WEATHER »

Patronizing Chick-fil-A?

No, I don't want to contribute to the organizations it funds. 62% 186 votes
Probably. To consider the politics of my consumer choices is more than I can handle. 18% 55 votes
Yes, I support its politics. 18% 56 votes
297 total votes

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Strange choices. You're either against them, too stupid to consider the politics when you make a decision to eat there, or you support it's politics.

How about "I just enjoy the food and don't care about the politics"? (not that it's my vote)

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What a ridiculous poll, and what an obvious social commentary on the Independent's lean. Is daraka larimore-hall on your payroll?

sbdude (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You can complain about the political lean, but my prediction is that the poll will show that generally readers lean the same way. Media generally reflects the poltics of its readership.

Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So they are pandering to their readers politics in what is supposed to be an objective poll?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about this for a poll.....

Are you a Democrat?

Are you a selfish, close-minded, racist wing-nut?

Are you too stupid to make the right decision?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 11:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't Chick Fill-A has had to spend a dime on publicity for nearly a year.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do think it's irresponsible for the owner Ruiz not to make a statement regarding the scandal she's embraced. It just makes everyone think "wow she must be a Nazi too."
I can't imagine having an opinion or belief I was too ashamed to share.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only thing Ruiz has embraced is selling chicken sandwiches. What's with your obsession about this?

I would say that it's likely most people in Santa Barbara have no opinion on this whatsoever. When they're hungry, they want to eat. Except on Sundays I guess.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If I'm obsessed brother/sister Botany then so are you, you commented three times before I did! But perhaps this is also your de facto water cooler as it often is mine.
Ruiz has embraced free publicity for her business at this point, but none of the responsibility of addressing the accompanying scandal, what is she hiding?
We are only left to guess. Most decent people would've said something by now.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Aren't you at all curious as to who this anonymous international cosmetics company for whom she was a "brand marketing manager" is? Is it Nerium which is actually a multilevel marketing scheme?
A lot of blank spaces in her public bio that's for sure. Hey I once worked in distribution and sales for a huge record company, I was a sales associate at Wherehouse Records.
She should at the very least have more faith in her product (which in itself people seem to love) to be honest and open with the community upon which she has visited divisiveness. A few words from her could make the local scandal go away and sales go up.
Is she up to the task?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not unusual for an Indy poll to be a few questions short of a set of objective choices. Funny how the choices left out always seem to be the centrist ones, huh? Either you're an Indy lefty or a right wing nut, I guess.

Last I read ChickFilA had stopped contributing to the protested causes three years ago. If the owner contributes on his own, that's just freedom of expression. If Ruiz owns the local franchise, then her speaking publicly about the politics of the owner of the national company just seem unnecessary and irrelevant to me.

BTW, embracing of free publicity is a practice as old as media, practiced by many different holders of many different opinions. There's "no such thing as bad publicity" according to the marketing experts. No reason Ruiz shouldn't do so. If she is actually the "owner" of the franchise, then it's her money on the line and up to her to decide how to best generate income for her business. I personally think the haters won't come no matter what.

How 'bout we quit politicizing everything and just have a nice meal (I've never been there - any good?).

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All points well taken. Still, I know I wouldn't want people to labor under a mistaken impression of my beliefs if that so happened, especially if they included bigotry.
JL and Botany, how about Hamburger Habit? Excellent chicken sandwiches and every dollar stays here.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good point re bigotry.

I LOVE Hamburger Habit, esp the chicken caesar salad, and eat there once or twice a week.

I wouldn't boycott ChickFilA because of the (highly publicized) private (i.e. individual) beliefs of its corporate guy (can't even remember his name - brain damage, I guess :-)). But since I live on the other end of town it's unlikely that I'll be there.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I haven't tried Chik-Fil-A yet but I probably will at some point. And no, I don't consider it an endorsement of Cathy's political or religious beliefs. It's pretty close to where I live.

The place is very busy. At lunch and dinner time, the line usually backs up into State St. and impedes traffic. I hope the volume of customers drops off a bit. It's too crowded in there.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like the objectionista didn't have much impact.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 14, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Media generally reflects the poltics of its readership."

So much for being the Santa Barbara "Independent".

sbdude (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2013 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany (@ first comment):

Also:

• Not an issue for me, as I don't consume industrial fast food, or any food for that matter, from non-local establishments.

JohnTieber (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ruiz or whoever is the owner must be thrilled by all the free publicity, even a gathering on city hall steps talking about the restaurant! What other local fast food eatery has been so lucky! They should give Cathy Murillo a voucher for a free meal out of gratitude.

