NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
The restaurant has agreed to include a statement of respect for all sexual orientations in an internal document and promised that its not-for-profit arm would not contribute money to groups that oppose gay marriage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca … 5045.story

Cool. Looks like the public pressure had an impact.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
The restaurant has agreed to include a statement of respect for all sexual orientations in an internal document and promised that its not-for-profit arm would not contribute money to groups that oppose gay marriage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca … 5045.story

Now that is good business sense.

Gianantonio wrote:

Cool. Looks like the public pressure had an impact.

Uhhhhh what impact? This is PR Pandering 101. That guy is going to do exactly what he did before. Remember, this was never really about their company policy. It was Dan Cathy's support. That man is free to do whatever he wants with the money he gets from his company and will continue to do so. He'll just keep quiet about it. Dan Cathy didn't magically become a different person.

Art of CIP wrote:

Now that is good business sense.

Exactly, and thats all it is. Business.

David Gaar wrote:
Yeah, but the food still sucks.

I like chik-Fil-a.  I was upset when the owner made his remarks - but even more so when I discovered he used his profits to deny Americans of their civil rights.   Over the years I've had to choose to not buy from numerous companies - It's good to see the company has enough sense to place their customers ahead of politics.  A lot of businesses dig in deeper.

Erick Prince wrote:

Exactly, and thats all it is. Business.

Putting your customers and employees ahead of your politics is always good business.

T Brown wrote:
A statement doesn't mean anything unless they walk the walk after they talk the talk.

Time will tell...

A companies culture doesn't just change from a redrafted policy...it had to start from the top and have unwavering support as it moves down throughout the company.

The CEO's views were not representative of the entire company.  When you walk into a chik-Fil-a fast food store - the employees are just regular working stiffs drawing a paycheck.  Which makes the actions of the owner even more irresponsible.  Not only did he go after the rights of Americans - his actions lead to the employees of his stores having to take the heat for him.  Very irresponsible of him.

Erick Prince wrote:

Uhhhhh what impact? This is PR Pandering 101. That guy is going to do exactly what he did before. Remember, this was never really about their company policy. It was Dan Cathy's support. That man is free to do whatever he wants with the money he gets from his company and will continue to do so. He'll just keep quiet about it. Dan Cathy didn't magically become a different person.

Didn't you read the article?

Art of CIP wrote:
The CEO's views were not representative of the entire company.  When you walk into a chik-Fil-a fast food store - the employees are just regular working stiffs drawing a paycheck.  Which makes the actions of the owner even more irresponsible.  Not only did he go after the rights of Americans - his actions lead to the employees of his stores having to take the heat for him.  Very irresponsible of him.

Oh yes they are, its called corporate culture. Even franchises have to adhere to a standard MO which is handed down from the corporate offices.

Which is why every McDonalds, Burger King, Tuffy, Wal Mart, Shell (gas station), etc is operated in the same manner according to their "charter".

Try and be a franchise owner and not stick to your charter, you'll lose your license real quick. And the bigwigs in the corporate offices are the image of the company.

And the managers of each of these franchises is expected to enforce whatever the corporate doctrine is.

So if a company is not friendly towards a certain demographic, it will be an enforceable mindset.

I whole heartily agree the employees are a casualty of his statement.

Erick Prince wrote:
Uhhhhh what impact? This is PR Pandering 101. That guy is going to do exactly what he did before. Remember, this was never really about their company policy. It was Dan Cathy's support. That man is free to do whatever he wants with the money he gets from his company and will continue to do so. He'll just keep quiet about it. Dan Cathy didn't magically become a different person.

You one very smart dude At the end of the day, it's all about making a buck!


As Mr. Hamilton would say: SUCKERS!

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
I don't think Chick-fil-A has actual franchises - more like glorified managers

No, they have actual franchises.  I worked at one from 1976 to 1979.  At the time it was the only one in New Orleans.

BTW to read your link you have to be a member of the Tribune website.

T Brown wrote:
A statement doesn't mean anything unless they walk the walk after they talk the talk.

what walk? what talk? aren't they in the business of selling fastfood with chicken in it?

I don't expect a fastfood restaurant to go and promote gay marriage or anything like that. fastfood and politics shouldn't mingle.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

what walk? what talk? aren't they in the business of selling fastfood with chicken in it?

I don't expect a fastfood restaurant to go and promote gay marriage or anything like that. fastfood and politics shouldn't mingle.

That means actions speak louder than words...

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
The restaurant has agreed to include a statement of respect for all sexual orientations in an internal document and promised that its not-for-profit arm would not contribute money to groups that oppose gay marriage.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca … 5045.story

So, what changed?  Suddenly, do the ultra-pseudo-conservatives now think that God is okay with the gay lifestyle?  Has the Bible been rewritten?

