Chick-fil-A ‘Voluntarily’ Nixes Muppet Toys

Following Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy‘s controversial announcement that the conservative, Christian-owned restaurant opposes gay marriage, the Jim Henson Co. announced it would cut its ties to the chain and donate Chick-fil-A’s payment to GLAAD.

A couple of days later, this happened (click to enlarge):

We apologize for any inconvenience but as of 7/19/2012 Chick-fil-A has voluntarily recalled all of the Jim Henson Creature Shop Puppet Kids Meal toys due to a possible safety issue. Please be advised that there have not been any cases in which a child has actually been injured, however there have been some reports of children getting their fingers stuck inthe holes of the puppets.

Chick-fil-A headquarters told the media that the signs did in fact reflect a “voluntary recall,” certainly not related to the Muppet company’s refusal to do business with a restaurant chain whose owners oppose equal rights. A blogger at Consumerist even checked with the Consumer Product Safety Commission — turns out there’s no such “recall” on record. Eventually, Chick-fil-A changed their story:

In spite of the language on the above sign, a rep for Chick fil-A says “This is not a recall — it is a voluntary withdrawal.”

Nice attempt to cover your sorry hides, but we’re not buying it.

About Camille Beredjick

Camille is a twentysomething working in the LGBT nonprofit industry. She runs an LGBT news blog at gaywrites.org.

  • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Kevin_Of_Bangor

    What a bunch of asshats.

  • The Godless Monster

    Glad that The Jim Henson Company decided to put values before the almighty dollar.

  • Owosso Harpist

    Now that’s what I call false advertising!

  • John Small Berries

    One would think such an avowedly Christian company would be familiar with Proverbs 6:16-19, but apparently not.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Lying is only bad when it’s not Christians doing it. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/RIchard-Evans/1148508851 RIchard Evans

    Wow. Chick-fil-a is just racking up the dumb. First suing a small Vermont artist and then hating gays now totally lying just to be jerks. Man. Wish I had one up here so that I could refuse to go.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Dharmaworks David Benjamin Patton

      “racking up the dumb” – lol I love it! Is that copyrighted? : )

  • Noadi

    Apparently “Thou shalt not bear false witness” has been replaced in the 10 Commandments by “Thou shalt eat mor chiken, unless you are gay”.

  • guest

    I hope there is a lawsuit by the Jim Henson company for implying it was a defective toy.

  • 00001000_bit

    “however there have been some reports of children getting their fingers stuck in the holes of the puppets”

    And they’ve shown that if there’s one thing Chick-Fil-A will not stand for, it’s when people put appendages in places where C-F-A does not approve.

    • Tainda

      Win

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_RUP4KEZVE2RRLIN6O7DHDLJJG4 Chris

      Oh SNAP! Good one :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.gwinn Don Gwinn

    That was pretty stupid.

  • Annie

    It’s a juvenile case of “He didn’t break up with me, I broke up with him!”  Grow up Chik-fil-A… and while you’re at it, learn how to spell.

    • Voodoo5_0

      like how you tried to spell chick fil a?  nice.

      • Annie

         Seriously?  You’re going to rib me about a typo?  I spelled it the way the cows do. ;-)

  • Houseknecht79

    I am absolutely proud of Chic-fil-a. They are allowed to have an opinion, just because their opinion doesn’t mesh withh the politically correct or “tolerant” left doesn’t mean they have to hide. Chic-fil-a has every right to be or believe what they want. Hating them or claiming they hate others is proving nothing and showing you are that what you claim others to be. I have gay friends that i get along with just fine because we know how to repect each others lifes and life decisions.

    • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

      Of course they have a right to do what they did. But making up a bogus story to explain the missing Muppets just demonstrates that they are hypocrites. If they are confident in their views, why lie?

    • Annie

       Yes, they are allowed an opinion and have the right to spend their profits wherever they choose.  As a consumer, I also have a right to boycott them.  I also have the right to share their bigoted views with everyone I know, in hopes that they will boycott too.

      You see, just because you “have gay friends that i get along fine with” doesn’t necessarily translate to me that you totally get this.  Have you ever been in love?  If so, imagine that you are told you are not allowed to love the person you love.  That it is wrong for you to love the person you love.  That you will never have the same rights as other people who love each other.  It doesn’t take much to get it. 

