications of indifference and inaction. Tim Holden
Dan Johnson August 09, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Mark. Ad hominem attacks and inflammatory pejorative terminology fail to refute the information provided. I understand that is all you have to support your prejudice but it fails to qualify as rational argument. As demonstrated by those who knew him best, Dr. King accepted gay people and did not approve of using the law to discriminate against anyone. Ironic that the accusations employed in attempts to demonize me are fulfilled by your own posts.
Dan Johnson August 09, 2012 at 06:16 PM
Prejudice: "It's not born in you. It happens after you're born... You've Got To Be Taught to Hate And Fear, you've Got To Be Taught from Year To Year, it's Got To Be Drummed in Your Dear Little Ear you've Got To Be Carefully Taught. You've Got To Be Taught To Be Afraid of People Whose Eyes Are Oddly Made, and People Whose Skin Is A Diff'rent Shade, you've Got To Be Carefully Taught. You've Got To Be Taught Before It's Too Late, before You Are Six Or Seven Or Eight, to Hate All The People Your Relatives Hate, you've Got To Be Carefully Taught." (Rogers and Hammerstein)
Jeffrey Wright August 09, 2012 at 06:58 PM
Has this story morphed into the weekly rant ?
Mark Mathews August 11, 2012 at 02:22 AM
Dan, and everyone else who is showering me with their particular brand of intolerance towards your fellow citizens who do not subscribe to your invasion of the traditionsal definition of marriage and their fanatical intolerance; I invite you to read this very well thought out article concerning intolerance in general, then look in the mirror: http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/94/cbmoduleid/1045/default.aspx If perchance this article did not sway, nor "evolve" your own prejudiced views, then may I beseech you to visit this web site, for your own good, and quickly: http://www.gaymenscounselling.com/crisis.html
Mark Mathews August 11, 2012 at 02:23 AM
Ask Dan - he's apparently not finished yet.
Dan Johnson August 11, 2012 at 01:44 PM
After viewing your article it seems most would still agree denial of equal rights qualifies as intolerance, while treating everyone equally under the law despite negative attitudes and beliefs, qualifies as tolerance. Despite your desire to see harming others needlessly through denial of equal rights as tolerance, your reference fails to support your position. But thanks for providing resources for anyone who might believe the destructive, irrational prejudice you promote.
Dan Johnson August 11, 2012 at 02:10 PM
Mark. Your attempts to demonize American service members who risked their lives protecting their country as liars and "perjurers" simply because they were gay, ignores the fact many enlist at 18 before fully understanding their sexual orientation. As a result of the false information many still promote, some young gay people believe they can change, and hope the military experience will "straighten" them out. They eventually realize sexual orientation is not a choice, and the only choices are limited to learning to live openly and honestly, leading a life of lies and deception, or self destruction. An unconstitutional law was a poor excuse for requiring people to leave the military once they come to grips with their sexual orientation. "Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act." http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/trial-court-in-log-cabin-case.html
Dan Johnson August 11, 2012 at 02:20 PM
For the record, I wanted to address the improper use of the story of Sodom being a justification for harming others needlessly, as that was mentioned by Mark. The use of the story of Sodom to label a sex act is a good example of a misinterpretation and misapplication of biblical verses to demonize and dehumanize. "The primarily sexual meaning of the word sodomia for Christians did not evolve before the 6th century AD. Roman Emperor Justinian I, in his novels no. 77 (dating 538) and no. 141 (dating 559) amended to his Corpus iuris civilis, and declared that Sodom's sin had been specifically same-sex activities and desire for them. He also linked "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences" upon cities as being due to "such crimes", during a time of recent earthquakes and other disasters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy Sin of Sodom http://www.iwgonline.org/docs/sodom.html
Dan Johnson August 11, 2012 at 02:22 PM
There are about twenty references to the story of Sodom in the Bible, and none of them says homosexuality was the sin of Sodom. One of the most extensive references to Sodom is found in Ezekiel, which says, “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.” (Ezekiel 16:49-50 (See note 5.)) It is clear from this passage (and others like it (See note 6.)) that the abomination of Sodom, according to the Old Testament prophets, was that they behaved with callous indifference toward the weak and vulnerable — the poor, orphans, widows, and strangers in their midst." http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/sodom_and_gomorrah.html The point of Sodom was that you should love others, not abuse them. It was about harming them instead of treating them the way you want to be treated. It was about how you treat "the stranger at the gate." It had nothing to do with loving same sex relationships based on mutual respect and love between adults.
Dan Johnson August 11, 2012 at 02:24 PM
"Jesus and five Old Testament prophets all speak of the sins that led to the destruction of Sodom -- and not one of them mentions homosexuality. Even Billy Graham doesn't mention homosexuality when he preaches on Sodom." "It was common for soldiers, thieves, and bullies to rape a fallen enemy, asserting their victory by dehumanizing and demeaning the vanquished. This act of raping an enemy is about power and revenge," And it still happens today, most notoriously in prisons. It is not about love. It is about power, control, domination, and abuse. Rape is not love. "The sexual act that occurs in the story of Sodom is a gang rape -- and homosexuals oppose gang rape as much as anyone. That's why I believe the story of Sodom says a lot about God's will for each of us, but nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today." ( quotes from: What the Bible says - and doesn't say - about Homosexuality) Even the English versions of this story demonstrate there was nothing that can be honestly used to condemn gay people. Many other explanations including the Jewish versions of the this story agree the message is that you should not harm others but instead, treat them with love.
