Even If You’re Not a Fan of Chick-fil-A, Please Don’t Do This

In the wake of the Chick-fil-A controversy, one of the ways the pro-gay-marriage side is fighting back is through the “National Same Sex Kiss Day at Chick-Fil-A” taking place today.

Another way to fight back is to follow the (half-joking) advice of YouTuber Jackson Pearce: Go to Chick-fil-A and ask for a glass of water, which they will give you for free (it’s the Biblical thing to do!), so you’re essentially taking money from them…

(It would be even better if people bought food at KFC and handed it out to homeless people or something… You know, whatever Christians say Jesus would do while they go stuff themselves with some chikin.)

Anyway, Arizona native Adam M. Smith went to a Chick-fil-A drive-thru this week to get the free water. But that wasn’t all. He also lashed out at the employee who served him for the faults of the company and its COO… as if she had anything to do with the matter.

And he videotaped the whole thing:

*sigh*

As I watched that, I just felt bad for the employee. She handled the situation perfectly — she did her job, remained as neutral as possible, and tried to explain how the company didn’t discriminate against gay customers (which is true)… meanwhile, Smith came off as a heartless bully (“I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here”). If Chick-fil-A has a problem, this employee had nothing to do with it and he’s wrongly taking his anger out on her. She showed far more class than he did.

If you’re a Chick-fil-A employee who supports gay rights (I don’t know if this particular employee does or not), then you’ve had a shitty week. You had to serve Christians who cheer the fact that they’re standing in the way of gay rights… and you had to deal with liberals who wrongly assume you must share the owners’ beliefs.

Anyway, here’s where it gets a little more complicated:

Smith is the CFO/Treasurer of a medical equipment manufacturing company called Vante… and after seeing the video, Vante fired him:

The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

Vante is privately-owned so you could say they have a right to do that… but it seems pretty harsh when a public apology from Smith would probably have sufficed (“I apologize for embarrassing myself and my company…”).

Smith is also an adjunct lecturer at the University of Arizona and they’ve taken down his webpage. One email source told me they’ve asked for his resignation (or they may not be inviting him back), but I can’t confirm that. If true, the university could be putting itself in legal jeopardy. Just because an employee is a jerk outside of work doesn’t seem like solid grounds for terminating employment.

Just to make things worse, a lot of crazy people online think Smith’s personal information needs to be paraded about online (not at that link), which is also dumb. He’s already suffering from the blowback of his video, as he should. Like anyone else, he doesn’t deserve to get email threats.

By the way, when someone told Jackson Pearce what Smith had done (possibly) based on her advice, she wasn’t too thrilled about it:



About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • http://www.bricewgilbert.blogspot.com Brice Gilbert

    Reminds me of the latest Newsroom episode. Going from well meaning, fighting for reason and kindness to being a bully yourself.

    • Guest

      Yeah, that’s pretty much it. 

  • Curioso

    What kind of moron shares that video after getting totally owned by the Chick fil-A employee and her professionalism?

  • http://www.laughinginpurgatory.com/ Andrew Hall

    Well, after hearing how bad the guy acted, he really doesn’t come off that badly. For those of us who have worked menial jobs and had to deal with the public there are far worse people that need to be dealt with everyday.

  • Muggin15

    On the one hand, it would be nice if all employees of Chick-fil-A who supported gay rights would walk off the job because they didn’t agree with their employers stand, but on the other, I know that jobs are hard to come by right now and I don’t really blame any of them for not leaving.  

    • Nikki Gray

      Do you dopes actually believe a majority of people agree with you on gay marriage?   did Chik fil A not setting a world record prove that you guys dont have as many followers as you think?  

      • rhodent

        I’m sorry, I was unaware that right and wrong were decided by majority vote.  The reason I was unaware of that is because it isn’t true.

        For what it’s worth, the number of people who favor same sex marriage keeps growing.  A recent poll from the Pew Center (released on Wensday, the same day as the the Hatefest at Chick-Fil-A) put it at 48 percent in favor, 44 percent opposed, and 6 percent undecided.  So while it’s not yet true that a majority agree with us on gay marriage, it is true that more people support it than oppose.

        But, again, the number of people who support it is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong.  What is relevant is that supporting it treats all people with dignity and equality, and opposing it treats some people with discrimination and hate.

      • Wild Rumpus

        Yes, a majority of us do believe in equal marriage rights. You have to look at the bigger picture Nikki. In other countries, such as Canada, equal marriage rights are given to all people and we haven’t seen people trying to marry their dogs, and we haven’t suffered the wrath of God.

        This is like the end times of American slavery or the women’s suffragette movement. There are a small but vocal group of bigots, interestingly also mostly concentrated in the supposedly religious Southern States, who are losing a culture war against change.

        History will show, dear bigoted NIkki, that the majority of people want equality for all people of the world regardless of colour, sex, or sexual orientation.

        Also remember, dear bigoted Nikki, that your mythical christ told you to love one another. Never once did Jesus teach people to hate the gays.

        It will be a tough fight with bigots like you Nikki, but one day all people will be considered equal and majority viewpoints from all the countries based on secular law are proving this.

      • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

        Do you dopes actually believe a majority of people agree with you on gay marriage?

        In the U.S., the majority of people support same-sex marriage. The margin is a small one, but the demographics are clear: support will continue to grow. In the developed world, very significant majorities support it in most countries.

        • Rwlawoffice

           So everytime he comes to a vote of the public it passes,  oh wait, it doesn’t.

          • Gunstargreen

            It’s never come to a nationwide vote so you’re not really making much of a point.

          • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

            It’s not a matter of voting. This isn’t even a matter that should rightfully be subject to a vote, and in the long run, courts will invalidate any votes that violate rights (as they should).

            The question was about public opinion, and in the U.S., public opinion is now slightly in favor of same-sex marriage, and is trending strongly in that direction.

            Votes don’t typically track public opinion all that closely, since there are regional effects, and people who actually vote don’t usually represent an even cross-section of society.

            • Rwlawoffice

              The vote is a valid measure of public opinion and certainly bot subject to the bias of a poll.

              • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

                Nonsense. Polls are much more accurate in determining public opinion. It is well known that different groups within society have more or less of a tendency to vote. A vote typically under represents younger voters, and under reflects lower income voters.

                A properly constructed poll cuts across all of society… unlike an election, which may have a small turnout, with the actual voters depending on many factors, including the issues on the ballot.

          • Aaron Scoggin

            There’s something seriously wrong with putting a civil rights decision up to public vote. 

            • Nordog

              Redefining marriage according to one’s desires is neither a civil nor a human right.

              I am reminded of a recent cartoon posted at this blog.  Perhaps some of the frothing-at-the-mouth Chick-fil-A haters and bigots should fly off to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, etc. to see what real civil and human rights violations of gays and lesbians looks like.

              • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

                In the U.S., marriage is a civil definition. Society can choose to define it any way it wants. And it’s pretty clear what that definition is becoming.

                • Nordog

                  Yes, you make three points here, and are quite right on all three. 

                  But the right of a society to redefine a civil institution is not the same as an individual or group right to redefine it.

                  In the meantime there are hyperventilating bigots projecting their hatred on to those who still think marriage is between one man and one woman.  They do so as if the new definition has been settled.  It has not been.

                  Addtionally, this new definition is, in the terms of human history, about 5 seconds old.  Yet, the new enlighted mob is quick to demonize and throw under the bus anyone who disagrees with them.

                  But don’t these people love their grandparents?  Their parents?  Certainly for some of these unhinged advocates of gay marriege there parents and grandparents that haven’t had time to shift gears to get with the new program.

                  Do these LGBT zealots throw their own parents and grandparents who disagree under the bus too?  Do they call them haters and bigots and homophobes?

                  The LGBT community runs the risk of a few problems here, not the least of which is being co-opted by the mob.

                • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

                  Same sex marriage has been common throughout history. There’s good evidence that such marriages were even performed by the Catholic Church in its earlier days. To say that the definition is a new one is simply wrong. It’s only new with respect to the definition of marriage in western cultures for the last 1000 or so years.

                  It is perfectly reasonable for individuals or groups to push for redefinitions, even if society has the final say.

                  The bigots aren’t the ones who believe that marriage is between one man and one women, but those who feel they can push this obviously unfair standard on everyone.

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Quite a few unsubstantiated assumptions in that post.

                • Nordog

                  “It is perfectly reasonable for individuals or groups to push for redefinitions, even if society has the final say.”

                  Yes, and it’s perfectly reasonable for individuals or groups to push to maintain a given definition, even if society has the final say.

                  I suspect you and I are much closer to agreement on this issue than you may think.

                • amycas

                  You can define your marriage however you want. Why can’t the rest of us do the same?

                • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

                  I doubt it. I would never push for any legal or social policy that limited the rights of anybody in that society, unless that limitation was required to balance some other right that I considered more important. Since same-sex marriage does not stand in opposition to any rights, no matter how trivial, there’s absolutely no moral basis to oppose it.

                  It is not reasonable or moral to oppose same sex marriage. People have the right to do so, but in my eyes that makes them bad people.

                • Inver Stone

                  “But the right of a society to redefine a civil institution is not the same as an individual or group right to redefine it.In the meantime there are hyperventilating bigots projecting their hatred on to those who still think marriage is between one man and one woman. They do so as if the new definition has been settled. It has not been.
                  Addtionally, this new definition is, in the terms of human history, about 5 seconds old. Yet, the new enlighted mob is quick to demonize and throw under the bus anyone who disagrees with them.”

                  So where does the “old” definition come from? Under whose authority?

                  The truth is that most of these idiots claim that the bible is their source of one man/one woman marriage. My question to them is to tell me what marriage was accepted during biblical times? Describe Abrahams marriage for example.

                  Guess what? It’s polygamous.

                  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/04/the-varieties-of-biblical-marriage/

                • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

                  “But the right of a society to redefine a civil institution is not the same as an individual or group right to redefine it.”
                  Was it then not right for our society to redefine “landowner” to include people other than white males?

                • Nordog

                  Of course it was right.

                  Just as it was wrong for our society, via the Taney court, to tell Dred Scott he was still a slave. 

                  So what? 

                  Society gets it right sometimes and gets it wrong sometimes. 

                  My point is that individuals and activist groups do not have thre right to redefine words and institutions according to their desires, but they must participate in the larger political process within society.

                • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

                  Society can’t change unless it’s approved by the majority? Give me a break.

                • Nordog

                  Reposting fresh to avoid text squish.

              • RobMcCune

                Given that chick-fil-a donated money to a group that tried to stop congress from condemning the kill the gays bill in Uganda you may need to rework your argument.

                • Nordog

                  Hey, if you want to change this argument from “CFA is against gay marriage” to “CFA supports killing gays in Uganda” then go for it.

                  I think it will be an uphill battle for you.
                  Besides, if that were the case, then the pro-gay marriage crowd has really erred here.  A vast majority of those at CFA the other day were live and let live folks like me, but see the acts of a few big city mayors as an attack on live and let live.

                  However, those live and let live folks like me would not stand for supporting killing gays in Uganda or anywhere else.

                  The message should have been, “CFA supports killing gays in Uganda.”

                  But the message has been and remains, “CFA is a bunch of bigots because they oppose gay marriage.”

                  So, I say make your case, if you have one.

                • RobMcCune

                  Actually the opposition to CFA has been because of it’s donations to anti-gay groups, and it’s opposition to gay marriage. It’s not an either-or issue.