      The clincher here, however, is that they claim they are a “Christian” company, but then they lie about their falling out with the Jim Henson Company. I obviously have no respect for this company… and I am surprised that anyone who calls themself a Christian would have respect for them either.  Unless, of course, lying is just a part of being Christian.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Ah, the “I have gay friends” defense. Sorry, having gay friends doesn’t make you not a homophobe, just as having black friends doesn’t necessarily make you not a racist.

    • michael both

      Poe?  No?

    • phantomreader42

      So, you’re PROUD of these bigoted death cultists for LYING?  Isn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to with bearing false witness?  Since when is being a dishonest, bigoted, cowardly piece of shit something to be proud of?

    • Trickster Goddess

      I agree they have a right to express their opinion despite it being unpopular with many people and I’m very glad they did instead of hiding it. This way the people who disagree with their opinion can make an informed choice as to whether or not they want to spend their money at a business where some of those profits will be spent on promoting discrimination against their fellow citizens.

      It’s a win/win for everybody involved!

    • Baby_Raptor

      How many times does this have to be repeated?

      Nobody gives two shits that they deeply believe something. What we care about is that they’re using their huge profits to force other people to live by their deep beliefs.

      Please stop trying to paint people who believe the way you do as a victim. We don’t care that they believe what they do, only that they’re trying to force everyone else to live that way as well. If Chic-fil-A “respected our decisions,” they wouldn’t be pouring money into politics to deny us rights. 

      • Rwlawoffice

         So they can have an opinion, just keep it to themselves while those that promote same sex marriage spend millions trying to further their agenda?  You have the right to promote your cause, but they don’t.  Another fine example of liberal tolerance at work. 

        • TiltedHorizon

           “You have the right to promote your cause, but they don’t.”

          Let’s see. One corrects an injustice, the other wants to keep in statu quo. Do you also feel your rights to own slaves have been infringed on?

          • Rwlawoffice

             Your opinion that your cause is just does not mean that those that think different from you should remain silent.  If you do, then your intolerance is showing.

            • TiltedHorizon

              I have no problem with opinion, on the streets of NYC it is not uncommon to pass by a ‘peaceful’ demonstration from groups spouting racial epitaphs and slurs. Where I draw the line is when option is enforced at an ACTUAL expense of another. You can complain all you want about marriage equality, but any action on your part to deny consenting adults the right to it, is an ACTUAL expense. I’d rather be intolerant of this intolerance then allow this injustice to continue.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Of course you must first show that it is a right for same sex couples to marry each other which is being taken away. Second, you must show that this will not impact or effect others. So before you can claim that those that oppose same sex marriage are taking away rights that don’t effect them, you must meet you burden of proof.  The state has always had and continues to have a legitimate interest in regulating marriage and has done so between man and a woman for secular reasons that are not based upon allowing all who love each other the right to marry each other.  I understand that you do not agree and that this is your right.  Unlike those on the other side of this debate however, I will not call you nor do I think you are a bigot for holding your position.

                • rlrose328

                  I would say that the right for a consenting adult to marry another consenting adult is an inalienable right given to citizens by the Constitution.  Therefore, it should not be put to a vote.  There are certain issues that should, by the nature of the Constitution, bypass the voting process.  Freeing the slaves, for example, or allowing interracial marriage.  These were rightly not put to a vote.  Neither should the issue of same sex marriage.  So there is the answer to question #1.

                  As such, question #2 is irrelevant.  But for shits and giggles, let’s say it’s still a relevant question.  How would 2 men or 2 women marrying have any type of effect, let’s say negative because that’s what you really mean, on anyone else?  Even my very religious Catholic mother admits, under duress, that it wouldn’t affect her.  There is a positive effect, however, in the form of revenue for the County and State upon registration and certainly upon the local merchants with the big wedding they will eventually throw. 

                  So… Constitution and revenue.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   I never talked about votes.  And in due respect, the fact that you believe it is an inalienable right does not make it so. Also, I would think that constitutional rights are not based upon revenue that would be generated.  However, if a societal institution is being changed it is the burden of the parties wanting to change it to show that the change will do no harm. 

