Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day – A Light-Hearted Tribute

How can you not love a company that puts out commercials like this:

My friend Bob passed these along the other day (go pee first….):

Show your support for this wonderful company today – go get yourselves a #1 Combo and enjoy!
[Updated 4:15 p.m.] Submitted without comment:

[Cross-posted at RedState]
[Update 08/01/12]: Thanks to Nice Deb for including this post in her Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day round-up! Lots of great links to CFA action all across the country at her site!

[Update 08/02/12]: Wow! Thanks to Doug Ross over at Larwyn’s Links and Bad Blue for linking this post – I really appreciate it!

About Teresa in Fort Worth, TX

A short, fat, middle-aged, happily-married, mother of 4 daughters. A former high school valedictorian (way back in the Stone Age), a Civil Engineering major in college, a middle-of-the-road Conservative, and a moderate Methodist. I know just enough to get myself in trouble....
This entry was posted in Humor, I Love America, Just Because, Think about it and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day – A Light-Hearted Tribute

  1. Christina Fowlkes says:

    Thanks, but no thanks. As long as they donate to organizations that are actively working to keep civil rights from all citizens, I can’t eat their anti-gay combos.

    Although, let me be clear–I support Cathy’s right to his own opinion and to donate to charities of his choice. I simply don’t agree and don’t want my money going to those organizations.

    And no, for me this isn’t about the media. I’ve been avoiding this “chickin” for years. I stay up to date on what the companies I spend my money at are supporting. Money talks. It’s important to me that mine speaks for what’s true in my heart. And I wish more people would do the same because we are voting everytime we take out our wallets.

    Here’s a recipe for their sandwiches:

    Go crazy–make ‘em on a Sunday.

    • I take it that you also make a point not to spend any of your money at Muslim-run establishments, anti-Semitic businesses, or places that actively support Hamas or Hezbollah?

      Don’t get me wrong – I fully support your right to not eat at places that are “actively working to keep civil rights from all citizens” – just be sure that you are applying your indignation equally.

      The organizations which Chick-Fil-A donates to DO NOT support stoning, hanging, or beheading people who are gay.

      FWIW, gay “couples” only make up 0.39% of the US population – for such an infinitesimally small group, some of them sure do make an awful lot of noise…..

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        As I said in my post, I stay up to date on the companies I frequent. I judge them each individually and so no, I don’t avoid all Muslim-run establishments. That would be the same as avoiding all Christian-run establishments, which I don’t do either. I simply avoid companies that fund organizations that deny civil rights. Is it easy? No. Does it really stink sometimes? Absolutely. Do I make mistakes? Of course. But as a humanist, I feel compelled to try not to put a shirt on my back or food in my mouth that supports the belief that certain groups of people are inferior and therefore should be denied certain civil rights. The smaller the group, the more the majority must stand up for what is right.

        And Weirddave, I’m glad to see an American business doing so well. I truly am. I am saddened by their charitable donations, but otherwise I think they are a lovely company. I have a lot of respect for the Cathy family and the values that have grown a company that has truly great customer service and a product that is obviously well liked by millions!

        I also want to apologize for my comment. It accurately states my beliefs, but it doesn’t do it in a very warm way. The number of hateful, mean things I’ve seen regarding this in the social media was truly appalling. As Gandhi said, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Unfortunately, that was how I was feeling when I got the email about your post.

        I hope though that I have shed some light on why a number of us are not patronizing Chick-fil-a. We’re not all intolerant Christian haters. For some of us, it’s simply a human rights issue.

      • Christina, I didn’t find anything hateful in your comments, so please don’t worry on that account. I respect the time that you take to research the companies that you frequent – obviously it works for you, and that is great.

        And believe me, I DO respect your decision to not give your business to Chick-Fil-A. I have a feeling that they, also, respect your decision – because they want people to be true to their beliefs.

        For me – and many people like me – this was not about gay rights; it was about free speech. A private citizen spoke his mind to a private publication – SOMEBODY ELSE took it upon themselves to be insulted on other peoples’ behalf, and started squawking about the injustice of it all. And government officials got involved and started spouting off about how they were going to punish a private business based on a person’s private feelings.

        These government officials were not willing to let citizens make their OWN decisions about whether to patronize a private company which doesn’t discriminate when it comes to hiring practices or serving the public.

        How dare they?

        Who died and made them God? Since when does a government official get to tell me what to think? I’m perfectly capable of making my own decisions and choices, thank you very much.