                  You suggested people who boycott CFA should go to countries where gay people are jailed and killed to see what real persecution looks like. You’re apparently ignorant of the fact CFA donates money to organizations that promote or refuse to condemn that kind of persecution. 

                  Maybe you and all the live and let live folks should try learning what people were objecting to in the first place, rather than buy a sandwich to spite people promoting gay rights.

                • Nordog

                  Donating to “anti-gay” groups and opposing gay marriage is a far cry from pushing for the execution of gays in Uganda, as you suggested.

                  And your having made that charge is not the same thing as making the case.  I’ve been the recipient of overheated and false charges from overzealous people on the Left, so color me skeptical on this one.

                  “Maybe you and all the live and let live folks should try learning what people were objecting to in the first place, rather than buy a sandwich to spite people promoting gay rights.”

                  Or maybe the GLBTQFAWILO crowd should work on their message.  But here’s a tip: Crying Wolf doesn’t help, and you guys are losing a vast population of people who would normally be on your side because they recognize that they are not the wicked bigots they are being made out to be.

                • RobMcCune

                  I said:

                  chick-fil-a donated money to a group that tried to stop congress from condemning the kill the gays bill in Uganda 

                  Which is not in consistent with what I said in my response. CFA donated money to Exodus International participated in an conference in Uganda that lead to the bill being proposed, and the Family Research Council that lobbied against the congressional resolution mentioned above.

                  Or maybe the GLBTQFAWILO crowd should work on their message….

                  They have to battle selective listening, among other things.

                  you guys are losing a vast population of people who would normally be on your side 

                  Somehow I doubt you’re among them.

              • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

                “Redefining marriage according to one’s desires is neither a civil nor a human right.”

                You do realize that Abraham married his own half sister, right? And Jacob married two women, sisters, and also took their slave girls for wives.

                Marriage has been “redefined” throughout history. 

                Being treated equally under the law IS a civil right. In fact, it’s in our Constitution. Please see the Fourteenth Amendment for further information.

                • Nordog

                  You do realize that your response to my post is a non sequitur?

                  Marriage laws in the U.S. apply equally to all.

                  As do the rights to define and redefine marriage.  Individuals and special interest groups do not have that right.  They do have the right to use the political process to have society change or maintain that definition.  Or, at least they did until the Stalinist Mayors decided to shut down CFA.

                • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

                  Marriage laws also once said that interracial marriage was illegal.

                  Guess how that changed? Sure as hell not by popular vote.

                  Or do  you think we went about that the wrong way? Should it have been kept to a popular, festering as a silly illegality for years before the bigots finally lightened up?

                • Nordog

                  You seem to think that I’m suggesting that this should be decided by popular vote.  That is not the case.

                  As an aside I would note that removing any legal restrictions on interracial marriage was not a redefinition of marriage, but an acknowledgment that a person’s humanity is not a function or their race.  A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, regardless of the skin color involved.

                • amycas

                  And we’re simply postulating that a person’s humanity is not a function of their sexuality, and they should therefore not be discriminated against in marriage (and other) laws.  What part of that are you not getting?

                • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

                  “Marriage laws in the U.S. apply equally to all.”Gay people cannot marry the people they are attracted to and build relationships with. I’ve heard this, “The laws don’t stop Gays from marrying, they just can’t marry each other,” before, and it’s just a disgusting and bigoted red herring. California, for instance, didn’t have a law defining marriage between a man and a woman until 2000. Gay people just hadn’t thought to try to get married before that because of the social stigma. It has been since then that states are starting to write this into their laws. The only reason to change it is based on either religion or bigotry. It’s tyranny of the masses  and entanglement of gov’t and religion, and it’s protected against in our Constitution.

                • amycas

                  the current laws in the u.s. in regards to marriage do not apply equally to all. Men are allowed to married women, but women are not allowed to marry women. Women are allowed to marry men, but men are not allowed to marry men. This is not laws being applied equally. 

              • JackVsage

                We don’t need to fly to Saudi Arabia or Iran. Those same violations occur here as well, or are you simply unaware that a 17 year-old girl was recently beaten to death by a group of men who thought she was a lesbian? Are you unaware of Matthew Shepherd being beaten within an inch of his life, tied to a fence and left to die? Are you so completely out of touch and suffering from depraved indifference that you do not know about the number of people beaten, correctively raped, dragged behind trucks, cut, bashed to death with fire extinguishers, shall I go on?  
                We are not fighting over an idea here. We are fighting for our lives.

                • Nordog

                  Jack, you may be relieved to learn that the crimes you described are, how should I put this, quite illegal.  Yet, hold on now, those same acts in other countries are not against the law, but actually sanctioned by law.

                  If you really think that gays in America face the same challenges as gays in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan then there is little that facts or reason can do for you here.

                  If you think that the tens of thousands of people at Chic-fil-A buying food on Wednesday want to kill gays or want laws to allow them to kill gays then you are very disturbed.

                • amycas

                  And if you really think that doing slightly better than Islamic theocracies in regards to human rights is fine and dandy, then there is little that facts or reason can do for you. I would think you would want to hold America to a higher standard than theocracies with little regard for human rights.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Theresa-Darklady-Reed/581698361 Theresa ‘Darklady’ Reed

                There are many Chick-Fil-A lovers who would like to see the USA emulate entirely too many Middle Eastern nations when it comes to matters of other people’s sexuality.

                The fact you seem to think gays in the USA should be glad they aren’t treated that way makes me think you might be one of them.

                • amycas

                  Yes, I just love it when privileged people let us “others” know that we should be grateful for the few token rights tossed to us. I’m *totes* glad it’s not legal for people to beat me to death or try to “corrective” rape me. I guess this means I have it all and it would just be too much to give me complete equality under the law. You know what, I’m going to use this handy time machine to go back to the 1960′s so MLK jr. can hear this wonderful news too.

              • amycas

                Tell that to the Supreme Court who made the decision in Loving v. Virginia.

                • Nordog

                  You’re not well.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  No, you’re a troll.

                • Nordog

                  Ha! 

                  It never ceases to amaze me how little self-reflective sence of irony is demonstrated by folks like you.

                  You should be in the film business; you’re a natural projectionist.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Another person who doesn’t understand irony? Unsurprising.

                • Nordog

                  Good come back.  Wish I had said it.  Oh wait. I did.

          • Baby_Raptor

            You know what? If your side stopped constantly lying and slandering gays and lesbians, and started following the law (you know, that whole “Religion cannot be a basis for secular rules” bit) then it would pass every time, because people would actually be voting on an issue instead of a bunch of trumped up “righteous” indignation.

            And, frankly, listen to yourself. You’re gloating because people are routinely denied basic rights. That’s Fucking sickening. 

            • Rwlawoffice

              Last I checked one of the civil rights we have in this country is the right to vote when issues are on the ballot. True these votes can and are reviewed by the courts as part of our checks and balances. When people vote on this issue they vote to uphold the traditional definition of marriage. If you want to think it because of lies that is your right.

              • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

                Like how interracial marriage was put to a vote… OH WAIT.

                Oh, and also, define “traditional”. Do you mean “traditional” like how segregation was traditional? Or like how women not being able to vote was traditional? Or like how slavery was traditional?

                Each and every one of those “traditions” were fought against by people touting the word “tradition” like it means anything.

              • http://www.facebook.com/people/Theresa-Darklady-Reed/581698361 Theresa ‘Darklady’ Reed

                Traditional definition of marriage?

                Which one is that? There seem to be so many of them, most barely going back more than a few centuries, if that.

      • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

        Did it ever occur to you that it’s not possible to set a world record for the most people who didn’t go to Chick-Fil-A? That says nothing about the proportion of people who agree or disagree with gay marriage.

      • Reason_Being

         Actually no.  What their record proved to me is that there are many more Christian Bigots out there willing to shell out a few dollars to support that bigotry than I would have hoped.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Theresa-Darklady-Reed/581698361 Theresa ‘Darklady’ Reed

          Most of whom would never stand in line to help the homeless or less fortunate.  They might write a check, though. Then feel like they did all they needed to do.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

        Wow… one record-setting sales day based on a planned event does not a majority make, my friend.  Your glee is embarrassing.

      • Mythra

        Might doesn’t equal right in situation dumbass. It just shows how little morality the bible actually teaches.

      • The Other Weirdo

         That’s actually quite an interesting point you bring up. I’ve been asked many times, by Christians, where do I get my morality from. They seem especially suspicious of me when they find out I don’t sleep around, I don’t steal, murder, rape or pillage. Then they tell me my position is wrong because what would happen if, say, murder, were to suddenly become the accepted norm. Because my morality isn’t grounded in a Higher Being’s Capricious Commands, I would have no choice but to start murdering people.

        Your question is the perfect example of this.

        Even if a majority accepts something, right and wrong are not democratic things. Some things are wrong no matter how many people accept them as the norm.

        So, to answer your question, even if the vast, vast majority of Christians believed that denying gays marriage rights was the right thing to do, it would still be wrong, and I still wouldn’t follow them.

        I know right from wrong. Apparently you don’t.

        Also, for your information, even if the restaurant had posted record results, it doesn’t prove that it’s because every one of its customers supports its stance on this matter. It would simply mean than many people are simply unaware of the issue.

        • Alex

          >  even if the restaurant had posted record results, it doesn’t prove that
          it’s because every one of its customers supports its stance on this
          matter.

          Although, to be honest, I would imagine that most of them do, what with huge lines to get some righteous godly gay-free chikin.

      • StarStuff

        Ooooh!   A gold medal!  Sales records /= world records.

      • Baby_Raptor

        Yeah, actually, the majority of the country DOES agree with us on gay marriage. Repeated polls have shown that recently. Lying to a bunch of low IQ Bible Belters to get them to go buy food on a certain day doesn’t disprove that.

        But that doesn’t matter. Since when were peoples’ rights voted on by the majority? If you’re honestly okay with that, you’d best hope that Christianity never becomes the minority, because this country is fast starting to hate ya’lls guts. If we start voting on what you get to do, you’ll end up getting a taste of the pain you’ve so gleefully inflicted on gays and lesbians.

      • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

        “Did those people in the March on Washington in 1963 actually believe a majority of people agreed with them? Did fire hoses and police dogs not prove that blacks don’t have as many followers as you think?”

        -Nikki Gray, fort-nine years ago

      • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

        Interracial marriage didn’t receive majority support in this country until 1991.

      • kaydenpat

        @d639d9b8be7df2b1cfa5fc4b67090b12:disqus 
        You do realize that at one point in American history, it seemed as if segregation would never be defeated, but that because people had the courage and fortitude to stand up and protest, it has been completely overthrown as an acceptable way of life?

        It will take time, but those who support equal rights for gays are going to win the war.  Chick-fil-A may have won the battle this week, but Cathy’s stance places him on the wrong side of history.

        Don’t gloat too much.

        • amycas

          Technically we do still have massive segregation issues. We’re now fighting de facto segregation based on socio-economic status (which correlates with minority races and ethnic groups) as opposed to de jure segregation based specifically on race.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Theresa-Darklady-Reed/581698361 Theresa ‘Darklady’ Reed

        Who cares if a company has one huge sales day? It means nothing if it’s not consistent. How many of those people have ever eaten there before? How many will go back? Those are the answers that will matter… to Chick-Fil-A. 

        The number of bigots willing to eat fried chicken sandwiches is not what determines the laws of our land nor what is right or wrong. 

    • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

      It would be nice, but especially hard for people working at fast food jobs. There is definitely not enough hours scheduled or 5 cent-per-year raises for people in that industry to have enough saved to be able to walk off the job.

  • http://profiles.google.com/julielada Julie Lada

    “Vante is privately-owned so you could say they have a right to do that…
    but it seems pretty harsh when a public apology from Smith would
    probably have sufficed”

    Disagree. The medical community is very big on professionalism. I’m a third year vet student and a lot of my classmates are changing their Facebook names so that the colleges they’ll be performing their clinical year at can’t find them in a search because they’re afraid of being denied certain rotations if they have a pic of themselves drunk come up in a search. Vante probably knows it could come back on them in a big way if their clients found out that they continued to let someone represent their company (at such a high level as CEO, even) who publicly behaved in such a toolish, disrespectful way and made the smart decision to get rid of a loose canon that could damage their reputation.

  • Randall Morrison90

    “legal jeopardy”?

    Unless you have a law degree now Mehta, maybe you should not be giving out legal advice without a License to Practice Law.

    • vexorian

       It does not sound like legal advice :/

    • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

      The use of the phrase “could be” seems to disqualify the comment as actual advice.

      Also noting that a public university that accepts both state and federal funds may not be as free to fire an employee over use of speech in their private life s a private business is doesn’t strike me as unreasonable. 

    • Isilzha

       I always find that a bizarre argument.  Unless someone is actually counseling another person on specific legal proceedings then it’s NOT “practicing law”.  As citizens we have a right and a duty to discuss and interpret the law. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Donovan-W-Baker/1167785505 Donovan W Baker

    Hemant, I don’t know about AZ, but TX is a no fault state. You can fire anyone without a reason, for no reason here. But I totally agree with the rest of the post. Theme: Don’t be douches.

    • http://www.phoenixgarage.org/ cr0sh

       Same in AZ – at will employment.

  • Bob Becker

    Worrth keeping in mind that jerks coome in all political and cultural shapes and sizes. However much we might wish “the other side” had a monopoly on them, it doesn’t.

  • http://www.facebook.com/richard.tingley Richard Tingley

    I could not agree more. The problem is with Chick-fil-a’s owners and their financial support of hate groups. Not an hourly employee who is just trying to pay his/her rent, phone bill and electrical bill all in the same month while working at a soul sucking, minimum wage job. The free water thing is somewhat clever, but don’t exceed that mandate. The best thing you can do is spend your money elsewhere. On day of record profits will not overcome a year of 1/2 of the US population going elsewhere for a meal.

    • machintelligence

      Agreed. It makes no sense to shoot the piano player.
      And also agreed.  Check back in a year or so to see if the boycott is effective.

    • Nikki Gray

      HAHA   You actually believe half the country is gonna stop going to Chik fil A because the homos want them to?    You guys are a complete joke

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

        Nikki, you can stop wasting your time here.  Your silly posts really aren’t going to make an impact and we don’t care what names you call us.  I’d be willing to bet that more than half the country has never even BEEN to a Chick-fil-A (I haven’t) so that’s your starting point.  And I’ve seen more posts all over the web stating someone will no longer go there than I’ve seen posts stating they will continue to go there.  In the long run, though, it does’t matter.  As time passes, our country will progress to accept same-sex marriage just as we accepted women’s right to vote, mixed-race marriage, etc.  We’re just in a waiting game right now.

        • Guest

          Actually, Nikki (what an androgynous name to use for a bigot) said that we are Homos. I think what he/she means is that we are the more evolved homo-sapiens to thier less evolved homo-xtian.

      • StarStuff

        troll*cough*troll

      • Aaron Scoggin

        Nikki, I’ve never even heard of Chik-fil-a until last week. HEARD OF. The people who love it will keep going as usual, and the people who have never even heard of it will be put off because of the drama they caused.

      • kaydenpat

        So now we’re calling people derogatory names?  Real mature there, Nikki.  I’m sure Chick-fil-A has lost many customers because of Cathy’s stance. 

  • Michael C.

    I don’t get these whole over-the-top protests (same-sex kiss day, ordering only water, berating employees, etc.).  The CEO has done NOTHING WRONG.  He isn’t breaking any laws, he isn’t saying he hates gays, he’s not discriminating against hiring gays or serving gays.  He just feels- like many people do in this country- that gay marraige is wrong.  While I disagree with his opinion, he and his company have the right to run their company according to how they interpret the Bible as long as they are not breaking any state or Federal laws.  If you disagree with him and feel strongly, don’t go there.  If you feel REALLY strongly, discuss it with your friends and family and try to persude them not to go.  But openly demonstrating and acting like douchebags?  C’mon.  It’s just feeding into the conservative fallacy that there is a some “gay agenda”.

    • Philbert

      He sponsors several organizations that attack gay people on a daily basis, and one that wants to turn gays straight.

      Hate isn’t about emotion, it’s about actions. Cathy probably doesn’t  feel hatred towards gays, he might even think he’s helping them. But lobbying to deny rights to gay couples and promoting the idea that they can be “cured” is hateful.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

      Well the issue is that the CEO donates large amounts to anti-gay groups and ex-gay therapy type of stuff. So if you eat there, that’s where your money is potentially going.
      But yes, it’s gotten way out of hand.

      • Rwlawoffice

         Do you buy gasoline? If so you are supporting countries that actually imprision and kill homosexuals.  do you boycott them as well?

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          I can’t go to work without gasoline, nor can I buy it from a different source (although I might note that we have a lot of domestic oil, and we get more from Canada than Saudi Arabia, the largest exporter with LGBT human rights abuses). On the other hand, it is perfectly possible for me to subsist on food other than Chick-Fil-A – in fact, I’ve managed to survive for my entire life without it. False equivalence.

          • Rwlawoffice

             Your justifications for you being selective does not make it an invalid comparison.  What it shows is that this is not really about how he spends his money at all. 

            • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

              These 2 arguments are not that black and white.  One is something we can function without (chicken sandwiches).  One is something we cannot (gasoline to run a necessary vehicle).  I, for one, can’t wait for an affordable electric vehicle so I can eliminate my dependence on gasoline.  Until then, I have to use gasoline for my hybrid vehicle to conduct my life.  Sometimes, we have to pick and choose the battles we can fight.  And I’m pretty sure you know that.

              • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                You’ll need solar panels to charge it.  50% of the USA’s electricity comes from coal.

                I’m sure RW could afford to give even more to feed the world’s starving than he does.  Anyone who isn’t living in abject poverty is picking their causes.

              • Findog53

                You are a hypocrite then.

                • Nordog

                  The word “hypocrite” has joined “homophobe” and “racist” in having been so abused in usage as to no longer have any real meaning.

                  The charge against one’s character, that once produced such clutching of pearls and gnashing of teeth, now produces little more than yawns, if that, from those for whom the charge is meant to be devestating.

                  Cry wolf and let slip the words of bore.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  “Cry wolf and let slip the words of bore.”

                  Ohh, that’s good!  That yours?

                • Nordog

                  Thanks.  Yeah, that’s mine.  But be careful, saying something nice about me around here is like haning a “kick me” sign on your back.  ;-)

            • Findog53

              Go Gettum counselor!!

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Those aren’t justifications for being selective; they’re reasons that the two aren’t equivalent. Do try to keep up.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Sure they are.  You need gasoline so you don’t object to the fact that oil bought from these countries is used to support regimes that actually kill and imprison homosexuals, but since you don’t need chicken, you boycott this restaurant for  holding the same position that Obama had until last May.

                By the way did you vote for Obama in 2008?  If you did then you were selective then as well because his position that marriage was between a man and a woman was the same as the CEO’s.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  You really do think that what you’re doing is a response, don’t you? That’s adorable. You just demonstrated my point on why they’re different.

                  And no, I’m not boycotting CFA (easy to do since there isn’t one close to me at all) because of their anti-gay stance but because of their anti-gay advocacy.

                  (I didn’t vote in 2008, so nice try on that one, too. Still wouldn’t be equivalent, though.)

                • Rwlawoffice

                  Don’t you realize that advocacy is part of free speech?

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Don’t you realize that that is irrelevant? I’m not advocating that the government curtail their ability to advocate for such causes. Jesus, for a lawyer, you’re dense.

        • 3lemenope

          By far, the largest importer of oil to the US is Canada. I wasn’t under the impression, though I could be wrong, that Canada rounded up homosexuals and imprisoned or executed them.

          • Whirlwitch

            All I know is, nobody’s rounded me up yet, despite the fact that I called attention to myself by having a nice legal same-sex marriage with all the trimmings nine years ago.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

          1) I stated the issue and then mentioned that I think it’s gotten pretty out of hand. So…I’m not sure why your comment is directed at me.
          2) No, I actually don’t buy gas since I don’t have a car, though I’m sure I pay for it in indirect ways. As others have explained though, it’s not a good comparison. There are tons of ways I can get my food, but the options are much more limited for gas.

    • Isilzha

       If you spend money at CFA then a small portion of the money is funneled into supporting anti-gay hate groups.  Some of us have a HUGE problem with that.

    • Nena

      It cracks me up that some people consider the idea of me walking into a restaurant and giving my girlfriend a quick smooch an “over the top protest.”

    • LesterBallard

      It’s a human agenda.

    • Guest

      The gay rights movement has defined hate and bigotry as not agreeing with the gay rights movement.  That’s it.  You either accept, or you’re a bigot and you promote hate.  It’s a little like the fundamentalist waving a King James Bible saying if you disagree with his interpretation, you hate God and are going to burn in hell.  It’s just a post-modern, secular version.  Since God likely doesn’t exist and there is obviously no hell, so the belief goes, therefore the worst things you can do in our culture today is label someone a bigot or promoting hate.  As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s the same as accusing someone of being a Communist or a Socialist back in the 50s.  And pretty effective.  Especially since the issue is actually quite complex, and there is no real ‘scientific consensus’ on almost anything to do with the issue.  It’s not like scientists agree in one voice that gays should be married.  It’s an attempt to get the country to endorse, if not outright impose, a set of values, using tactics that are as time honored as any that have ever been used. 

      • Donalbain

         If you thought that Jews should not be allowed to marry, wouldnt you be a bigot? Why are you NOT a bigot if you think that gay people should not be allowed to marry?

        • Guest

          If we could prove that being gay is the same as being a Jew, then yeah.  But that jury is still way out on that one.  The shouts of hate and bigot have cause people to forget that there is no universal consensus that being gay is the same as being Jewish or being black.  It’s simply one more tactic to shut down the debate that accepting non-heterosexual normality is a very subjective belief, a value based on certain world views, and nothing more. 

          • Michael

            Why? Being French is not the same as being a Jew but you could substitute French people for Jews in that statement without changing it.

            • Guest

              That’s a nationality, isn’t it.   It’s not race, with which gay rights activists equate being gay.  The attempts by the gay rights movement to equate non-heterosexual normality with anything under the sun shows that it simply doesn’t have the stones to say ‘this is our belief and our values and we say there is nothing wrong with it.’  It’s that feeling that it must be ‘like’ something else, and to an outside observer, that shows an inherent weakness in its argument.

              • matt

                So you don’t thinks gay folks should be able to marry because of…. “non-heterosexual normality”?  Why?  What harm does it do to you? 

              • Michael

                It’s a demographic.

                We can try again with Republican if you like.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Or Christian.

                • Michael

                  Or basket-weaver.

