Well spin me dizzy, Fox.

Christina here,

I wasn’t going to write about Chick-fil-a, but today while working my clinical OT, I listened toFM News Talk in the car between clients.

Chick-fil-a.

All day.

I don’t think they went  5 minutes without mentioning them. They had advertisements for “Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day”. They had callers call in to tell them how long the lines were, how good the chicken was, and how horrible liberals were for being such free-speech killers. All day.

I probably spent two and a half hours throughout the day listening to them.  The talk show hosts repeatedly claimed that liberals and gays were boycotting Chick-fil-a because the COO simply shared his opinion on gay marriage.

This is not why people are unhappy with Chick-fil-a.

People are unhappy with Chick-fil-a because part of their profits are donated to anti-gay organizations. in 2010, they donated 2 million dollars. They donated money to, for example, the Family Research council, who in turn, among other things, spent $25,000 to oppose legislation “condemn[ing] the Ugandan government’s legislative efforts to make “homosexuality” an offense punishable by death.

Not once did anybody on Fox News Radio mention this. They didn’t even hint at it. Instead, they said things like, “all Dan Cathy did was say he supports traditional marriage. Now liberals want to ban them from opening stores in Chicago.” and, “This is just another liberal attack on free speech”

On the Dana Show, she said,

“Do you doubt the power of the conservative movement? Two examples: Here you have people trying to boycott Chick-fil-a. Whenever the left tries to minimize something, the right can counter back and actually makes the boycott such an epic fail that now Chick-fil-a is flourishing. I’ve had people send me photos from all around the country all day long, showing me how packed Chick-fil-a restaurants are… That’s the power of the conservative movement. Voters are informed… They know how to deduce what’s spin… they are on to the leftist spin…. You just got served. You’re gonna talk about boycotting a business because you don’t like what the owner said.. ehhhh! get over it! It’s America!  YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED! You don’t! It’s not anywhere in the constitution! You. Do. Not. Have. The. Right. To. Not. Be. Offended by something somebody else says.  You don’t. Period.  If something offends you and you don’t want to go to an establishment because of something somebody said, okay fine. Then don’t! But when you’ve got mayors saying they’re gonna ban a business because of something somebody says, that’s a first amendment violation.”

I hope voters are informed enough to deduce that Fox is the one doing the spinning by omitting the fact that most people are concerned with Chick-fil-a profits being donated to anti-gay organizations, not simply that Dan Cathy said something about traditional marriage.

Learn more about Christina and follow her @ziztur.

About christinastephens
  • pipenta

    It’s enough to give one indigestion.

  • watry

    I’ve got similar stuff on my Facebook. I think it’s time to defriend some people for sheer stupidity.

  • Mark

    Sounds like Occupy Chick Fil A has been co-opted by the Republicans. Regardless of the mechanics of it, God blesses the faithful.

  • anteprepro

    Regardless of the mechanics of it, God blesses the faithful.

    By turning them into a frothing horde of bigoted morons? Oh, that God and His mysterious ways.

  • http://yetanotheratheist.com TerranRich

    I hope this Dana person remembers her spiel when the next town decides to prevent a strip club or porn shop from opening within their precious community.

  • Mike de Fleuriot

    Is Chik-fil-a the new church? Anyone want to bet that you will see take-out signs next to the atm’s at the mega churches soon.

    The thing is we are in the right to protest the corporate policy of the place, while the supporters of it are, well..bigots, and as such wrong. It’s that simple, look up what the definition of bigot is and you will see a description of CFA policy and supporters there.

  • Steph

    *I* hope she remembers to master the concept of the double negative; seeing as how she basically ended up saying “You have the right to be offended”, thus negating what I think was her intent.

    • Steph

      *insert blatantly obvious Sarcasm Button and/or winky face here, on the off chance that it’s needed*

    • Compuholic

      What I especially like about it is that it is exactly the opposite position that religious people usually have: That the evil atheists offend religious sensibilities.

      There are so many levels of delicious irony here.