Dan Johnson August 11, 2012 at 02:34 PM
Just trying to document the fact there is no rational, reasonable, scientific justification, nor legitimate governmental interest sufficinent to treat gay people differently than you would want to be treated, under the law. The only remaining excuse for prejudice and discrimination is found in a few highly questionable religious texts, which have been misinterpreted and mistranslated over time, and which are contradicted by other verses including the most important one according to Jesus, namely that you love God and love others the same. Accepting alternate interpretations of those few verses that seem to condemn same sex love does not require abandoning your religious beliefs, only expanding them to include the idea that god created all things, including gay people, and he wants you to love them as you love Him, not judge them. You can overcome the prejudice you were taught as a child, even though it continues to be taught by some adults including some who claim the authority of God, if you choose to educate yourself with reality, not harmful beliefs. But if you choose to condemn and discriminatie against gay people, you will bring harm and hate to the world instead of love, as Jesus intended.
Mark Mathews August 12, 2012 at 07:28 PM
I am done commenting on this paticular thread... "Pearls before Swine" (Matthew 7-6) and all that. The evil one has you firmly in his grasp, the way you are defending the sin in which you proudly trumpet and ferment, and the apparent solace in its self-created victimhood. Keep reading the New Testament though, especially 1 Corinthians 15:34; perhaps God will finally allow you to see yourself for what you are, and find it in your heart to stop your crusade FOR the acceptance of further sin.
Mark Mathews August 18, 2012 at 02:24 AM
In spite of my last post, I had to share this article, which in light of the attempted murder of untold innocent Conservative thinking citizens at the Family Research Council by an intolerant supporter of those who proudly demand we normal folks accept their abnormal lifestyles, and KOW TOW to THEIR demands, in which the author makes his point with more finesse that I can: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/07/gay-totalitarianism
Dan Johnson August 18, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Your referenced article makes no attempt to provide any scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights. It is nothing more than another attempt at stigmatization, demonization, marginalization, and an example of written bullying. As with your own posts, this article relies on demeaning pejorative terminology as well as omission and ignoring of critically relevant information. It offers an incomplete quote by Cathy then declares speaking out against his attempts to use the law to harm gay people is somehow a violation of his right to speak. So only Cathy is allowed to speak. He can also spend millions to deny equal rights. Yet if gay people speak out against his using the law to harm them, while not attempting to deny his equal rights, this is labeled as "totalitarianism". And you fail to see the irony.
Dan Johnson August 18, 2012 at 02:20 PM
Ironic you should choose Matthew 7 to judge and condemn, when Matthew 7 starts out: 1. Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. And yet you want to use this to deny to others the rights you expect for yourself.
Dan Johnson August 18, 2012 at 02:55 PM
Gay people have always been around no matter how well accepted or how severely punished. The reality is, gay people have in the past and will continue to form relationships. The question then becomes, are we going to accept reality and encourage strong, committed relationships around the shared values of family, fidelity, and responsibility, with the help of friends, family, and the government, or is it in the best interest of society to make laws that attack and demean such relationships, causing unjustified harm to those couples and their children.
Mark Mathews August 18, 2012 at 05:34 PM
i should have known better than to cast further pearls before swine. "Peace-Out."
Dan Johnson August 18, 2012 at 08:01 PM
(Mark) And yet again, no attempt to provide any scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution. As with the rest of your posts, dehumanizing personal insults remain your best excuse for refusing to treat others the way you want to be treated. Galatians 5:14: The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Romans 13:9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. John 13:34: A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. James 4:11 Brothers, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. Colossians 3:12-14 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
Jeffrey Wright August 18, 2012 at 10:20 PM
If I were a betting man I would have to guess that ''RAMBLE ON'' is your favorite Zeppelin song ?? Just a guess .......
Dan Johnson August 19, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Because the excuses for ignoring the Golden Rule are many and varied, documenting the fact there is no rational, reasonable, scientific justification, nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient to treat gay people differently than you would want to be treated under the law, has required responses to those many and varied irrational excuses. While we have not covered them all, it should be clear by now the best arguments in support of harming others through prejudice and discrimination, are personal attacks and unsupportable pejorative terminology. "The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." ( American Anthropological Association)
Louisa Hufstader (Editor) August 21, 2012 at 03:24 PM
Did you miss the weekly rant, Jeffrey? I admit to having been lax in the rant department lately, but here's a fresh one: http://napa.patch.com/articles/sound-off-who-owns-the-road
Mark Mathews August 28, 2012 at 01:07 AM
Here is yet one MORE casting of pearls... http://cnsnews.com/blog/j-matt-barber/blts-hate-crimes-and-christaphobia
Dan Johnson August 28, 2012 at 01:42 AM
That rambling piece of misinformation intended to "blame the gays" for everything you can think of is hardly a pearl. Too bad you choose to ignore the rest of Matthew 7. And still no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights as required by the constitution. If fact, this article seeks to justify restricting freedom while complaining about restrictions on freedom. Yet the irony escapes the author and his fans.
Mark Mathews August 28, 2012 at 01:48 AM
... and so the trough doth predictably rattle...
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