              • Guest

                It’s a nationality.  Technically anything can be a demographic.  What, are you saying as long as you are a demographic everyone should agree and you should have all rights?  Really? Again, the weakness and shallowness of arguments in favor of non-heterosexual normality speak volumes.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  The only thing that’s weak and shallow here is your understanding of the argument.

                • Michael

                  Yes, everybody should have equal rights. These truths are held to be self-evident.

              • Guest

                What harm?  Who knows, it’s not been tried untiil recently.  If it did do harm, would it matter?

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  The only thing that is ‘new’ (and really not all that new anymore) is giving same sex marriages all the same legal rights as opposite sex marriages.  That’s it.  Gay people have always had committed relationships.

                  Hey, letting black people marry white people could have been a harm, right?

              • amycas

                So, let’s change it to “muslims” or “christians” shouldn’t be allowed to get married. Both of those labels are religions, something people (technically) choose. Is that statement bigoted?

      • allein

        “It’s not like scientists agree in one voice that gays should be married.”

        Why would “science” have anything to say on whether any particular group of people should be married?

        • Guest

          My point.  For a group that throws about such terms as hate and bigot with an assuredness that would shame a fundamentalist waving a King James Bible, you’d think there would be more objective evidence, wouldn’t you. 

          • matt

            I think you need to re-read and re-intepret.  Science doesn’t get to decide who gets married.  What kind of objective evidence are you looking for?  What needs to be proved?

      • Isilzha

        OK…I’ll explain it in very simple terms for you–marriage is between consenting adults.  That’s it…that’s all that’s needed. 

        • Rwlawoffice

           Really? What is one of the consenting adults is already married? What is one of the consenting adults is the child of the other? what if one of the consenting adults is the cousin of the other one? what if there were forty thousand consenting adults in a stadium that all wanted to marry each other? What if the sole reason is to get around the immigration laws?  The point is from the state’s perspective there is far more to this than just allowing the desires of consenting adults.

          • Isilzha

             Oh, wait…I don’t reply to your inane comments.

          • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

            Well, you do know you have to scratch your ‘cousin’ example, right?

          • amycas

             I actually have no problem with polyamorous marriages being made legal. This is not about that though. This is about gay people (consenting adults) wanting to get married and have a family. Where is the harm? Why should the government deny this?

      • Gary

        Guest, the gay rights movement hasn’t defined bigotry as a disagreement.  They’ll say you are free to disagree.  It’s the action of denying them rights and the benefits that go along with them based on this disagreement they have a problem with.  Bigotry by definition is when you hinder or prohibit the actions of a group of people that are different than your own group based on belief or opinion.  I don’t see how actively trying to prevent gay people from marrying can be seen as something other than bigotry.  And, at the risk of wrongly putting words in your mouth, please don’t try to turn it around and say the gay rights movement are bigots because they are intolerant of the beliefs of those who oppose them.  The gay rights movement is not trying to hinder or prohibit anyone in any way.  You are free to marry who you want, practice your religion, and so on.  Nobody’s trying to change your values.  They’re only trying to prevent you from being actively intolerant of a large group of people that have values different than yours.

      • RobMcCune

        Actually, believing that being gay is something intrinsically wrong with a person, that it makes them an unacceptable member of society, and that it disqualifies a person from having human rights, is what causes some one to be labeled hateful, and a bigot. Chick-Fil-A has donated millions to groups that meet those criteria. That is why they are being labeled bigots. What the homophobic crowd is trying to do is redefine issues of bigotry to be “just another opinion”, and arguing about their right to hold their opinion because they can’t reasonably defend it on it’s merits. 

    • Gus Snarp

      He has not broken any laws, but that doesn’t mean he has done nothing wrong. Let’s be very clear about what he has done wrong. The fact is that it was not his statement about “Biblical marriage” that was wrong. We have long known that he donates the profits from CFA to groups promoting laws and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Some of these groups have even lobbied to prevent any condemnation of the Ugandan bill to kill gay people. What the interview did is remove any doubt about his donations. One might have assumed that he thought he was just donating to groups dedicated to spreading Christianity, after all they do more than oppose marriage equality. He could have claimed this, the donations alone were not a slam dunk. But when he made the statements he made in recent interviews, it became clear that he strongly approves of the way these groups spend his donations to oppose gay rights.

      That’s wrong, but not illegal. There’s no evidence that he’s discriminated in hiring or serving customers, so there should be no legal or government action taken against him. But why on earth should we limit our protest to not eating there and only talking among our friends? Why shouldn’t we make a statement, publicly and to the world, that we oppose the kind of bigotry he stands for and let people know what he’s doing with his profits? I support the kiss in one hundred percent. I find the free water idea amusing, if not particularly useful. But you’re right that the employees should be left alone. On the other hand, I see you said nothing about it being counter productive and obnoxious to stand in line for hours to eat a chicken sandwich and make truly hateful and bullying remarks about gay people to the employees waiting on you, some of whom are gay. The front line, minimum wage employees should be off limits. But who do you think was hurt more? This girl who suffered some embarrassment and had a very bad day with an obnoxious customer, or the gay employees who heard customers tell them all day that they were buying that chicken sandwich because they hate the gays?

      tl;dr: Don’t tell people to sit down, shut up, and take it when a company is spending large sums of money to fight tooth and nail to systematically deprive them of their civil rights.

      • Rwlawoffice

         Actually, that is a lie that he donated to an organization that fought in support of the Ugandan bill.  He did give money to the family research council that did lobby congress on the resolution condemning it because the resolution contained language that they disagreed with such as language that homosexual behavior has been universally recognized to be moral behavior.  The FRC has specifically and publicly denounced the Ugandan bill.

        And if this is not about his speech, then do you boycott gasoline?  If you buy gasoline you are supporting countries that imprison and kill homosexuals.  Do you investigate all companies you buy products from and see where they donate their money? 

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          That’s actually quite false. The resolution read that the bill “threatens the protection of fundamental human rights,” which doesn’t actually refer to being gay but rather to being gay and permitted to stay alive.

          I do think it’s pretty funny that you’re cribbing your responses from Dana Loesch, though.

          • Rwlawoffice

            Wrong on both accounts.  Here is what they did and why but I know it doesn’t fit with your talking points so you will ignore it. by the way, the $25,000 that was spent was for the entire three months this report covered and only a portion of it was for this resolution.  It also occurred before the version was introduced, which I can tell you from personal experience in lobbying, that is very common. So to look at the resolution and say they are lying about what they did is not accurate.

             http://wthrockmorton.com/2010/06/04/family-research-council-clarifies-lobbying-role-on-anti-homosexuality-bill-resolution/

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              What’s amazing is that you think that’s a response. All of the information in your link was addressed in the link I gave above. Maybe you should go back to Dana Loesch’s blog for another stock response.

              • Rwlawoffice

                 Actually I did read your link and it was wrong on the facts.  I pointed them out to you in my link.  But if you need to console yourself that it is the same then go right ahead.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  There’s no information in that link that challenges the other. At best, we have no idea how FRC’s lobbying substantially changed (if at all) the wording of the resolution, and the fact that they wanted to lobby to change the language but wouldn’t take a position on it (for it, obviously, as that would be the only moral stance) doesn’t exactly help.

            • Gus Snarp

              I imagine we should all just take the FRC’s word for it on exactly what they lobbied for and why. When the Congress wanted to pass a resolution condemning a Ugandan law condemning homosexuals to death, the FRC wanted to dither around about the wording. Fuck them.

          • Findog53

            You like banging heads with an attorney? this person knows what he speaks of.

            • 3lemenope

              Worst cheerleader ever.

              • Onamission5

                Worst sock puppet ever, I’m guessing.

                • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

                  No, if anything he’s Sfugly’s sock puppet.  But he’s not that either.  Close, but not.

                  And I take RW on his word that he is a lawyer.  But I’m confident he’d be the first to say that being an attorney is no guarantee that one knows what they’re talking about.  Heck, the ACLU is full of lawyers :-)

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              I don’t mind it at all, since rwlawoffice is quite easy to rebut. After all, when your sources of information are David Barton and Dana Loesch, you’re not exactly running with the intellectual big dogs.

              • Isilzha

                Yeah, easy to rebut, but very tiresome.  I’m no longer going to respond to that troll.

            • Gus Snarp

              This is a joke, right?

            • Glasofruix

              RW? Attorney? I didn’t think it would be possible for me to die from laughter.

        • Gus Snarp

          Ooooh, burn! You really nailed me. I’m a complete hypocrite because I don’t boycott everything there is on the planet that relates in any way to evil.

          Let’s pretend there’s a serious argument in there and dissect it, shall we?

          First, I don’t believe I said anything about a boycott in the entire comment you’re responding to, so your argument is a total non sequitur. I don’t expect you to read every comment in this thread, but you might have noticed that elsewhere I said I’d never eat there again, but I also said it’s pretty easy for me since I hardly eat there anyway. So yeah, it’s not much of a sacrifice for me, so what?

          Second, it’s perfectly reasonable to be strategic with boycotts and only take part in them when it’s reasonable to do so. This does not make anyone a hypocrite, it makes them a reasonable person. Obviously I cannot effectively boycott gasoline as our society makes cars almost completely essential outside of a few major cities, and electric cars are rather new and prohibitively expensive. Truth be told, I do my best to use as little gasoline as possible because of the entire suite of social and environmental ills associated with it, so I drive my family of four around in a tiny economy car and attempt to use it only when necessary. Even if I did boycott gasoline, there likely would be little effect. The difficulty of it doesn’t just keep me from boycotting, it keeps most of the world from boycotting. But an easier boycott isn’t just easier for me, it’s easier for everyone, and therefore more likely to have an impact because more people are likely to be involved. The narrower the focus of your boycott, the easier participation and the higher effectiveness will be. It’s not hypocrisy, it’s strategy.

          Third, oil companies are in business to make money, period. They do business the way they have to to maximize profits. Sometimes that means bad things happen with their money. The governments that have gotten rich on oil profits do bad things, I don’t like it, and I’d like it to change, but the oil companies themselves have not made a conscious decision to deny anyone their rights. In this case we have the head of a privately owned company making a conscious decision to fund efforts to restrict people’s rights. I can target that individual’s business because of how he directly uses my money. It’s a bit more murky to try to boycott oil companies because they do what they have to do to get the oil the modern world runs on, oil that happens to lie under a great many countries that have backwards, fundamentalist Islamic theocracies. It sucks, but it’s reality. Besides, if I wanted to go after oil companies for something they do with their profits, I’d be more immediately concerned with how they consciously spend them, namely to combat scientifically sound policies.

          Oh, and to your other point: I was pretty clear in my language on what was being lobbied against. They lobbied to prevent condemnation of the Ugandan bill. Tell me what’s a lie about that statement? I didn’t say they lobbied in support of it, you’re changing my intentionally narrowly focused words so that you can argue against a straw man instead of against what I actually said. And frankly, whatever political BS the FRC may be using to spin their stance, if the FRC can’t get behind a resolution condemning mass murder of gay people because you’re worried about some language that you think admits that gay people are human beings, in a resolution that is all about diplomacy and does not have the force of law, then they’re disgusting bigots (but we knew that). The only apt comparison would Godwin the thread, but it would be correct. Work it out on your own.

          • Rwlawoffice

             The resolution- it was a lie that they lobbied against its passage. They lobbied to change some language in it.  Big difference.  they also publicly denounced the Ugandan bill.

