Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Much Ado about Chicken

So, there's been loads of hoo-ha about Chick-Fil-A (that's not really a word), and how their CEO equates gay marriage to SHAKING OUR FISTS AT THE SKY (that doesn't make anything happen) and how they use profits to fund NOM, or the National Organization for Marriage.  Other posts and articles in other places give a much better background than I am here, but just as a little catch up, NOM is considered a hate group by many, including the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama.  Alabama, I say.  An organization in Alabama categorizes them in a file marked "Hate Group." 

Alabama.  File.  Hate Group.  I'm going to give a little space here to let that wash over you for a minute...


...



That's the cause.  The result is that all of the cheeseheads on your facey-tweety-tumble-pages are posting pictures of themselves with Chick-Fil-A bags, because it's a way to plant another flag up the mountain of douchebaggery that they're scaling.  Thumbs up if you claim that!

Exhibit A

The issue here is that some people think that we in the states should define marriage by looking to the Bible as an authority.  Most people, especially many Christians, have no idea what this would entail.  I thought a little clarity might be in order, and who better to deliver than America's Best Christian--Betty Bowers!




Thanks, Betty!  You did it again!

7 comments:

  1. Brilliant video. Can't wait for it to appear on someone else's blog as a sincere argument AGAINST gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true--some people have such extreme views that satire completely escapes them!

      Delete
  2. I wont be eating at Chick Fil A anytime soon, and not just because there aren't any within hundreds of miles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julie -- You aren't missing anything. Their breading is too sweet. I haven't eaten there in years, but the recent debacle is one more reason to avoid them.

      Delete
    2. Nor will I, Julie, and I second what you say, Ahab.

      Delete
  3. Saw an article the other day on a friend's FB page in which they questioned which was better: public shaming of businesses like CFA or ignoring them (which I took to mean boycotting them, though maybe I'm misremembering). Seems to me that hitting them in the wallet is where they'll feel it; corporations tend to be without shame most of the time. But maybe I'm missing something?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you. Boycotts are a tricky business, though. I always think about those who don't agree with the poor decisions of leadership but just have a job there. Do I really want to negatively affect them, as well? In the case of Chick-Fil-A, I can't just blow it off, because the statements of Cathy are so ridiculous and the list of where their charitable giving goes is too...is "evil" too strong a word? I don't think so, when discrimination at home and death abroad is at stake.

      Anyway, that's my long-winded way of saying that they don't need my money.

      Delete

Always feel free to chime in.