                • Nunya

                  Well that’s just crap.  All that means is it can never be proven.  If it can’t be allowed, it can’t be studied and it can be “proven to do no harm.”  Since when is that a standard for abridging a law.  If that were the case, women would still be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen with no voting right.  You’re a fucking idiot, bigot, jackass.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Insults aside, this is the standard  when all regulations are being removed.  They are placed there for a reason, when they are removed, it must be shown that the regulations are not serving the purpose expressed by the state and that removing them will do no harm.

                • amycas

                   Actually, when it goes to court, the sate has the burden of showing the reason for the regulation. Go read Loving v. Virginia.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  “Of course you must first show that it is a right for same sex couples to marry each other which is being taken away.”

                  This is a blatant attempt to hide behind bad law. We both know DOMA nullified any rights which could have been petitioned for, meaning, one can’t lose a right that was never afforded. This is why I consider DOMA unconstitutional, an option gaining ground as even Attorney General Martha Coakley has recently asked the Supreme Court to sink DOMA.

                  “Second, you must show that this will not impact or effect others.”

                  So what was the evidence provided which showed slaves would “not impact or effect others” if freed?

                  “The state has always had and continues to have a legitimate interest in regulating marriage and has done so between man and a woman for secular reasons that are not based upon allowing all who love each other the right to marry each other”

                  Sorry, this does not fly. There are no shortage of Christians who claim this country was founded on Christian principles, the idea that marriage is between a man & woman one of those principals made law in the form of DOMA. Secular reasons for regulating marriage end with the age of consent, maintaining interest beyond this point reflects nonsecular interests. One only needs to recall how it was once against the law to teach slaves to read and write to know laws can be founded on bias and bigotry.

                • Rwlawoffice

                   My point is that you must first show that the right for same sex couples to get married is a right in the constitution that is being infringed upon by the state regulations. 

                  Why keep bringing up slavery to dodge the question. Since those that support same sex marriage want to void state regulations on marriage, once the state shows that it has a reason for the regulation, it is their burden to show that it will do no harm to remove it. 

                  The secular reasons that the state regulates marriage goes beyond the age of consent.  One interest is for the protection of children and connection with their biological parents, thus regulating procreation and the potential for procreation.  That is why you cannot marry your cousin, you cannot marry someone who is already married, you cannot marry multiple partners at the same time.  All legitimate state interests that have nothing to do with religion.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  “My point is that you must first show that the right for same sex couples to get married is a right in the constitution that is being infringed upon by the state regulations.”

                  From a purely secular perspective, the interest in ‘civil’ marriage is limited to spousal support, stability, survivor’s rights, paternity and support of the child. It also holds interest procreation but only in terms paternity and child support. There are no restrictions by sexual orientation, gender or race. The age of consent appears to be the only restriction. Hence it is an infringement of constitutional rights to deny marriage equality to any consenting adult of legal age.

                  “Why keep bringing up slavery…”

                  Like slavery and segregation, religious belief became the inspiration for law used to force and justify a way of life at the expense of a subset of people. There is little distinguishing the current mindset against marriage equality as being any different different from the pro-slavery movement. Get used to comparison.

                  “once the state shows that it has a reason for the regulation, it is their burden to show that it will do no harm to remove it. ”

                  So what is the reason, I have yet to find one. Without which the claim of “legitimate” state interests is questionable.

                • amycas

                   Loving V. Virginia established marriage as a constitutional and human right.

                  Also, those who are against same-sex marriage are the ones claiming there’s some sort of effect, so the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how same-sex marriage would negatively effect them. So far, I’ve only ever heard the exact same arguments that were used against interracial marriage.

                  Now, stop acting like we haven’t explained this shit to you before, and show us your evidence that it actually harms anyone.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Once the state shows that it has a reasonable basis for the regulation and a connection between the regulation and the harm to be prevented.  It is then up to the party wanting to invalidate the regulation to show that the harm sought to be prevented will not occur and thus there is no need for the regulation.  So the burden is on the party supporting same sex marriage to show that it will do no harm, not the other way around.  In Loving, the court found that indeed the state had the right to regulate marriage but could not do so based upon racial grounds in violation of the 14th amendment.