            Justify it all you want about not boycotting oil companies but short of a boycott, where is the outcry?  It doesn’t exist.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              I’m interested to know if you said the same thing to evangelicals who boycotted Disney and McDonalds. (My Magic 8-ball says: “Don’t count on it.”)

            • Gus Snarp

              Yeah, nobody is buying hybrids, or electric cars, or economy cars, or riding bicycles (which I might add was my sole form of transportation for eight years of my adult life), riding the bus,  or lobbying for alternative fuels and if they are none of them are doing it because they’re concerned about the social costs of oil addiction. Go on believing that.

              But it doesn’t matter. No one can do everything, we do what we can, and what we think will be effective, and that’s all anyone can ask of anyone else. It does not make anyone a hypocrite. I’m sure your money only goes to outwardly Christian companies that behave exactly according to the Bible. Oh wait, such companies do not exist! It’s rather rich to be accuse of hypocrisy by defenders of Christian bigotry.

              Oh, and I notice you’ve said nothing about marriage equality in the United States, which is still the core of this whole thing. Yeah, it’s easier to boycott him because of the public manner in which he’s donated, but find me a company that donates it’s profits to oppose gay marriage, and I’ll happily boycott it.

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              I’ve seen various speculations, and I’d have to say that that version ‘fits’, in that it makes sense (to me).  It’s taking FRC’s word for their intent, but I’m not surprised to see them a) not wanting the death penalty for (even ‘aggravated’) homosexuality anywhere and b) not wanting “homosexuality is a basic human right” to be in any US legal language anywhere.

              I still don’t ‘like’ them, but they’re not calling for gay people to be killed.  There are enough crazy pastors who want to stick gay people on concentration camps that I don’t think we need to make up our own crazy.

        • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

          Now that I inadvertently liked your comment, I suppose I need to reply. 

          Comparing the direct line between me buying a chicken sammich and Dan Cathy’s checkbook with the global petroleum industry which includes many countries, not just the gay-imprisoning ones.

          Not to mention that it is a really beginner logical fallacy.  

    • Wild Rumpus

      So if the CFA exec had gone on the radio to say that he thought blacks shouldn’t be able to marry whites and he gave money to the KKK to further his agenda that this isn’t bigotry? Sure he hasn’t done anything illegal but come on – you don’t see the similarities?

      Denying equal rights to a group based on any criteria is straight up hate.

      Also, the US has a history of persecuting people who value marriage as defined in the bible – look how the US govt’ persecuted Mormons for polygamy. Sometimes “Biblical Values” need an update.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

      His belief that gay marriage is wrong is fine… I don’t care that he feels that way.  My own mother feels that way.

      It’s his company-sponsored support of organizations that want to ship all gays off to an island or asking the government to not support a country that wants to kill gays or other hateful, homophobic organizations that is the point here. 

      He has the right to donate his company’s money however he chooses… and we have the right to not give him money to use in that manner.

      But I agree that openly demonstrating and acting like this jerk did in the video is counterproductive to letting the company’s CEO know we don’t agree with him.  The individual employees are not to blame.

  • skinner city cyclist

    As someone who has worked lots of menial jobs before landing in my current fortunate circumstances, I am glad this asshat was canned and hope to find him working somewhere he can learn a little humility and compassion, McDonald’s maybe….

    • Isilzha

      Really?  You want corporations to have the ability to fire you for behavior when you’re NOT on the job? Please explain how that benefits the average worker.

      • Michael

        As a high ranking member of a corporation, his contract will have included a clause not to be an arsehole in public.

        The average worker benefits because there are fewer arseholes in management.

        • Isilzha

          No, it just means that management can monitor your behavior when you’re not on the job AND fire you for things they don’t like.  Yeah, this guy likely had a contract, but I don’t think we should be applauding this type of thing as a concept.  Corporations have too much power over us already, why give them more?

          • Gus Snarp

            Did you miss the part where he’s a top executive? Why are we protesting Chick-Fil-A? Because a high ranking executive shot his mouth off in public, off the job.* Executives are held to a higher standard off the job, and they ought to be. Anything they make public in that manner reflects on the company and its values and can do real damage to the company. I certainly don’t think that this kind of thing should trickle down to regular workers, but  it’s nothing new to hold top management to a higher standard of public behavior. In addition, this reflects on his judgment. How he treated the cashier is something that happened in the moment of passion and emotion, but he had plenty of time to think about what he was doing while he uploaded the video to YouTube and the ramifications it could have. Exercising poor judgment with what you expose to the internet can be a serious issue.

            That said, I agree with Hemant that he ought to have been given a chance to make public amends before being fired, and I think this is pretty small beans stuff for which to fire someone.

            *Yes, I know the real reason we ought to be protesting is the donations funding hate groups, but still, this was mostly an issue for a few of us who are much more serious about gay rights before. It took his public statement to make this huge.

            • Isilzha

              No, I didn’t miss that part.  I’m was originally addressing  Skinner’s schadenfreude.

          • Michael

            There is a world of difference between sacking someone for not following your values and sacking an executive for thinking that low-end workers at another corporation is there to take abuse for what executives at that corporation have done.

            Low end workers are not there to take shit for their executives and as an executive who didn’t understand that, he should indeed be canned.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

        Being an officer of a corporation comes with the understanding that you will not show your ass in public – literally or figuratively – and then post it on YouTube.

      • Nikki Gray

        If the piece of shit bullied you, you wouldve been all for him getting fired but since it was “just” a chik fil a employee, youre all for it happening?    I thought the homos were against bulyying and this is a perfect example of bullying. 

        • Isilzha

          What exactly is WRONG with you? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

            Can’t find her way back to the fifth grade lunch room?

            Tired of ranting only to her 7 Facebook friends?

            Thinks that her posts are incisive rhetorical responses simply because she didn’t call anyone a poopy head?

        • The Other Weirdo

           Is it my imagination, or have your language skills been steadily deteriorating the more you post here?

        • kaydenpat

          Your spelling is going awry.  Calm down, Nikki.

  • Corey

    Did the employee read the fine print when he was hired? Did it say something about how the behavior of employees, the “company officers” even when not at work and not getting paid, are to respresent the company in a way that shows only positive examples of behavior that would reflect on to what and who the compansy stands for? I know this is a far-fetched thought but, unless it is written some where, like actors that promote certain products are responsible to the company to look good in all public light, there may be a way for this fired employee to get some money lost, at least enough to live on until he finds a new job, and seeing as no one will want to hire him because of what will be said about him, chances are, he may be un-employed for a long time.

  • Craig Hart

    Chick-fil-A as a company does not have an anti-gay policy. This one guy shared his personal beliefs on a religious talk show. So tired of the whining and middle-school attitudes/reactions by the gay community (and I don’t personally have a problem with gay marriage, btw) when someone disagrees with them. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, even if it’s stupid.

    • Isilzha

      So, why are you here?

      BTW, CFA donates company money to anti-gay hate groups.

      • Rwlawoffice

         I understand that you won’t spend your money at CFA, that is your right and your choice.  Just as it is CFA’s choice to spend their money where they choose.  But you are being very selective.  Did you put gas in your car today?  If you did then you supported countries that actually kill and imprison women and homosexuals.  Are you going to boycott gas companies?

        • Isilzha

           Oh, wait…I no longer reply to your inane comments.

          • Findog53

            Why? Rw is also handing you your ass on a platter!

            • Isilzha

              He’s a tedious troll and obviously so are you.

        • Findog53

          Well said!!! When she’s hit with reality she vanishes

        • Glasofruix

           Oh look at him, he thinks he’s found something…

          • Findog53

            Well then wise ass, Give him an intelligent rebuttal or as is one of your Rhodes Scholar statements STFU!!

            • Glasofruix

              And besides name and gener rudeness do YOU have something smart to say? No? Thought so…

              • Findog53

                Don’t need to, Rw is handing you your ass in a platter. I didn’t realize agreeing was ass kissing. Is that a synonym in your world?

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          It’s a shame this hasn’t already been rebutted. *cough*

        • kaydenpat

          Silly argument.  Buying gas doesn’t equate to killing homosexuals/women since there are many countries in OPEC which don’t kill homosexuals/women.
          Also, buying gas is not a choice if you have a car that runs by gas.  You also buy gas, I assume.  Are you killing gays/homosexuals also?

    • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

      I find it amusing that anyone who has followed this particularly heated public dialog thinks that saying “I support biblical family values” is just making a harmless personal statement of commitment to the dogma of a Bronze Age goat herder’s deity and a matter of just gentle simple disagreement.  Especially when that support includes millions of dollars sent to organizations dedicated to the discrimination and the defamation of a minority group of Americans. 

    • Guest

      To be honest, one thing that has come from this has been a growing debate on the free use of such terms as ‘hate’ and ‘bigot’.  After all, can you really say something is hate just because you think it is?  Maybe.  But that doesn’t make it hate.  I’ve read more and more about that in light of this issue than I have in some time, and from some unlikely sources.  I mean, it’s easy to use ‘hate’ to shut down a debate, but at least some I’ve read and heard have started to wonder if it might be because those who are screaming hate and bigot the loudest actually feel there is a weakness in their own arguments.  Sort of like saying ‘Communist!’ in the 1950s.  It doesn’t have to be true, but it sure stops the discussion.

    • kaydenpat

      @Craig:@652878b9ff24830e7399da9eead03605:disqus 

      If Mr. Cathy said he disagrees with interracial marriage, would your stance be the same?

  • Craig Hart

    Oh, and the guy who shot and shared this video is a mental midget.

  • Corey

    ps:

    WARNING: DO NOT EAT WHILE READING OR IF U HAVE A “WEAK” STOMACH, ARE OFFENDED EASILY

    my suggestion would be to do what i did once when someone somewhere at sometime irritated me (which is quite easy actually, but in this case, it was on a personal level), i went to the public bathroom shared by the person, guests and other employees, and provided a very messy message. Yes, I am that low apparently, but sometimes, doing something less illegal than say punching someone or giving out their address so others may harrass them, doing something like a spy, covertly seems just as effective in a satisfying the desire to get revenege and not break the law. I know in the end, this person would not know who the message was from, but seeing as it was a small office with just a few employees, I suspect they would all get the message regardless of what that message was. I must add, at that time I had bowel problems, big bowel problems, so this wasnt just a “drivr by” plop and run move, this was a “driving behind a garbage truck” move that could not be ignored….even more than how the lady from ‘Fatal Attraction’ meant it.

    • Michael

      You do realise that’s a usable DNA sample right?

    • Isilzha

      What is WRONG with you???

    • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

      And in the end someone had to clean up your “message”.  And unless the person you were irritated with was the custodian, I’d be pretty sure that you made some innocent underpaid janitor deal with what you left.

      Remember the “Dont Be a Dick” speech?  Please don’t ever do that again.  Unless you are actually mad at the janitor, then I might give you a pass.

    • LesterBallard

      You’re a fuckwad, just like the fuckwad at that drive through.

    • Wild Rumpus

      Why doesn’t this blog have downvotes so we could just vote this retard off? You,sir, are a mental midget of the nth degree.

      • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

        And I’d be downvoting yours for using slurs like “retard” and “mental midget.” Glass houses, people.

    • RobMcCune

      Wow, and I was going to call Adam Smith ”
      shit for brains.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

      Riiiight, because acting like a bored toddler with a pantload is definitely effective  social activism. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margaret-Whitestone/100001682409207 Margaret Whitestone

      You suggest creating a bio-hazard for some poor minimum-wage person to clean up.  You are a pig. 