        And the cities that were making the biggest fuss are ALL cities that can use the revenue that a successful business like Chick-Fil-A rakes in. If I were a taxpayer in those cities, I’d be hopping mad that the ELECTED officials weren’t willing to try and bring in businesses which can alleviate MY tax burden.

        Government doesn’t have that kind of power, and it’s time that they understand that they serve at the pleasure of the people who put them in office. WE are not their servants – they are ours.

        (Check out my previous post about this issue – it talks about this in greater depth. It’s kinda snarky, but I was kind of peeved when I wrote it…..)

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        So, I did some searching. I limited myself to 3 Google searches, but I read every link that was on the first page. I’d consider that a pretty good sampling of what mainstream gay rights activism entails. I didn’t encounter a single article that even insinuated that the government should somehow force churches to recognize gay marriage. Honestly, I don’t think that’s a fight many homosexuals have to fight. I can name 3 churches within 20 minutes of me that will happily marry gay couples.

        Now do gay couples want to be able to get married and not have to call it a civil union? Absolutely. And ya know what, I think that makes sense. Marriage hasn’t been sacred and holy for a long time. We decided in this country that we don’t want the kind of marriage discussed in the Bible. That’s why it’s legal to get divorced for irreconcilable differences. And for the non-religious to marry in a court house. It’s a social institution that was practiced long before the church and that uses Pagan symbols. And if I know anything about those who find themselves to be “holier than thou,” Christians will come up with a way to label their weddings as such. Once we have civil marriage rights for all, it’ll be interesting to see how many churches are more than happy to marry same-sex couples and accept them with open, loving arms. Then Christians can do something else they are fantastic at–fighting amongst themselves. And I can rest in peace knowing that human rights are respected.

      • And yet yesterday the government’s edict that ALL employers have to provide insurance for their employees which cover abortifacients and contraception – even though it is against their religion – went into effect.

        That is a clear violation of those employers’ First Amendment rights.

        And this was shoved down their throats by extremists in the abortion/womens’ rights movement. I somehow doubt that is what the original feminists envisioned, but there you have it. Moderate gay rights’ proponents surely don’t see their movement being co-opted to tear down religious institutions, but that is where it is headed. And make no mistake, there ARE those who want to bring down organized religion.

        The pendulum can swing back hard, though – check out what is going on in neighborhoods around the London olympics: they’ll start with their “Pimps and Prostitutes” campaign, then they have an anti-pornography campaign, and pretty soon they’ll come after the gay community.

        And I ain’t talkin’ about the Christians…..

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        Your comment doesn’t address anything that I said. Which is fine, but it does make a discussion of the topic difficult.

        As for the contraception issue, my personal opinion is that employers provide healthcare coverage and that is where their right to your health stops. Similar to the old adage, “your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.” Healthcare is private between patient and doctor. The only faith that should be involved is that of any individual patient. Otherwise we could have all kinds of crazy claims about blood transfusions and circumcision and whatever else based on any whacko employer’s views.

        I wasn’t familiar with the Pimps not Prostitutes campaign in London. It sounds like a great campaign to me. I have always been in support of the protection of women who are involved in prostitution. I went to their page and read a few articles about the group. I didn’t see anything to suggest they would target citizens that watch porn or are homosexual.

        I believe religion is a very personal matter and one that I hope to see less and less of in the public square. I think there are many lifestyles that foster morality and if we could discuss our shared values in a secular fashion we could accomplish so much good instead of squabbling over differences that will never be solved. I simply believe it is more efficient to use a secular view of morality to discuss public issues since it is unlikely that the religious can come to a unified understanding of the true code of morality within the various religious texts of the world.

      • So, you support the emergence of a group similar to the Taliban in England? Good to know…..

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        I would hope that you know enough of my philosophy that I obviously wouldn’t support such an organization. When I searched Pimps and Prostitutes London on Google I came back with information on a campaign called Pimps NOT Prostitutes. Here is their info:

        You only strengthen my conviction that religion has no place in the public square. Morality has been seen in many that are not religious, but the true belief in evil practices as moral practices tends to manifest itself in religion.

        Gosh, we have really covered the gamut here. I still have to say, I think it could have been a much more efficient conversation if one of us had stayed on topic… but I have ADD sometimes too :) It’s just not as easy when work is busy. There’s a lot going on in the world.

      • I still have to say, I think it could have been a much more efficient conversation if one of us had stayed on topic…

        Bless your heart – it’s so nice to see that your momma taught you how to behave when you come into someone else’s “home” and decide to express your opinion. Nothing like using a backwards complement to insult your host.