                  With this in mind, now show me the evidence that the state does not have the right to regulate marriage to exclude same sex couples and show me the evidence that changing the basis for marriage from a means to protect children and connect them to their parents  and thus regulate procreation to one based exclusively on the desires of adults. We can already see where this is heading.  The family in the show sister wives have now filed a lawsuit to end the bigamy laws in Utah on the basis that they have the right to marry whoever they want and the state cannot tell them how many at a time.  In Europe where same sex marriage has been around for a while, marriage is almost non existent. Freedom of conscience and religious liberty of those that oppose same sex marriage will be and is already under attack. More children grow up fatherless, which is already a tremendous problem. And there is a lowering of birth rates, which is already happening in Europe.

                  I understand you will not agree with these problems and we can debate that.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  False equivalence.  Please provide citations linking marriage equality with decreases of matrimony, children without fathers, and lowered birth rates.

                  The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same sex marriages in 2001. Based on your assertions, there should be a god sized pothole in it’s place as a result of 11 years of acceptance.  I just checked google maps, IT IS STILL THERE. Not only is the country still on the map, based on the CIA World Factbook, they have MUCH less unemployment, have a 30% less class divide, have 24% less mortality rates amongst children, healthcare is 50% cheaper, life expectancy is 1.31% longer, and be 66.67% less likely to contract AIDS/HIV. It sounds HORRIBLE. Let’s not be like the Netherlands.   

                • Rwlawoffice

                   Considering how none of these statistics are relevant to those that I addressed I am not sure why you mentioned them.  But if you want to see the correlation between same sex marriages and the state of marriage in the Netherlands I would direct you to :

                  http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/09/the-transatlantic-divide-on-marriagenbsp-dutch-data-and-the-us-debate-on-same-sex-unions

                  before you attack the source, please read that they are quoting from a study that was not done by the Heritage foundation.

                  The bottom line was that allowing same sex marriage in the Netherlands has not strengthened marriage and instead has a correlation to the continued demise of marriage in the Netherlands. This includes an increase of children born out of wedlock

                  Do you really not understand that an increase in lesbian marriage would lead to more children being raised without fathers?

                  Finally, in all due respect to Amycas, the most recent study which has been much decried in the media shows that children do not do well in same sex households,

                  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57451777-10391704/kids-of-gay-parents-fare-worse-study-finds-but-draws-fire-from-experts/

                  The conclusion is that  allowing same sex marriage has not helped marriage and is showing signs of increasing the already declining marriage rates,which are harming children.  Of course we will not know the effect of these changes for a generation or more, but so far the evidence does not show that it has benefited society.

                • TiltedHorizon

                  Your stats are not relevant to the topic, why should mine be?

                  BTW. Your Heritage link is woefully out of date. Seems all ‘evidence’ cited by the Heritage foundation has magically disappeared. None of their links work. A fact you may have known about had you actually wanted to dig a little deeper. As for this other questionable study, you know, the one that actually states “draws fire from experts”. The issues are reported in the very link you provided yet it represents proof enough for you.

                  Here is some more “pro” reading on the subject…. I doubt you care enough to read it.

                  http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
                  http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
                  http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/the-kids-are-alright-gay_b_1539166.html
                  http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gay-study-083010.html

            • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

              Could you please prove that marriage equality is unjust, without invoking religion? Thx

              • Rwlawoffice

                 That is really not the question.  Those that want to change this definition argue that they should be able
                to marry who they love, however that has never been the reason states
                regulate marriage in the first place. The relevant question is -does the state have legitimate interest in regulating marriage to being between a man and a woman and not just between a man and a woman but certain classes of men and women (for example, you cannot marry someone who is already married, nor could you marry your cousin). If they do then it is not an undue restriction on freedom.  I would argue that the state does have a legitimate interest.  The institution of marriage has never been based upon the state allowing people who love each other to marry. It has always been for the protection of children due to procreation. It is the societal institution that connects biological parents to their children and for the protection of these children. Look at the family law in this country and you will see that is is based almost exclusively on what is in the best interest of the children. Redefining marriage to be based exclusively on love between adults takes the meaning of this institution away from children and based entirely upon the desires of adults. It is the burden of those that what to make this change to show that state’s interest is not valid.

                • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

                  You said

                   Your opinion that your cause is just does not mean that those that think different from you should remain silent.  If you do, then your intolerance is showing.

                  You invoked Justice in this discussion. If you’re going to do that, I’m going to need you to explain why marriage equality is unjust.