  • Tainda

    Not cool.  I’m sure she has to deal with a lot of shit anyway being an adult and working in a fast food place.  No way does that pay the bills!  I remember struggling working a minimum wage job and the last thing you need during a hard day at work is some douchenugget harassing you.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6OE7LEYELE4MZTVXGZUSVTBFUI julie

    This whole thing is just getting ridiculous. There are people insisting that you hate gays if you eat there, and then there are my relatives on Facebook proudly posting that they still support family values and are eating there.

    My old youth group leader posted this blog post on Facebook and I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually pretty reasonable.
    http://www.perrynoble.com/2012/08/01/ben-jerrys-chic-fil-a-political-correctness/ 

    Obviously, I disagree with a lot of what he says, but it’s the first time I’ve *ever* seen a Christian bring up the point that gluttony is also a sin, so what makes homosexuality so terrible?

    • Patrick Dunn

       I like that one – there should have been protesters outside these places with “Gluttony is a Sin!” signs.   Damn, another missed opportunity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/glenn.johnson.332 Glenn Johnson

    Look, I have a disagreement with the owners of Chick-Fil-A and their stance on gay marriage. I don’t have a problem with their product (which I will miss) and especially not with the employees, who are the best trained and most courteous in all the fast food industry. To lash out at the employee was uncalled for and her reaction was very professional.

    • Gus Snarp

      Am I the only one who thinks their food sucks? They make the worst chicken sandwich I have ever eaten. I can’t really say I’m boycotting, because I’ve eaten there maybe five times over twenty years, and generally avoid it even more than I avoid McDonald’s.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QPVVPRJ7QKLPU6TF5B4IZTENTI No

        I’ve only eaten at CFA a couple times over the last 5 years since they blew up in AZ. I don’t recall the quality being remarkably good or bad, but even if it was the best of the best, I’m fine with never eating it again over their support of anti-gay groups. By all means, if you think their food sucks, fine, but it’s not germane to the debate. I see some people relying on the “their food sucks!” line as the knife they want to twist in CFA’s side, rather than the far sharper blade of denouncing open discrimination in the political realm.

        • Gus Snarp

          I admit it’s not particularly germane, and I don’t intend it as an argument of any kind, I’m just rather amused at the people saying how much they like it and will miss it. For me, it just means that boycotting them is so easy that it’s also pointless, I’m not actually doing anything different, so it becomes meaningless for me to say I’ll never eat there again.

          • kaydenpat

            There’s a CFR down the road from me which I pass almost everyday, but I’ve never eaten there.  Now with all this controversy, I never will.

      • http://gloomcookie613.tumblr.com GloomCookie613

        No, you’re not. I can cook a better chicken sammie at home. The fries are vomit-worthy.

        • http://profiles.google.com/julielada Julie Lada

           Oh my, yes. I do not understand all of this hoopla over their waffle fries. They’re bland, underseasoned and just plain flavorless.

          • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

            It could be because they’re fried in hate and bigotry maybe?

          • Elerena

            Yes, but you see, they’re WAFFLE shaped.

            Seriously, that’s why people get so happy over them.  Different apparently equals better when it comes to poorly cooked potato product.

  • Rhonda Dorle

    When I was in the hot Oklahoma sun standing up for equality and protesting outside a CFA in Tulsa, the employees brought us water. They were great!  Do not take out the issue you have with the upper management out on the employees that work there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

    I don’t have enough information to evaluate if Vante’s letting Mr. Smith go was harsh or not.  As someone who has been part of the senior leadership team on a couple of small businesses, I can honestly say I would be more than a bit shocked at this kind of behavior from an officer of the company.  

    If in the ensuing conversations Mr. Smith did not show an understanding of the magnitude of the inappropriateness of his actions, letting him go might have been the only solution.

  • F Montes de Oca

    Wow, thumbs up to the cashier. I work at a menial job and I could tell you that I wouldn’t have been half as pleasant.

    “I have a job to do and you’re going to just sit in my drive through and waste my time? No thanks. Have a problem? There is a customer service number you can call. I just work here, I don’t own this company. Have a nice day! *WINDOW SHUT* :D”

  • Joe Zamecki

    I was afraid to watch the video because I thought it would be just a lot of yelling and cussing and bullying. It was nothing! He just told her his feelings and drove on. “You deserve better,” was one of his feelings. 

    How can you all be so sensitive? This is just free speech in the drive through. You all act like he destroyed her! This is scary because it implies that you’ll absolutely drop a load at any free speech aimed at the other side at all.  But usually you don’t!

    Sure, she did great, in the face of nothing! This wasn’t bullying or an attack. You are all overreacting. 

    • Helanna

       Well, for one thing, it seemed to be an incredibly busy day. This woman probably really didn’t need a freaking lecture about something she’s no doubt heard ten thousand times by now when she’s trying to serve a huge line of cars. She’s clearly trying to end the conversation and he just – won’t – shut – up. He just keeps talking. I work in customer service, and people like that are incredibly annoying.

      Second, asking “How can you live with yourself and work here?” is fairly rude and disingenuous. She probably does it because it pays the bills. I seriously doubt she was like “Hey, you know what’s awesome? Hating gay people! I’m gonna go work at Chick-fil-A!” No. It’s a minimum wage food service job, and in this economy, she probably can’t just up and quit. So he shouldn’t act like she can.

      Third, the whole water thing is fairly petty and stupid. Lecturing the worker about why he’s doing it is just annoying.

      Fourth, the worker is absolutely right when she says her personal beliefs should not interfere with her work. And again, she doesn’t need a lecture about it. I know I’m harping on this point, but it really is *unbelievably* annoying to be lectured about something the company is doing that you have no control over.

      So was it angry or abusive? No, and some of this is just overreaction. But was it obnoxious, petty, and something he shouldn’t have done? Yes, absolutely.

    • Lysistrata

      Free speech should not be an excuse to be rude to an employee.   The such outbreaks always make for a crappy day no matter how professional you are and no matter what you have put up with before this.   No matter what you feelings on in this instance,  I would recommend civility when dealing with a front line staff member -they have nothing to do with the company policy and are there to  make money.   If you want to yell and be a jerk find the district manager’s phone number or even better the CEO who is making the decisions. 

    • kaydenpat

      Smith was wrong. Plain wrong.  Don’t attack a low level employee if you have a problem with the CEO’s stance.

      No different than when Rightwingers shout at/harass employees at abortion clinics.  Leave employees alone and focus your ire against the movers and shakers. 

  • Gus Snarp

    He was being a bit overly obnoxious and taking it a bit too far, but it really got me when he said: “How do you live with yourself working here?”

    Yeah, must be nice to not have to take whatever shitty minimum wage job you can get, you privileged asshole. How does she live with herself? Well she probably had no idea until now what the owner of the company did with the profits, and it’s a pretty damn scary time to quit your job. Which I guess he just found out.

    Also annoying: his need to express that he’s not gay. Who cares if you’re gay? What kind of friend of LGBT folk are you if you’re worried that the cashier your berating might think you’re gay because you’re defending gay rights?

    Ultimately, in many situations when we’re angry with a corporate policy, that the real enemy deserving of our anger is not the minimum wage-slave behind the counter. 

    • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

      When I get into discussions about gay rights, I often point out that I’m not gay. I don’t do this because I’m afraid somebody will think otherwise (I don’t care), but because I think it makes my position stronger. If you’re gay, you absolutely have a dog in the fight. As a straight supporter of gay rights, you take the self-interest card off the table.

      This is typically the case with civil rights issues. Women’s rights took a big step forward when men supported them. Black rights took a big step forward when whites supported them. There’s no mistaking men from women or whites from blacks; distinguishing gays from straights isn’t so easy.

      • Gus Snarp

        See my response to Kevin S., above.

  • RebeccaSparks

    As someone who’s worked in customer facing operations for a long time, it’s good to see that acting like a jerk while being a customer will have some repercussions–if you film it and put it on youtube for the world to see.

    Also this: “…and I’m totally heterosexual, I’m not -no gay in me, I just can’t stand the hate, you know?”  is one my pet peeves.  What I hear is, “I support gay rights, but for the love of little apples don’t mistake me for one of them!”  If there’s nothing wrong with being gay, why are you so quick to make sure that you aren’t mistaken for a gay person?

    • Kevin S.

      Haven’t watched the video because I’m reading this from work, so I don’t have an appropriate context for his statements, but declaring oneself to be a straight ally instead of LGBT makes the statement that this isn’t about oneself, but about supporting equal rights for all people.

      • Gus Snarp

        Maybe, but it just didn’t feel that way to me. Especially the “no gay in me” part.

        • HughInAz

          Yeah, it did come across a little as “protesting too much.”

      • RebeccaSparks

        I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying you’re a strait ally per se.   Let me know what you think after you watch the video.

  • http://dogmabytes.com/ C Peterson

    What does this whole incident teach us? Simply that people sometimes do stupid things. I doubt that Smith is actually a “heartless bully”. He was angry with C-f-A (rightfully so), got himself worked up, and foolishly lashed out… and even more foolishly recorded and posted a video of the incident. He probably feels like an idiot now, especially with all the other repercussions in his life. I think most people have taken out some sort of frustration with a company on an employee who had no control over things. It’s a natural reaction, and in most cases that employee is the only face of the company we have access to. And really, his comments weren’t all that strong… I’m sure your average C-f-A employee has dealt with worse from disgruntled customers who thought they got shorted on fries.

    Don’t be a jerk. Don’t video yourself being a jerk. If your employee acts like a jerk one time, and isn’t representing your company in any way, don’t be a jerk yourself by firing him. Everybody just slow down, take a deep breath, and count to ten. Your mother’s advice was very good.

    • Alex

       Thank you. More of this, please. We know that two wrongs don’t make a right, and neither do a whole bunch of them. SMH.

    • Guest

      That type of advice would be good most of the time in our society today, and it applies to more than this instance.

    • http://twitter.com/tkmlac Katie

      He could have just said, “BTW, I’m getting my free water because of your corporation’s promotion of oppression of gay people, which I’m sure you have nothing to do with, but that’s why I’m here.” Then, he’s just making the workers aware of his position rather than being a Real Life Troll.

  • Michael

    “It would be even better if people bought food at KFC and handed it out to homeless people or something… You know, whatever Christians say Jesus would do while they go stuff themselves with some chikin.”

    So, buy food from somewhere semi-healthy and hand it out to homeless people then?

  • kimpatsu


     If Chick-fil-A has a problem, this employee had nothing to do with it…”
    No! This is not true. If your employer is bigoted, by remaining with them you give consent to their bigoted position. Where was the mass walkout by Chik-fil-a employees? The company should have ground to a halt by now from mass resignations. The fact that it hasn’t means the employees tacitly endorse the company’s position.

    • Tainda

      Or they tacitly endorse paying their bills and being able to afford food for their families.  It’s not that easy for some people to walk away from a job this day and age.

    • Isilzha

       That’s a huge and very unfair burden to place upon minimum wage employees!

    • The Captain

      Spoken like a true wealthy elitist.

    • Joshua Fisher

      Kimpatsu, you are an ass. Not only is that an unfair burden to place on a minimum wage employee, but also the people who depend on that employee. Like the employee’s children. Should those children have to sleep in the street because Mommy/Daddy were too principled to continue to support them? Or maybe you are such an upstanding person that you would be willing to support anyone who wants to quit their job on principle.

    • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

      Self-righteous idiocy is unattractive no matter what side it comes from.

    • The Other Weirdo

       I call shenanigans on an Ivory Tower Intellectual(tm).

      You’re right, of course. People having to work as fast-food cashiers are all just rolling in dough and can afford to just walk out, because making a political statement is just so much more important than putting food on their families’ tables, paying the electric and water bills so the lights and water stay on, and rent so that they don’t have sleep in a cardboard box in a back alley tonight.

      You sir, are a ass.

    • http://twitter.com/silo_mowbray Silo Mowbray

      Are you tenured, kimpatsu, that you can afford to preach to others like this? Because I have to assume you practice what you preach, yes?

      Do you have kids to feed, a mortgage or rent to pay, elderly parents to care for? We all do things we’d rather not so that we can avoid standing in line at the food bank.

      I suggest a long, hard look at your own behaviours and privilege before you go spouting off about how people in minimum-wage jobs should take any kind of stand.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margaret-Whitestone/100001682409207 Margaret Whitestone

      Most people who work at places like Chick-fil-a don’t have the means to just walk out.  Wage slavery doesn’t afford people the luxury of being able to put principles ahead of survival, particularly in times like this when the economy is in the toilet and unemployment is through the roof. 

    • JimTreacher

      So YOU pay her bills.

      • kimpatsu

        Always remember that silence gives assent. Whatever happened to unionized protests?

        Put another way, if a company came out in favour of discrimination against YOU, wouldn’t you want me, as an employee of that company, to make the group’s displeasure known?
        The fact that you said “her bills” instead of “their bills” is revealing. Don’t you think the employees should walk out en masse, or do you regard each man as an island, contra Donne?

        • JimTreacher

          Chick-fil-A isn’t discriminating against you. Walk in and order a sandwich and they’ll sell it to you. Or don’t, and they won’t. You’re just like everybody else.

          And I said “her bills” because we’re talking about her. Hope that helps!

  • Wife

    Adam Smith is my husband and father to our four young boys, two of which are adopted and special needs. He’s definitely not heartless or the multitude of other vicious labels people have applied to him. But I understand the response to a very small extent. I recognize he was rude but it’s all out of context. He’s sitting in the long CFA line to get his water and once he gets to the window he’s overwhelmed seeing all the people out in support of CFA. The crowd inside is excited to be showing support and there’s a huge line of cars. He gets discouraged and becomes more pushy than he expected. He called me immediately after and said “I regret telling her ‘how can you live with yourself’ that was unnecessarily harsh. I’ll apologize in morning when she’s not so busy.”needless to say the shit hit the fan before that opportunity. During the night someone released all of our information over the Internet and it spread like wildfire. Vante had to shut down because they were so flooded with demands for his firing. And Adam was told by Vante that in no way could he speak to the press or issue an apology. well by midday they decided to fire him, we had to change phones because of threats, his inbox at the university, Vante, and personal emails had hate mail and threats that number in the thousands, we had to move our family out of our home, find a place for our pets, and have been seeking legal counsel since.
    Adam has been slaughtered. There’s not much left for us to lose and while I understand he was rude to this employee I have a difficult time reconciling the hate and vicious attacks he has received in response. At no point in that video does he raise his voice, swear, threaten, or name call. He doesn’t even hold up the drive thru line. There has been far harsher rhetoric in this CFA debate than what took place here and I’m just heartbroken that people have made an absolute villain out of him. Let me reiterate, I understand the anger at his rudeness I just don’t think that this situation deserves the response it’s received. I don’t think ANYONE deserves death threats, bullying, having their address, employment, personal finances, contact info slapped all over the Internet and social media. Where to go from here…I guess that’s to be determined.
    On a side note he did state “BTW I’m not gay” to show that straight people are supportive of the LGBT community as well. Not quite the asshole he’s been made out to be.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/WGYSRX53BN67TB5MARP4SFUA5Y Neona

      So let me get this straight. He treats this poor girl horribly, calls you immediately after to say “Wow, I really shouldn’t have done that”…

      Yet still posts the video online?

      Something isn’t adding up here.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

      He’s so upset with himself about what he said, calls you to tell you… and he still posts the video for all to see?  He could have just not done that.  No one would know.  He’d have gotten it out of his system, albeit with video, but still been just fine. 

      From where I sit, he made 2 mistakes:  He made an ass of himself at the window of a fast food restaurant AND he posted video of said ass-making online.

      I’m not sure which is worse, but he made his bed and then he did, indeed, lie in it.  I sincerely do not agree that the company fired him, though.  Issuing an apology and maybe losing some seniority or benefits would have been sufficient.

      I’m very sorry your family is now suffering the effects of his mistakes.  It’s horrible that people are harrassing you and you’ve had to change phones.  I know it’s not easy raising special needs children in the best of times.  I hope he finds another job or is successful in asking for his previous job back so your family can succeed.

      I hope he learned his lesson… by all means, say what you need to say if you choose but don’t video tape it and DON’T post it for all to see.

    • http://www.facebook.com/nell.webbish Nell Webbish

      You would think your legal counsel would have told you it’s a very bad idea to be posting additional comments to the public sphere. If you are actually his wife, that is.

    • kaydenpat

      Why did your husband choose to video himself and then post on Youtube?  What response was he expecting?  Does he not understand that Rightwingers who are opposed to gay rights watch Youtube too?

      I’m very sorry that you and your family are suffering because of your husband’s actions.  You should not be getting death threats.  I don’t understand why cowardly people make anonymous death threats.  Hopefully, the police can help you catch some of these cowards.

      I hope your husband can find a new job (I don’t believe he should have been fired since his misconduct occured away from work on his own free time).  And, I hope your family is left in peace.

      Now that your husband has apologized, I think people should move on.  He’s acknowledged that his behavior was improper and has apologized to the employee.  Enough now.

      Good luck to you.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/A37GL7VKR3W6ACSIZPH7EID3LI rlrose63

    I think the “I don’t know how you live with yourself” part is where he went overboard.  Up until then, he was talking about the company itself but that put it into the personal attack arena.  I agree with you, though, that firing him was a little extreme… unless they are in agreement with Cathy’s anti-gay sentiments and are pissed that he doesn’t agree and made a spectacle of himself in expressing it.  Who knows.  I just stay away completely, avoiding CFA like it doesn’t exist.

  • http://twitter.com/Arachne110 Arachne

    To me this just shows the amount of projection and contempt held for service workers. As someone who used to work in the service industry, I would see it all the time. At 15 years old in my first job at McDs I had a woman yell at me for 2 or 3 minutes because McDonalds changed their salads… as if I had anything to do with it!

    • Randy

      That’s part of the job.  I volunteer in a service-related position, and I get comments far worse than this all the time.  I don’t even get paid for it.  It’s part of the role. 

      • 3lemenope

        Yes it is. That in no way justifies the behavior of customers who act that way. This is not a case of the employee complaining she is being treated unfairly. This is a case of outside observers viewing the behavior of the customer and judging it to be unacceptable. You can disagree, of course, but it does seem to be a rough consensus.  (For my part, I’m right now in a location where I am not free to view the video, so I have no idea where on the scale of asshat customer stunts this one happens to fall, so I have no opinion on the incident itself as of yet.)

        • amycas

          I just watched it, and I don’t think he was particularly hateful toward her. The only part where I cringed was when he said “I don’t know how you can live with yourself.” I’m a server and I deal with way more hateful comments from people over very petty issues on a daily basis. None of them have ever (to my knowledge) been fired–even the ones who are their on a business meeting with their employees/employer. 

          • 3lemenope

            Oh, it certainly could have been much much worse. I work in a service industry too, and have personally experienced nastier characters. I think where this departs from those dime-a-dozen incidents is that this guy went the extra step and uploaded his deed to the web for all to see. 

  • Gunstargreen

    Anyone who has had to work a crappy job like this understands that you don’t necessarily want to be there and you don’t need this kind of crap from people to make it worse. Leave the employees out of this.

  • Mythra

    Id hate to work for a company that preached bigotry. Especially if I had to deal with random customers. These ceo’s have every right to express their opinions but they need to seriously think about the harm they could be putting their business, families, and employees in. This guy verbally lashes out at this employee. Thank fsm that’s all he’s done. Just think of the other types of harm that would or could be done by people being denied their basic human rights. Us primates can only be held down for so long before fighting for our rights in whatever fashion that may be. These assholes at the top need to consider the reprocussions they may be stirring.

  • Randy

    Wow, you really mischaracterized this one.  He politely and calmly stated his position to the vendor.   He got fired for THIS?  It’s outrageous.

    • JimTreacher

      What’s polite about “You should be ashamed to work here”? Watch that young woman’s face when he said that. He was just trying to humiliate her. Then he put it up on the Internet. Shame on you.

  • Stormcat3

    Religion or lack thereof is NEVER an excuse to be an asshole.

  • Rwlawoffice

    Can you really not read? The link to your gay website mischaracterized their efforts when they took place and how muchnitvwas. Just like your original post. But f ignoring the truth wors for you go right ahead.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      Who are you talking to? Have you finally gotten lonely and started talking to the only person who cares enough to listen to your inane ramblings?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Margaret-Whitestone/100001682409207 Margaret Whitestone

         Maybe protecting heterosexual marriage from gay people by facilitating heterosexual divorces has hampered his ability to spell and form coherent comments. 

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          Well played!

      • kaydenpat

        @twitter-479691717:disqus 
        You made me laugh!

  • Brad

    He sounds like such a douche… and I bet he went home really pleased with himself because he’d just gone out of his way to show how hip and open-minded and accepting he was… by being a douche.

  • JimTreacher

    “If you’re a Chick-fil-A employee who supports gay rights (I don’t know if this particular employee does or not), then you’ve had a shitty week. You had to serve Christians who cheer the fact that they’re standing in the way of gay rights…”

    Or, y’know, Christians who believe in free speech and don’t want businesses to be punished for expressing opinions some people don’t like.

    • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

      So in other words, either bigots, idiots, or hypocrites (or some permutation of these).

      • JimTreacher

        In other words that have nothing to do with what I said, sure.

        • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

          I was taking the logical conclusion to your point. If you think that CFA is being “punished” for expressing a distasteful opinion, you’re pretty much an idiot (it’s about actions, not opinions, by and large). And chances are that the people who so staunchly supported CFA have either participated in a boycott or been silent about companies like Disney and McDonalds being boycotted, therefore making them hypocrites. Not exactly a wild leap to add those two categories.

          • Nordog

            Except you apparently missed a certain salient point.  No government entity has proclaimed publically the intent to punish Disney or McDonalds because of political disagreement.

            In projecting your own hatred and bigotry onto others you apparently are blind to the fact that most of these people really don’t like having bigotted jackwagons tell lies about them while government officials abuse their office.

            I’ve said it before, gays and atheists are the last people who should be happy about the actions of the mayors of Boston, Chicago, the alderman dude in Chicago, and the speaker on the NYC council.  I believe the mayor of San Francisco got in on the act too.  One day that ill wind will blow your way and as a minority you have fewer places to find shelter.

            I would never have gone to Chick-fil-A if this were simply over the gay marriage fight and some demonstrators and boycotters.  Neither would many of those who did show up Wednesday.

            But when government officials of major cities with national exposure proclaim they are going to punish businesses (ESPECIALLY in this economy) then people are gonna come out in droves.

            And they did.