    • John Horstman

      It’s not actually a double negative resulting in the phrase you suggest; that would be something like, “You don’t not have the right to be offended.” She’s saying there exists no affirmative right (“You don’t have the right”) to avoid offense (“to not be offended”). This is distinct from an affirmative right to offense, which could actually be something that exists, if one takes the right to access information that offends one as an implication of the constitutional prohibition of government censorship. The language is entirely correct, even if the content is a confused non sequitur.

  • tubi

    A lot of the freakout from the right that I’ve seen is against the actions of public officials in Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. I really wish those officials hadn’t done that. It’s really obscured the real issue, which is Cfa’s support for hate groups. I think most of the left understands that a city can’t ban a business from operating there, etc. But that seems to be what many righties have fixated on in venting their spleens.

    • JustKat

      Agreed.

    • John Horstman

      Ditto; it’s a legitimate critique, even if it’s insanely hypocritical. Remember the Right-wing response to this Islamic community center, which is explicitly protected by the US Constitution (whereas Chick-fil-A’s position that it can’t be banned depends upon a series of Supreme Court rulings of dubious precedent that equate money to speech, such that the corporate contributions to hate groups constitute protected speech)?

  • (e)m

    I hope that all the bigots enjoy their obeisity and clogged arteries.

  • https://plus.google.com/113934400219974764448 Hein

    “all Dan Cathy did was say he supports traditional marriage. Now liberals want to ban them from opening stores in Chicago.” and, “This is just another liberal attack on free speech”

    Yet more people who don’t understand freedom of speech. How many times must it be said? Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!

  • lofgren

    Remember: If a corporation spends millions of dollars trying to curb your civil rights, that’s freedom of speech.

    If you refuse to give that corporation $7.50 for a chicken sandwich in order to assist them in their efforts, your an economic terrorist who hates the constitution.

    If a corporation spends millions of dollars trying to influence the government to privilege their religion over your freedoms, that’s freedom of speech.

    If you criticize that corporation for advocating a blatant violation of the first amendment, you’re a thin-skinned fascist and a bully.

    And people keep saying this isn’t just about Dan Cathy’s opinions. But, you know, it kind of is. Even if they didn’t donate millions of dollars to hate groups and medical quackery that leaves people psychologically scarred, I would still probably avoid Chick-Fil-A. Money is a form of speech, according to the Supreme Court, and I only have so much speech to go around. I might as well spend it with people who agree with me on certain fundamental issues, like separation of church and state and that civil rights should not hinge on a priestly caste’s interpretation of the whims of a magical sky gnome. Sure I would feel it is less important to avoid Chick-Fil-A if they didn’t donate any money to these “charities,” but given a choice between them and a restaurant who supports equal rights for all, I might as well choose the latter.

    Yes, I recognize that perfect application of this ethos is probably impossible. There are people who run corporations that I use who holds all kinds of nasty opinions. But avoiding Chick-Fil-A is easy, and spending that money with a company that respects civil rights is easy, so why wouldn’t I do it?

    So yeah, I don’t have the right to not be offended. But I do have the right to spend my money as I please and to say whatever I want, just like Dan Cathy. Dan Cathy has millions of dollars. I have a wrinkled five dollar bill and some change I found in the couch cushions. We both make our choices and at no point is anybody’s freedom’s being infringed.

    Oh, except for all the gay people Dan Cathy wants to prevent from getting married, or send to prison if possible. But their freedoms are obviously less important than Dan Cathy’s ability to say whatever he wants and advocate whatever heinous beliefs he has without consequences. Obviously.

    • (e)m

      You forgot one

      war is peace, slavery is freedom

  • unbound

    “I hope voters are informed enough to deduce that Fox is the one doing the spinning by …”

    Knowing a number of Faux News viewers (my father among them), I can confidently state that most of the viewers are not informed enough. Heck, I’ll bet a majority still think Obama wasn’t born in the US (my father still thinks so). The same way the religious don’t figure things out by taking it as a matter of faith is what keeps the typical Faux News viewer uninformed. They really don’t want to know the truth.

  • arakasi

    I am such an idiot.