                • Glasofruix

                  How would it be harmful to children if two men or two women marry each other?

                • amycas

                   It doesn’t, and he knows that. All of this has been explained to him in the past, but he just ignores that his questions have already been answered and keeps asking them.

            • amycas

              Outlawing gay marriage restricts the actions of gay people. Allowing gay marriage does not restrict the actions of those who oppose gay marriage. Stop being deliberately obtuse. This has been explained to you before.
               

            • amycas

              Nobody said they should remain silent, or that they should be barred from donating money to the cause of their choice. However, we have every right to criticize them if they donate money to a cause that we find to be unjust. Just like OMM had every right to criticize JC Penny for hiring Ellen. You see, it’s a two-way street. They can say and support what they want, but they don’t get to escape criticism for it. 

              • Rwlawoffice

                 I agree with that.  You have every right to protest within the law, complain, and boycott.  But to say they have not been told to remain silent is simply not true. Read some of these posts for example. 

    • Isilzha

      And they have a right for those beliefs to damage their profits when others begin to take their business elsewhere because of them.

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      They have every right to believe and do what they want.  Just like I have every right to say that their actions are bigoted.   I just like have every right not to patronize their restaurants and just like I have every right to convince people to do the same. 

      So do you go to you gay friends and say that they are destroying America?  Do you go to your gay friends and say that if the person they love is in the hospital, they have no right to visit them or make medical decisions for them?  Do you tell you gay friends that they should never be allowed to adopt a child?   That is what Chick-fil-a is doing.  So in the end, you really don’t respect your gay friends.  

    • The Other Weirdo

       Wow! I haven’t heard the “I’m not anti-Semitic, I have Jewish friends” defense since I left the Old Country(tm) 33 years ago.

  • http://twitter.com/FelyxLeiter Felyx Leiter

    They’re fishing for martyrs to take a stand on behalf of sacred holy traditional marriage.  By returning Muppet toys.

    Waka-waka!

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    It would have been cool if Henson continued supplying the Muppets for a while, and then announced officially that Bert and Ernie are a gay couple (as many suspect, anyway).

    • http://twitter.com/WCLPeter Rob U

      Bert and Ernie are a gay couple

      I keep hearing this and it doesn’t make any sense because they’re obviously two brothers who live together, at least that’s what they were when I was kid back in the ’70s & ’80s.  I’d hate to see them change all that history now just to be “edgy and modern”.

      If they’re going to introduce a gay couple on Sesame Street let them create someone new, unless they already have – I haven’t watched “The Street” in years, and leave good old Bert and Ernie out of it.

      • ReadsInTrees

        I don’t think it’s ever stated anywhere that Bert and Ernie are brothers. They’re just roommates who dress similarly, sleep in the same room, and argue a lot….and their designs were based on two fruits, an orange and a banana. Not brothers, just…friends.

        • Terry

          Sorry Reads – they were brothers.   They would introduce themselves as such and the start of there skit.

          • ReadsInTrees

            Nope. Find me a source somewhere that says they’re brothers. As someone stated after me, during the controversy over whether or not B&E were gay, Sesame Street released a statement saying they were just best friends. If they were brothers, wouldn’t they have said so then?

          • Jason

            They aren’t brothers. There was a skit where Bert announced he had a twin brother, and Ernie didn’t know about him.

          • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

            Yes, they’re definitely not brothers. Bert does have a twin brother, Bart, and a nephew named Brad. Here’s one of my favorite skits:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE5RUNGfL_w

          • amycas

             I don’t remember them ever being introduced as brothers, but feel free to find the video and correct my memory.

      • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

        Bert and Ernie are definitely not brothers. Because of all the rumors about them being gay, Henson Workshop has released several statements on the matter, including “Bert and Ernie are best friends” and “they remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation” (although given the whole Miss Piggy/Kermit relationship, we have to  assume some Muppets have a sexual orientation… despite the claim by Henson Workshop that “they’re puppets. They don’t exist below the waist!

        Suffice to say, if Henson Workshop decided to make any of their characters openly gay, Bert and Ernie would be a good choice. And the only point of my comment was that would amount to a very amusing slapdown of C-f-A if done during their co-marketing campaign.

