How does this happen? Chick-fil-A branded as anti-gay?

[Wezil]

I have decided to boycott Chick-fil-a. Since there are none in Winnipeg, this should be easy.

Chick-Felays and Chick-fil-A may sound similar and both serve chicken as their main dishes, but the similarities end there, something Chick-Felays founder and CEO Nabeel Khan has been trying in earnest to point out.

“We had one guy come into one of our restaurants, ordered his food, and then refused it, asking us how we could be so discriminating,” said Khan, recounting a string of such encounters between customers and employees at Chick-Felays’ four locations in southern Ontario. “We had no idea what he was talking about. He said, ‘This is garbage,’ and walked out.”

Khan says it was only several weeks later, after a few more visits from enraged customers, that he learned the president and COO of U.S. chain Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, had made public statements in June and July declaring his opposition to same-sex marriage, sparking a firestorm of controversy south of the border.

Khan then realized customers were mistakenly linking his two-year-old chain to the American company. He’s been in damage control mode ever since.

“It shocks me that people would ask ‘How can you discriminate?’ How could you think that? We’re brown people,” chuckled Khan, who has found humour in the angry customers’ outbursts.

Now, when patrons inquire on a possible relation between Chick-Felays and Chick-fil-A, Khan says his employees point out that the spelling, the menu and the logo are all different. But most importantly, the beliefs are different, he says.

“We welcome everyone, customers and employees, with our arms open and our hearts open,” he said, sitting in a booth at Chick-Felays’s newly opened Mississauga location on Latimer Dr. “Working in the service industry, it’s nonsense to publicly say what (Dan Cathy) said. It’s not good for business.”

Among the more memorable moments in his restaurants, Khan mentioned a couple who arrived at one location asking the cashier, “How can you work for a boss who is so discriminating?” while a family came in yelling “you’re disgusting.”

He said the situation became so severe at Chick-Felays’s Listowel restaurant that a sign had to be placed in the window indicating “We are pleased to announce that we are not affiliated with Chick-fil-A.”

Interestingly enough, no customers have come forward saying they support Chick-fil-A’s stance.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1237546--angry-customers-mistake-chick-felays-for-chick-fil-a

[Lorizael]

That article angers me on three different levels.

[Wezil]

Go ahead. Let it all out...

[Dauphin]

What a narrow view of conservatism you must have.

Why does a different opinion make my version narrower? That's rather narrowminded of you.

[Dauphin]

What a narrow view of conservatism you must have.

Why does a different opinion make my version narrower? That's rather narrowminded of you.

[Lorizael]

Go ahead. Let it all out...

1. Christ, anti-Chick-fil-A people are dumb.

2. Uhhh, brown people can be discriminatory, too.

3. Interestingly enough, journalists aren't supposed to end news stories with extremely suggestive lines that betray their political views.

[Wezil]

1. Yes. I would expand that to "Most people are dumb"

2. Quite obviously, but this brown person isn't.

3. That may have been my doing. I truncated the article. Check the original.

[Wezil]

I thought the name rip-off would be one of your complaints...

[kentonio]

Why does a different opinion make my version narrower? That's rather narrowminded of you.

You did seem to be implying that being a conservative means you must always follow a very tight set of ideological rules. Apologies though, reading that back I did sound rather rude of me, which wasn't intended.

[Lorizael]

1. Yes. I would expand that to "Most people are dumb"

2. Quite obviously, but this brown person isn't.

3. That may have been my doing. I truncated the article. Check the original.

1. Indeed. But this particular story is about anti-Chick-fil-A people being dumb.

2. My issue is his assertion that he's not discriminatory because he's brown.

3. Yeah. It's only halfway down the article in the original. It's still a pretty suggestive line.

[Jon Miller]

I support Gay Marriage and don't like that Chic-Fil-A donates to those groups. But this article has valid points:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2012/08/160_116767.html

Additionally, there are groups which directly or indirectly support child slavery, inhuman working conditions, and so on, which get a lot less news. Which I find sad.

JM

[Lorizael]

Additionally, there are groups which directly or indirectly support child slavery, inhuman working conditions, and so on, which get a lot less news. Which I find sad.

Chick-fil-A wants to enslave us to their inhuman religious views! I know I can't work under such conditions!

Posted from my iPhone

[Wezil]

1. Indeed. But this particular story is about anti-Chick-fil-A people being dumb.

2. My issue is his assertion that he's not discriminatory because he's brown.

3. Yeah. It's only halfway down the article in the original. It's still a pretty suggestive line.

1. Not true as they never were actual Chik-fil-A people

2. Yes, that would be problematic

3. The Star is not known for quality

[Flubber]

Flubber - I made that point to Kidicious because I know he supports positive discrimination. For him, there isn't a distinction. For him the purpose of an anti-discrimination laws is to level things out. This is why you have quota based hiring, etc.

I've worked for lots of different businesses. When I worked in Pizza delivery - we had blacklists - people that we would not deliver to. If the lists were predominantly minority, would that be discrimination? Yes. But nobody got blacklisted unless they either failed to pay or they threatened a driver.

Discrimination isn't bad. A business wants to hire the best person for the best position, and they want to meet the needs of their best customers. Anti-discrimination laws - are well-meaning - but they work contrary to the best interest of the business. As such, they work at cross-purposes. If someone is a 'token hire', is that going to relieve the harassment they might get as much as actually being hired on their merits?

I'm talking as someone who is a minority - I don't believe the anti-discrimination laws are doing me any good. I'd be better off if they didn't exist at all.

You are continuing to confuse laws against discrimination with affirmative action.

Oh and your blacklists were not discrimination based on race in any way. You would refuse to deliver to any individual if they exhibited certain behaviors regardless of their race.

When there is no evidence of direct discrimination and you see skewed numbers, one can get into a discussion about adverse effect discrimination but first people have to understand the freaking difference between affirmative action and discrimination laws !!!!!!

[Dauphin]

You did seem to be implying that being a conservative means you must always follow a very tight set of ideological rules. Apologies though, reading that back I did sound rather rude of me, which wasn't intended.

My attention was primarily drawn to the use of the word "genuine". Churchill was clearly a Conservative (big C), was observably conservative (little c) and clearly a loose cannon in many circumstances - so much so he became a Liberal MP and was effectively ex-communicated from the Tories for many years.

How he is a "genuine" conservative seemed rather spurious in light of that juxtaposition. It in turn implied that others who may be conservative, or who are more mainstream than a maverick, are not "genuine" or that his say was more important than others on issues even though he was clearly not mainstream in thought.