        She must be so very proud of you.

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        I didn’t mean it to be a backwards compliment! That is the way I truly feel. A backwards compliment in my mind would have been something along the lines of, “Gosh, you really know how to stay on topic.” I’m sorry if it offended you. That was not my intention. I just found the addition of a new topic for every reply I had overwhelming and inefficient and I was simply trying to let you know that in what I thought might be a light way. I’m sincerely sorry if my comment offended you.

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        I enjoyed some of our back and forth and I hope my presence in your “home” hasn’t been wholly negative. I appreciate you discussing all of the above topics with me. I love to learn and you have brought new information into my life and for that I am grateful. Our Dan Savage debate was so full of mutual respect. I had hoped today would be just as positive. I truly meant no harm.

        I have a feeling a mother’s pride is not a good measure of character, but mine is extremely proud of me and my brother. And I think her pride is well founded, but you may feel differently.

      • Sincerest apologies, dear one – I enjoy our discussions, too. Please chalk it up to a lack of lunch (I’m all better now….. :P )

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        No worries! I am just now eating as well. I’m sure I could have been more gracious, but I felt compelled to discuss at a time when I really don’t have any time. And I realized after I mentioned the Dan Savage post that I think I used my “user name” when commenting on there. I’m cmcnutt1. Sorry for the confusion! I felt like I represented myself much better in our last discussion. It’s amazing what time and focus can add to a discussion (and a better attitude–working on an adjustment now:) All the best!

    • Weirddave says:

      I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your refusal to patronize Chic-fil-a.

      I’m heading there for dinner and it’s PACKED, one fewer person in line makes my wait shorter.

      • Weirddave says:


        I thank you for your reasoned reply, but I was wondering if you would do me the courtesy of answering one simple question?

        Exactly what “civil right” are gay folks denied? I’m curious. Thanks in advance

      • Christina Fowlkes says:

        The Massachusetts supreme court says it best:

        “Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support. Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family. Because it fulfills yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life’s momentous acts of self-definition. It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a ‘civil right.’ Without the right to choose to marry, one is excluded from the full range of human experience.”

      • It is interesting, don’t you think, that the Massachusetts court emphasizes the term “civil marriage”? I think that a lot of people gloss over that. A marriage that is performed in a church is both a civil AND a religious ceremony – that’s why the minister says, “By the power vested in me by the state of….”

        A “church” wedding combines two separate unions – too many people forget that.

        I think that many people do not have a problem with “civil unions”; however, the most extreme of the LGBT activists will not be happy until churches are FORCED to acknowledge their union – and therein lies the crux of the problem.

        Most LGBT couples would be perfectly happy with having their union recognized LEGALLY; unfortunately, the activists are the ones who are standing in the way of working out a solution – to them, they want the whole ball of wax, and they WILL NOT give up until they see the churches bow to their will. They want to punish the churches for some perceived slight, and they don’t see the glaring intolerance that they are exhibiting in their pursuit of that goal.

        There is a happy medium that can be reached, but it’s not going to happen until the moderates in the LGBT community wrest back control from the extremists.

  2. Kim Marshall says:

    Teresa, Thanks for sharing Tim Hawkins’ funniness! I appreciate your willingness to bring a little levity to this blown-out-of-proportion drama. Have a great day!

  3. Bob says:

    I wish there were a Chick-fil-A less than an hour and a half drive from my house. I’d go there for lunch, and I’d take a few good books along to pass the time while I wait in line at the drive-through. :-)

    I know you can’t eat their sandwiches anymore, or I’d ask you to eat one for me today. :-(

    • Actually, Paul is picking up dinner there this evening – their grilled chicken is “safe”, as are their fries (their chicken is fried in separate oil from the fries). I eat their “Chargrilled chicken and fruit salad” 3-4 times a month, and Rebecca loves their fries.

      They were actually one of the few fast-food restaurants listed in the GF Restaurant guide back in 2008 when Rebecca was diagnosed with Celiac Disease, so we’ve given them quite a bit of our business over the past 4 years.

      It’s still not the same as a CFA sandwich – and honestly, if I were ever tempted to “cheat”, it would be with a #1 CFA combo.

      However, I know what the end result of that cheating would be – that’s the only thing that keeps me “in check”….. :P

  4. Pingback: Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day – A Light-Hearted Tribute | RedState

  5. Christina Fowlkes says:

    As for the political garbage, I don’t support any of it. I support Ron Paul. And that is all.

Leave a Reply (Please be nice - my mom reads my blog!)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s