        • Trickster Goddess

           If pigs can marry frogs, then we’re on a slippery slope to same-sex marriage.

          • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

            I was thinking something similar. Seriously, does anybody doubt that the anti-gay crowd would be much more disturbed by a couple of puppets of the same sex having a relationship than by a couple of puppets of different species? There’s something seriously wrong with those people!

          • Ramone Librecalle

            Are they actually married? I thought Miss Piggy and Kermit were shag-buddies….

        • CS42

           Why would the Jim Henson Workshop be issuing statements about Bert and Ernie? Sesame Street is produced by the Children’s Television Workshop, not Henson.  The Muppets are produced by Henson, but it’s always been an edgier, more adult program, so it’s going to deal with sex and romance in different ways than a program for two-year olds. Standards for one program have nothing to do with the other.

          At any rate, Bert & Ernie are obviously a riff on the Neal Simon play, film, (and later, the spin-off television series),  The Odd Couple.  I guess that was a lot more obvious when they were created than it is now.

          • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

            I don’t know, but you can easily find the comments of both Henson Workshop and the actors who voice the two puppets online. And yes, Henson Workshop also references The Odd Couple in one of their comments.

  • LesterBallard

    You see, whoever tells the most lies for Jebus gets a set of steak knives when they get to Heaven. Really good knives; the kind you see on infomercials. 

    • NickDB

       The kind they can use to stab each other in the back. Since I imagine that’s what heaven will be like with all the different zombie cults up there.

    • Librecalle

      The ones with the stag horn handles?!

      ’cause I’m totally gonna Lie for Jeebus, if that’s true.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/MWMIRQIZYZWH3K36CAB4IXQ45Y Chris

        Now, I know the lines are busy, people, but keep dialing in if you want a truly exceptional knife to slice up your friends in their sleep. 

        It’s not the cheaper Manticore horn.

  • Skulander1

    OH MY GOD! This seriously needs to go viral, to show the hypocrisy of Chick-fill-A and its anti-gay policies. Not to mention that this is a thinly veiled attempt at smearing perfectly safe toys.

  • Pollo Diablo

    do I hear the sound of Chick-fil-a digging a deeper grave? Time to hire better PR people. 

  • Robster

    “Unless, of course, lying is just a part of being Christian”. Hmmm…seems it is. Think about it, everything a christian (or muzzy/jewish etc) pastor/rabbi/imam says has got to be a lie because there is no god, jesus was little more than a magic jew and that pedophile mo was just nasty. It’s all a fraud, to fraud is to lie.

    • The Other Weirdo

       Technically, though, it’s not a lie if they believe what they is true. They can be mistaken in their belief, but it’s not a lie per-se.

      • Notthatbobbarker

        No…it still is a lie, regardless if they believe it or not.  The only difference is they would also be lying to themselves.

  • Coolbeans

      Hi there, I just wanted to share with you that as a former employee, Chick fil a does not
    hate people who are gay, the company simply does not promote sexual
    orientation of any kind, it sells chicken sandwiches.

    Chick fil a respects both its employees and its customers.  I worked for
    them for 6 years, between two different stores and many different store
    operators, and none of them, nor the home office, ever made any
    expression of hate towards anyone based on sexual orientation.

    While I can’t speak for every person working for the company on an
    individual basis, I can say that the company has no interest in any kind
    of hate towards anyone at all. They do have a right as individuals and
    American citizens, to believe what they like for themselves and not be
    persecuted for it.

    However, my question remains as to what actually happened with the
    “recalling” of the puppets, the dealings with GLAD, etc, vs. what it
    appears. In time, this will be made clear. In the past, in my personal
    dealings with Chick fil a, tho, they have never been the kind of company
    to lie about things like this, and have been very professional and
    respectful toward their customers.

    What I have heard is two different stories from news reports. One is that Chick fil has pulled the toys, the other is that they HAD to pull the toys because of GLAD.

    I’m sure you’re aware that media and the public in general often do not
    care enough to dig deep enough for truth to discover  in certainty
    different facts about various situations before information is spread, but rather they often rush to conclusions
    or judgments because of their own personal bias on the situation. And while I’m not
    saying this is certainly the case, I think a rational course of action would be to
    withhold judgement before discovering ALL the facts.  The reason I
    say this, is based on my personal experience with the company in years
    past and what I experience now as a customer buying sandwiches from
    them.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/ Hemant Mehta

      I think everyone knows the restaurant itself doesn’t discriminate against gay people. But the owners do. So eating there inevitably gives fuel to bigotry and that’s what the protests are about.