Good to see people have so little commitment to their convictions.




Or, on the other hand, yay for gay!

T Brown wrote:

That means actions speak louder than words...

I know what it means... what kind of actions are we talking about here though? give an example.

Anna Adrielle wrote:
I know what it means... what kind of actions are we talking about here though? give an example.

Actions like donating large sums of money towards same sex marriages, or HIV research, or setting an example by hiring a same sex couple in a position of influence, or by providing benefits to same sex couples...buy ad time during the Ellen DeGeneres show......should I continue?

Any kind of support where they have to either spend money or visibly show active support.

Anna Adrielle wrote:

what walk? what talk? aren't they in the business of selling fastfood with chicken in it?

I don't expect a fastfood restaurant to go and promote gay marriage or anything like that. fastfood and politics shouldn't mingle.

Too late they've already opened the door to discussion..

Looknsee Photography wrote:

So, what changed?  Suddenly, do the ultra-pseudo-conservatives now think that God is okay with the gay lifestyle?  Has the Bible been rewritten?

Good to see people have so little commitment to their convictions.




Or, on the other hand, yay for gay!

why don't you ask Obama if he has commitment to his convictions? He said the exact same thing Cathy did yet reversed his views to get votes, or perhaps re-wrote the Bible himself (I mean, he is the Messiah isn't he?)

T Brown wrote:

Actions like donating large sums of money towards same sex marriages, or HIV research, or setting an example by hiring a same sex couple in a position of influence, or by providing benefits to same sex couples...buy ad time during the Ellen DeGeneres show......should I continue?

Any kind of support where they have to either spend money or visibly show active support.

meh, I don't think they should do those things at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro gay marriage myself (and glad to be living in a country where gay marriage is legal and has been for quite some time). But at the same time I think it's a person's right to not feel the same way as I do. I don't mind people being against gay marriage, I just think it's wrong to actively try and stop it.
For me, personally, it's good enough that they'll stop supporting anti gay marriage groups. They don't have to become all pro-gay marriage all of a sudden. this is fine.

just my opinion though

Anna Adrielle wrote:

meh, I don't think they should do those things at all. Don't get me wrong, I'm pro gay marriage myself (and glad to be living in a country where gay marriage is legal and has been for quite some time). But at the same time I think it's a person's right to not feel the same way as I do. I don't mind people being against gay marriage, I just think it's wrong to actively try and stop it.
For me, personally, it's good enough that they'll stop supporting anti gay marriage groups. They don't have to become all pro-gay marriage all of a sudden. this is fine.

just my opinion though

And I'm not saying they should have to do it either, but when a company projects an image advocating or disavowing a certain segment of its demographic and then shortly there after does a complete 180 from their previous stance, no one is going to believe their change unless they demonstrate the change by the only means they understand, $$$

Robert Helm wrote:
They were not anti gay in the first place as they did not discriminate in employment or who they served. The people who did discriminate are the mayors who wanted to ban an establishment where the owners did not agree with them.

If they were not anti gay then why would they make a statement to stop funding anti gay groups????

T Brown wrote:

And I'm not saying they should have to do it either, but when a company projects an image advocating or disavowing a certain segment of its demographic and then shortly there after does a complete 180 from their previous stance, no one is going to believe their change unless they demonstrate the change by the only means they understand, $$$

but they're not doing a 180. well, at least, I didn't see anything about them saying they're all for it now. just that they won't fund projects that are against it, right? it's more like 90 instead of 180

Anna Adrielle wrote:

but they're not doing a 180. well, at least, I didn't see anything about them saying they're all for it now. just that they won't fund projects that are against it, right? it's more like 90 instead of 180

lol, good point....your a clever cookie....

Peach Jones wrote:

why don't you ask Obama if he has commitment to his convictions? He said the exact same thing Cathy did yet reversed his views to get votes, or perhaps re-wrote the Bible himself (I mean, he is the Messiah isn't he?)

And you've never changed your opinion about anything in your whole entire life?

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
I don't think Chick-fil-A has actual franchises - more like glorified managers

sublime LightWorks wrote:
No, they have actual franchises.  I worked at one from 1976 to 1979.  At the time it was the only one in New Orleans.

The way I read this it's more of a glorified manager who has to buy his way into the job -
http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Company/Care … pportunity

David Gaar wrote:
Yeah, but the food still sucks.

LOL 

sublime LightWorks wrote:
BTW to read your link you have to be a member of the Tribune website.

Weird. I don't see that issue.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
I would not put my "faith" into a "promise" made by any group that wants to oppress another.

I agree... I don't trust that Chicago alderman either.