I probably won't eat there anymore than I eat at KFC, but it does sound as though it has an interesting (for a fast food place) menu - and, thanks to the publicity, I am now curious about it.

at_large (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2013 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a gay man, I find the question stupid and just wrong.

First, it's not a question of whether or not I agree
with their politics (I do not) - as the question is framed.

It's about their right to have their opinion (even when I do not agree with it).
I see no "right" that any one has, to steal that way.
Otherwise you are just a thief.

I cannot see any good reason why ANY gay man
would not hate the liberal left with every fiber of his being.

You are just but pawns in an evil game.
To be used for a political purpose.

I cannot understand why ANY gay man, would support gay marriage.
The federal government, by law, has neither the right to
grant, nor take away the right for same sex couples to marry.

Religion stole it first.
Then the "States", stole if from religion.
Now the fed, wants to steal it from the states.
Why would you support theft?

You certainly have the right to not support Chick-fil-A as a business.
They in turn have a right to their views.

It's called tolerance.
For all of the talk about tolerance from the left,
their actions never seem to show it.
It's called reverse-hatred, and it never works.

A nice gay man, will be respected and accepted for who he is.
An angry liberal gay man will be hated, because he is forcing
freedom to be up rooted, at the heavy hand of the federal gun.

You do realize don't you, that you are harming gay people
in the long run, right?

They do not have to like me for being gay, and
I do not have to like them for their religious right views.

Would I patronize Chick-fil-a? Perhaps.

Not because I agree with their homophobic crap,
but because I support freedom, peace, and not promoting hate.

Hate is never an answer to hate.
All you have done, is created Hate 2.0, that is twice as strong.

Do you feel ashamed for your actions? You should.
Stop it. And stop it now.
Gay people face enough problems, with out you pouring
gasoline on the fires of stupidity.

Gay people are more accepted now, than thay have ever
been in American History. That is a good thing.

May be you should spend a little more time being
grateful for that fact, and a little less time
advocating for liberal hatred.

Go ahead, and not patronize a Chick-fil-a if you wish.
Maybe it makes you feel better (its all about you anyway right?).

But it won't stop some gay teenager from committing suicide,
because the fires of homophobia were stoked by you creating
a divisive stance.

The left loves gays for their vote.
But once you have voted, you will be thrown away
like a worthless piece of trash.
Don't fall for the lie.

nobody123 (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 2:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@nobody123: damn fine post on many levels.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@nobody123: "Gay people are more accepted now, than thay have ever been in American History. That is a good thing."

And it's a direct result of those on the Left who have maintained a tireless effort advocating for that acceptance.

@nobody123: "The left loves gays for their vote. But once you have voted, you will be thrown away like a worthless piece of trash."

Easily one of the most nonsensical and baseless statements I've ever read, which is saying something given that the entire comment itself is largely gibberish. Oh, JL likes it - so there you go...

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So do those on the left want to legalize polygamy? If not, then why are you so full of hate?

How about incest?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Botany: "So do those on the left want to legalize polygamy? If not, then why are you so full of hate?"

Your comment reveals far more about *you* than it does about anything else.

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many people want the legal definition of marriage to be expanded to different definition than what currently exists. They say those that don't agree are hateful.

Why is it people are hateful if the definition is to be expanded only to the definition they want? Is it not hateful towards polygamists if they aren't included?

My point is that hate really has nothing to do with it. Everyone has their own idea of what marriage should be and should not be. To classify everyone as hateful that doesn't agree with one specific definition of what marriage should be is no more than name-calling.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@Botany: "To classify everyone as hateful that doesn't agree with one specific definition of what marriage should be is no more than name-calling."

Do you collect straw men and then bring them out to show everyone when you have a comment to make?

EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Three articles with huge threads in the Indy alone. Yet the only words Carol Ruiz can muster is that there have been "no issues" since Summer. Bet she's loving the free advertising, she doesn't have to say a word! Maybe I should just call and ask her myself since no reporters will!