    • LesterBallard

      Yeah, fuck that giving millions to anti-gay groups. And what kind of Biblical marriage do they support? The kind Abraham had with Sarah and Hagar? The kind Jacob had with Rachael and Leah? The kind Solomon had?

    • Baby_Raptor

      Please explain to me how CFA “respects” me when they go out of their way to try and deny me rights. 

      That’s all I need to know. 

    • Isilzha

      If they use money from the business to fund hate groups then CFA is NOT just selling chicken sandwiches.  They are using profit they make from me to support a cause I abhor.  Therefore, I will never give them another dime of my money.  It’s just THAT simple!

    • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

      I’m so glad that they still would sell their crappy sandwiches to gay people.   No one is saying that there is a check mark on the job-application that says “Do you hate gay people?”  I know that the person behind the counter is most likely not a raging homophobe.  However, the CEO and the company are raging homophobes.  They pay people to make sure that gay people do not have the same rights as you do.  Why should I give my money to a company, who will in turn give it to a cause that I can not support. 

  • JohnnieCanuck

    Is it possible that it is just the management at the Willow Bend Mall outlet who are lying for their Jesus? Can anyone confirm if this was posted at all their stores?

    • rlrose328

      The Consumerist, who is mentioned in this post, contacted CFA corporate and confirmed it is company-wide.

  • Anonymous

    I believe there is an award being handed out on YouTube for the most heinous and blatant breath of the ninth commandment by a Christian organization.

    Chick-fil-a, here is your nomination: Remember, if you ever find yourself ashamed to be a bigot, you don’t need to reconsider your position; just start lying for Jesus instead — it’s what he’d want you to do.

    • Anonymous

       breath >> breach.
      DOH.

  • LesterBallard
  • http://www.theaunicornist.com Mike D

    I don’t get it. Why do they have to lie? These people act like moral paragons, and they can’t even shoot straight with something this petty? What a crock of hair-covered poop.

    • Guest

       Where is the lie? I’m trying to find it, but I can’t. They plainly state that the recall is voluntary due to a “possible issue” and even advised that “there have not been any cases in which a child has actually been injured.”

      • http://www.theaunicornist.com Mike D

         Try reading the article first, Sherlock.

  • HJR

    Just shows that religions are utterly ridiculous… Imaginary friends for adults. Insane!

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    So how much is Jim Henson’s Creatureshop going to win after they sue Chick-fil-a for breach of contract and defamation? 

  • Rwlawoffice

    So other than you just don’t believe them, what evidence do you have that they are lying?

    • TiltedHorizon

      Another post which arbitrarily defends the christian perspective without proof. Do you have any evidence supporting the claim these toys pose a safety issue or do you just take all self identifying christians at their word?

    • Kas Roth

      Because checking with the Consumer Product Safety Commission is an excellent form of proof. If there was a true hazard, it would have been reported and money or compensation would be offered for the faulty product. In this case the wording has been changed to a ‘withdraw’ instead of a ‘recall’ and no such report has been filed. 

      • Rwlawoffice

         That is not evidence that they are lying. That is evidence on how you believe a recall would play out.  Maybe there was no CPSC official recall because there were no official reports of injury, just as their note indicated.  Why do you think that Chick- Fil-A whose President said publicly that he is in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, would now be concerned about what the Jim Henson company thinks or what the public would think about why they are pulling these toys such that they would have to lie about it?  There is no motive and no evidence that they didn’t make this decision prior to the Jim Henson announcement. In fact, the only evidence available publicly is that they made the decision prior.  

    • Piet Puk

       He! There is ”double standards” Rwlawoffice again.

      • Rwlawoffice

         Just trying to hold you guys to the standard you profess to follow.  But good job at avoiding the question.

        • Piet Puk

          You should start by holding your fellow christians to a higher standard of honesty.
          Your question is irrelevant, I don´t care if they are lying or not.

          • Rwlawoffice

             so in two sentences you say that they are lying but you won’t say what evidence you have for it because the question regarding evidence is irrelevant because you don’t care if they are.  Good job.