    I should know better than to get into an argument about politics/religion here at work (I work in a field that his dominated by conservatives) but there was a Chick-Fil-A discussion going on two cubes over.

    I joined it.

    I pointed out that the boycotts were not because the CEO “stated what his religious beliefs are” but because the company uses their money to restrict civil rights. I admitted that the public officials in Boston & Chicago were over the line in trying to ban the stores from moving in, but pointed out that they backed down.

    (Note to self – apparently being called a bigot is worse than being denied basic civil rights)

    I swear – I’m not the one who brought up abortion.

    At that point. I walked away

    If history is to be a guide, it is going to be two days before I stop rearguing the point in my head, so I have to avoid the guy for the rest of the day to make sure the topic doesn’t come up again

  • Heather

    Sad how the Chik Fil A stores were filled to overcapacity, yet you’d never see that many “loving” Christians at a soup kitchen or other charity that actually tries to help people.

  • magistramarla

    Heather’s comment was great.
    Here is something else that has been on my mind:
    CFA, Hobby Lobby and other uber-religious businesses claim that they are closed on Sunday to allow their employees more family time. Yet, those same hypocrites are quick to flood into restaurants. grocery stores and malls as soon as their church services are over. I try to do my grocery shopping early on Sunday before the hypocrites in their Sunday best crowd the aisles.
    If they consider Sunday family time to be so important, why are they impeding on the family time of others on Sunday?
    Why aren’t they going straight home to be with their families and to contemplate what they just learned in church, leaving the stores and restaurants to the rest of us?

    • https://twitter.com/#!/Erulora Erülóra Maikalambe

      I, too, have seen that hypocrisy. For a period in my churchgoing days I went to a Baptist church with a pastor from Texas. He made a big deal about how important that whole not working on Sunday thing is, and how he wouldn’t even patronize other businesses on Sunday so nobody was required to work on his account. About a year after I stopped going there, who do I see in my drive-through lane one Sunday lunch? Yeah.

  • Joshua Fisher

    I guess I’m off to buy a new irony meter.

  • Tony •King of the Hellmouth•

    Christina:

    I hope voters are informed enough to deduce that Fox is the one doing the spinning by omitting the fact that most people are concerned with Chick-fil-a profits being donated to anti-gay organizations, not simply that Dan Cathy said something about traditional marriage.

    Donating money to hate groups is certainly the primary reason I oppose CFA, however, Dan Cathy’s views themselves are sufficient cause to boycott the company.
    When the COO of a company wears his discrimination and bigotry on his sleeve as if some badge of pride, he’s just asking for social justice advocates to boycott his company.

  • Tony •King of the Hellmouth•

    Mark:

    Sounds like Occupy Chick Fil A has been co-opted by the Republicans. Regardless of the mechanics of it, God blesses the faithful.

    How can you be so blind to the harms your religion does to minority groups?
    How can you turn a blind eye to the effects of donating money to anti gay organizations?
    Are you one of those Christians who claims to love his fellow man? If so, how do you do that while displaying-at a minimum-apathy towards your fellow man?
    -
    And what does it mean for God to bless the faithful?
    What does a blessing do? Does it start your car in the morning? Prevent you from getting a flat tire? Make sure your Hate Filled Chicken is fully cooked? Ensure that you arrive to work on time? Let you remember where you left your car keys? Keeps the condom from breaking during sex?
    -
    How do you know it’s from God? Couldn’t Hera have given her blessing? Could the Flying Spaghetti Monster have dangled his noodly appendage over you? Do you have Thor’s hammer looking out for you? How would you determine which god out of all the gods humans have worshiped is the one granting you blessings.
    From my perspective, every characteristic attributed to Satan is found in God, so maybe your Genocidal Sky Daddy is the evil one, and Satan is merely a former-honest-servant.

    • anteprepro

      Are you one of those Christians who claims to love his fellow man? If so, how do you do that while displaying-at a minimum-apathy towards your fellow man?

      The same reason why a Christian believes anything that isn’t true: They believe their own propaganda.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X