            Well, they did on Wednesday.  Not so much on Friday.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              I’m not buying that the scores of people came out purely in support of free speech. People came out to support Dan Cathy’s anti-gay stance. And CFA didn’t get “punished” at all: government officials made overtures but backed down when they were called on it (by both conservatives and liberals, I might add). So yes, “idiot” still applies here.

              • Nordog

                Well, given that you have demonstrated your invincible ignorance and abject bigotry, I am neither surprised nor concerned by what you will or will not buy.

                But hey, you wanna go through life like the moronic jackwagon you have here demonstrated your self to be, heck, I say go for it.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Fuck off, twit. Even if I were ignorant, you’ve done nothing to correct that by supporting your own claims.

                • Nordog

                  Yeah!  Calling people names is such FUN!  Wheeeeee…!!

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  Another substanceless reply from a troll. You and JimTreacher can hang out together under the bridge.

          • JimTreacher

            I know you think that’s what you were doing. Because YOU’RE an idiot.

            • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

              Says the person who has no counter to what I said.

              • JimTreacher

                It’s no fun when people return your insults, is it? Awww.

                • http://twitter.com/InMyUnbelief TCC

                  I’m not hurt by insults, not in the least. But thank you sooo much for your concern.

                • JimTreacher

                  You’re welcome.

  • brianmacker

    That was a lot milder than I expected. Not sure why he thinks he can disrupt a business in that way which I thought was the worse offense. He wasn’t a legitimate customer. It made people feel entitled to bother him at his place of business about his political views. Tit for tat. Of course this effected his place of business so they fired him. I don’t think they would have cared about private rudeness if it hadn’t impacted them, and had been at a private personal level, like asking a OWS person how they could live with themselves occupying a park. It also showed he had no conception of the role employees play which isn’t a good characteristic for a manager.

    I really don’t understand how Rahm Emannuel thinks he has the right as a government official to violate the rights of others who have differing political views. By blocking the building of that Chick-Fil-A he violated many people’s rights to free association, free trade, and free speech. I believe that was the main reason so many supported them on Chick-Fil-A day. I was considering supporting them too even though I disagree with them about gay marriage. I think the rights violated by Rahm are far more important than the privileges handed out for government recognized marriages.

    I’m not convinced either by Hemant’s argument that you must be a bigot to oppose gay marriage. Many are bigots but Hemant failed to be rigourus enough to cover all the bases. For example his mistake in thinking a government recognized marriage was a right. He might be able to make the argument without relying on this mistake but he didn’t.

    He also needs to cover all possible reasons for being opposed and he didn’t do that. I think he recognized this because he made the further argument that even if bigot was too harsh well tough luck you are advocating the violation of others rights. Not sure why calling a bigot a bigot would be too harsh.

  • Nordog

    Katie wrote: “Society can’t change unless it’s approved by the majority? Give me a break.”

    Perhaps you need a break.  At least if by your rhetorical question here you mean to attribute to me the statement that change only comes from majority approval.  Never said it; don’t hold with it.

    Perhaps there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Theresa-Darklady-Reed/581698361 Theresa ‘Darklady’ Reed

    Oh, please. Being a jerk is one thing… being a jerk who records the person they’re being a jerk to and then shares it? Fire his ass. His judgement sucks, if nothing else. 

  • Paul_Robertson

    Clearly the guy was a jerk, but do we really want to be running to teacher (employer) every time someone misbehaves? He didn’t do this in his capacity as CFO, he didn’t mention his employer; why bring the employer into it at all? What’s next, people getting fired for cutting in line at the checkout?

    • 3lemenope

      Unless I’m missing something, the guy did something unwise, then more unwisely uploaded it for the world to see, it (somewhat improbably) went viral–these things happen–and the company took it upon itself to can him. Nobody ran to teacher; the teacher saw the naughty act simply because the kid bragged in a remarkably stupid way and was unlucky.

      • Paul_Robertson

        Maybe that’s how it went down. Maybe the employer found out because they were contacted by the press – certainly both employers were contacted for a statement at some point. But either way, I’m more concerned by the fact that our employers have become “teacher” at all. (An element of the metaphor that you seemed quite happy with.) At some point it seems to have become considered acceptable for employers to act as disciplinarian, policing poor behaviour conducted in a private capacity. Sometimes people behave boorishly. Some do so more often than others, but I doubt that there is a single one of us who has never had a moment that would cast us in a poor light if it was uploaded onto YouTube. Do we really want our employers sitting in judgement over these private peccadilloes?

        As for fact that he was the agent of his own demise, this might add an element of symmetry, but it’s not really relevant when considering the morality of the employer’s actions and the actions of whomever notified the employer; after all, if he was caught on a hidden camera can you imagine that things would have played out at all differently?

        • 3lemenope

          I’d agree with you if he were a wage employee, but he wasn’t. He was a contract employee (and an executive officer atop that). Generally speaking, such contracts contain morals clauses that essentially say “don’t bring disrepute upon the company, or we reserve the right to fire you”. It has very little to do with policing behavior and much more to do with damage control and business reputation, which the CEO of a company (which he was) is *directly* responsible for.

          • Paul_Robertson

            To an extent I agree with you. Certainly it is reasonable to expect that a CxO take a level of personal responsibility for the company’s reputation. But at the same time, we risk creating a situation where there is a class of employees whose private lives become the property of their employers and who are denied the right to personal political advocacy. I find that idea chilling. What is more, this class is likely to experience creeping growth.

            While you painted this as a natural consequence of a viral upload, I blame the traditional media. Yes, this video went viral, but very few of the viewers would have recognised this rude person and fewer still would have known his employer. Enter the press and suddenly everyone knows everything and the employer is dragged into the fray. If there is an institution that should be the guardian of free speech more than any other, surely that is the press? But instead, they’re now in the business of getting people fired for their (rude) speech. I find that terribly disappointing.

            • 3lemenope

              I’m not sure if the identity of the guy was sussed out by crowd-sourcing or by traditional media investigation, but either way…

              If there is an institution that should be the guardian of free speech more than any other, surely that is the press?

              …freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the lateral consequences of that speech. It *only* means freedom from state action against a speaker or their speech. It is a right that only restrains the government, not private actors.

              • Paul_Robertson

                I’m not sure if the identity of the guy was sussed out by crowd-sourcing or by traditional media investigation, but either way…
                Either way, it was the press that made that information widely known. The people who saw the YouTube video wouldn’t have known the identity of the guy unless they went looking. Until the press got hold of his identity through whatever means, this was a relatively obscure piece of information.

                It is a right that only restrains the government, not private actors.
                As a right you’re correct. But as a matter of principle, the press has a moral obligation to ensure that public discourse is free and unfettered, above and beyond any constitutional protections.

                [F]reedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the lateral consequences of that speech.
                You’re correct to a point. If we develop a culture whereby the social consequences of speaking out are sufficiently severe (such as losing one’s job) then effectively we have lost that freedom. Freedom of speech is fundamental to the operation of a free society. The freedom of the press was awarded in the constitution in recognition of the special role that the press plays in this regard. For the press to accept these protections and use it to pillory individuals who seek to avail themselves of similar freedom is base hypocrisy on their part.

                • 3lemenope

                  But as a matter of principle, the press has a moral obligation to ensure that public discourse is free and unfettered, above and beyond any constitutional protections.

                  Not when it conflicts with their first duty, which is to report on incidents of concern with promptness and accuracy.

                  You’re correct to a point. If we develop a culture whereby the social consequences of speaking out are sufficiently severe (such as losing one’s job) then effectively we have lost that freedom. 

                  But this is an unusual circumstance, which obtained in part only because of two things the person at issue did of his own free will. First, he voluntarily signed an employment contract (to be the head of a company no less) that comes with duties such as maintaining the dignity of that company in the public eye. That certainly happened prior to the incident at issue. Second, he intentionally publicized the incident at issue by uploading it, basically abandoning any protection of natural anonymity he might have otherwise enjoyed. 

                  I think it is problematic to compare this situation to the plight, if you will, of the average employee in this situation. If they had done neither of these things, the consequence would likely not be the same.

                   Freedom of speech is fundamental to the operation of a free society. 

                  True, but freedom of speech unfettered by comity turns into talk-show trash. Part of what makes freedom of speech important is the frank and effective exchange of ideas, which generally requires the participants of speech to not act like risible dicks. This person was not expanding the horizons of discourse; he was just mean to a wage worker who was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

                  But when they included an uninvolved third party, in a position of power over the guy, they crossed a line.

                  They didn’t involve the third party. The third party involved themselves. They could have chosen not to act. They did so, out of their (legal, fiduciary) duty to protect the interests of the company. Many companies in their situation would have reacted differently; if I were on the board of such a company, I would have preferred a public mea culpa over a firing, but then again I’m not the person who is legally responsible for the outcome of the public fallout to that particular company. They are entitled to protect their interest, a freedom as important as the freedom to speak one’s mind for the continuity and effectiveness of our society’s systems.

                  Look, I’m not insensitive to the notion that private power can be coercive and there are worrying trends amongst corporations prioritizing a CYA mentality over slightly more difficult but ultimately more equitable solutions. I wish that people in such positions were more cognizant of the personal consequences of their decisions and weighed those factors more heavily when they make these choices. But my empathy (and yours)  has to be weighed against the consequences to these people making the wrong call and dragging a company down, which ultimately employs many more people than the one ass whose intemperance dragged them into the limelight. I don’t envy their decisions in these cases and look askance at easy moral opprobrium directed their way.

                • Paul_Robertson

                  Not when it conflicts with their first duty, which is to report on incidents of concern with promptness and accuracy.
                  True. But it’s not clear to me how this applies to the current situation. Leaving out the employer would, if anything, improve their promptness and having it there certainly didn’t add anything to the accuracy of the report.

                  I think it is problematic to compare this situation to the plight, if you will, of the average employee in this situation. If they had done neither of these things, the consequence would likely not be the same.
                  I think that we’ll have to agree to disagree regarding your second point – I suspect that we’d have seen the same result if the video had been recorded and uploaded by a C-f-A employee or a third party. Regarding the employment contract, it’s true that Smith’s job as CFO placed him at particular risk, but if anything that should have given the press an added reason to pause before revealing his employer.

                  Part of what makes freedom of speech important is the frank and effective exchange of ideas, which generally requires the participants of speech to not act like risible dicks.
                  Yes, he went about it in the wrong way, but that doesn’t mean that he didn’t have something to say that’s worth protecting. If we start to qualify free speech with caveats like, “unless the speech is done in a dickish way,” then we risk losing track of why we have that protection in the first place. If the Westborough Baptist Church’s protests can be found worthy of protection, why not some minor rudeness at a fast food outlet?

                  They didn’t involve the third party. The third party involved themselves.
                  I disagree. The third party may have chosen to act, but they didn’t choose to become involved. They were thrust into the spotlight by whomever did the initial research together with the members of the press who chose to report the connection.

                  I don’t envy their decisions in these cases and look askance at easy moral opprobrium directed their way.
                  Of all the players in this sorry affair, I have the greatest sympathy for the employer. They were placed in an unenviable situation by the combination of a voracious press and a vengeance-minded public. What’s more, depending on how the inevitable court case ends up, they may well be the only ones out of pocket from this all. That said, I am disappointed that they decided to play this game rather than take one of the other exits that you alluded to. Employers have their part to play in ending this situation too; if we started to see employers refusing to engage in these dramas then the press may eventually grow tired of involving them. One can only hope.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X