            • Piet Puk

               No, in my first sentence I was talking about christians in general. In the second I was talking about this case.

            • TiltedHorizon

              Funny, you defend them with one sentence but you won’t say what evidence you have for it because the question regarding evidence is irrelevant because they are Christian. Good job.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 I am not the one accusing them of lying and thus, I am not defending them. It is the burden of those that are to show that what they have said is a lie.  I have simply asked for the evidence that this is a lie.  To this point none has been provided.

        • TiltedHorizon

           Speaking of avoiding….

          Did you find evidence supporting the claim these toys pose a safety issue yet?

          • Rwlawoffice

              It is the burden of those that are saying they are lying  to show that what they have said is a lie.  I have simply asked for the evidence that this is a lie.  To this point none has been provided.  You maybe correct that they are, but to this point is is an accusation without proof.

            • TiltedHorizon

              Since I find nothing which lends creditability to the “safety” claim, the original “accusation without proof” came from Chick-fil-A.

            • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

              You know, you’d avoid so much drama if you’d actually read the OP.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      How about the fact that the sign said this was a “voluntary recall,” which was later contradicted by a rep who said it was not a recall but a “voluntary withdrawal”? Read the damned OP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bbrkovich Barbara Brkovich

    CFA is butthurt because their pants are on fire.

  • Frank

    Kept up the good work Chick Fil A and Dan! I am a fan and will support our business.

  • Will Smith

     Jim henson company publicly villianized a business partner, that’s bad business for Chik-fil-a, no brainer there that they had no choice but to drop the toys

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      They didn’t have to lie about it, though.

  • Norm Donnan

    One man likes the proper meaning of marriage and you “release the hounds”,did it ever enter your mind that so many more will now support this business as a reaction to your actions.

    • http://annainca.blogspot.com/ Anna

      I don’t see a problem here. People who support marriage equality will stop patronizing Chick-fil-A, while those in opposition will continue to lend their support. However, I highly doubt the company will gain legions of new followers. Anyone who’s anti-gay and likes chicken probably already eats there.

      BTW, the issue is not that “one man likes the proper meaning of marriage.” It’s that Chick-fil-A has donated millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations. Plenty of people disagree that his definition of marriage is the “proper” one, and do not care to eat at a restaurant that seeks to deny their fellow citizens equal rights.

  • The New Truth

    I support Chick-fil-a and adamantly support their policies. Chick-fil-a is a private business. Also, a finer point for the ignorant people on this blog: People are not hateful, bigoted or homophobic who are against gay marriage. Most Christians would support rights for a gay person but they don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed. Period! What about civil unions? I think Chick-fil-a would be more accomodating or encouraging to civil unions. Many people who don’t support gay marriage are fine with civil unions. It’s not really about the rights but rather what people call it. I’m sure there are plenty of athiests are not encouraging of gay marriage as well. I know plenty of gay people who don’t give a fuck about getting married. Show your support of Chick-fil-a  and all private businesses on August 1st. The food is delicious! It’s no coincidence that the company with morals also provides the best service. This is America so you are free to shut the fuck up and not eat there.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      People are not hateful, bigoted or homophobic who are against gay marriage. Most Christians would support rights for a gay person but they don’t think the definition of marriage should be changed.

      “I support your rights…just not this one.”

      What about civil unions? I think Chick-fil-a would be more accomodating or encouraging to civil unions. Many people who don’t support gay marriage are fine with civil unions. It’s not really about the rights but rather what people call it.

      In other words, “We want this special title for us; you can’t have it.” Do you remember how that whole “separate but equal” thing worked out in the past?

      This is America so you are free to shut the fuck up and not eat there.

      We are also free not to shut the fuck up and not eat there.

    • Glasofruix

       “I’m sure there are plenty of athiests are not encouraging of gay marriage as well.”

      And the reason for that would be…? Because i don’t see how gay marriage would afect me in particular, i dont plan on marrying a dude anyway so i don’t see a valid reason for me to oppose a legal contarct called “marriage” between two consenting adults. On the fundie side however they have the “bible said so” excuse…

  • Itsmesteph11

    And this is news why?   Besides who wants to do business with someone with no morals? 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X