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Go ahead Ken. If I were her, I'd say none of your effin business. And it isn't.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is in the end I have more respect for someone with whom I disagree than someone who is too cowardly to have or express any opinion at all on an issue in which they are smack in the center.
It's no surprise she's chosen chicken as a career path, but then so did many in Vichy as well.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's not as if I plucked Carol Ruiz off the street, tied her down to a comfy chair and started interrogating her. She knew darn well what she was getting into when she contracted with C-FA instead of any number of quality restaurants or her own original kitchen.
Unless you're saying she's just a mindless corporate bureaucrat who can't form an opinion and thus shouldn't be asked?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 2:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or perhaps you're nicely trying to say that I should just assume Carol Ruiz is a bigot and never contemplate eating at her restaurant?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You can assume that she's a leprechaun if it suits you. Whether you eat at her restaurant is your business.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do think you're in love Botany, I saw no such passionate defense for Katherine Bigelow who's 1st Amendment rights are actually being trampled upon. But a hitherto anonymous but soon to be a publicly assumed bigot decides to bring a controversial business entity to the community and our hearts are all aflutter. And no one dare ask her an opinion.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why are Katherine Bigelow and the ABR members First Amendment Rights less important than Carol Ruiz's?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Carol Ruiz's job is to make and sell Chicken Sandwiches. The ABR's job is to decide if project design guidelines meet those set by the city.

Carol Ruiz and Dan Cathy are affiliated with a private company or a franchise. Private companies can act in a manner that suits them that's within the law.

The ABR serves in the capacity of a city department. ABR members may exercise their first amendment rights within the context of their personal lives, but not in their capacity of representatives of government. As I said earlier, it would be like the postman not delivering your mail because he didn't like your politics.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

RE: the ABR. many people went to trial in Nuremberg for just doing their jobs which was rubberstamping. True Ruiz is not opening a concentration camp - the poultry community might feel differently. It's just astounding that she's want bthis unspoken (apparently) question dogging her when all she has to do is have a backbione and state a position whatever it is. Other CFA franchisees have. Some have even begun donating heavily to LGB&T resource centers in their communities.
And if I were a new business OWNER,( which she is - franchise owners aren't employees) and I saw a poll on the website of one of the major news sources in town that said 61% of respondents* said they would not eat there because they believe they'd be supporting bigotry; then it's a poor manager who doesn't directly address the issue.
I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt but all she has been able to muster is "we welcome everybody" which means we welcome everybody's money.

*61% as of this posting.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In addition Ruiz has also been voluntarily granting press interviews so it's not like reporters are camping out on some random person's lawn. That to my knowledge, no reporter had the moxie to ask her is dismaying.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As has been previously pointed out, the government should have no place in deciding who gets married.

How can the moralists say that divorce and remarriage is wrong, and that gay marriage is wrong, yet only call on the government to ban gay marriage?

As we know, married couples get certain benefits via the government, clearly the more-than-one-person/group discount rate comes into effects which is part of what is driving the gay marriage issue. As such, why can't people outside of traditional marriage situations get those same benefits, whether or not they are married or in a workplace group-plan situation?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Couples of all gender combinations are definitely at a disadvantage.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

61% of the respondents in an admittedly left wing newspaper.

K_V I wish I could change your view on this one. Why should anyone assume Ruiz is a bigot? Guilt by association? And why should she publicly repond to unspoken accusations? Reminds me of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities during the McCarthy era - very scary slippery slope.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually I don't want to assume she is. That's why I point out that other franchisees have directly addressed the issue with a disavowal and have had no corporate repercussions. I just think it's strange she doesn't address it given her background as a Brand manager at some very reputable cosmetics companies (credit where it's due.) We have a prop. 8 supporter on the SB city council (Dale Francisco) so it's not as if there isn't people of that mindset in the city.
We do need a new topic to bicker about I agree.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Amazes me that of all the States, CA doesn't allow gay marriage. Iowa does. Go figure.

Next topic....

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

KV - "RE: the ABR. many people went to trial in Nuremberg for just doing their jobs which was rubberstamping."

for rubberstamping architectural design review plans?

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To a chicken the CFA restaurant is the same as a death camp. Until further developments such as a statement from Ms. Ruiz or a lunch invitation from Botany, I'm ditching this topic.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2013 at 7:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"such as a statement from Ms. Ruiz or a lunch invitation from Botany"...

I would assume NOT at Chick-Fil-A.

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2013 at 4:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

That is a one sided poll. Try adding " yes or no, I don't use politics or values of employees in my decision to patronize businesses". If I am hungry and you are selling something I want, I don't care if you are trying to make burning kittens legal; I would think you are crazy, but make good food.

skaterspoint (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

@skaterspoint: thank you for a breath of fresh air.

JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeah, I really like your chicken sammies even though you take my money and support radical agendas in Africa that include murdering people because they like same sex. American attitudes are locals only, short sighted.

spacey (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This issue transformed into political issue instead of the human rights it is when local LGBT npo heads explicitly aligned themselves with the Democratic Party on this issue instead of keeping it nonpartisan, huge mistake.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this video encapulates it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MAYy...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Botany: One of Wiley's ethics training handouts, Understanding the Basics of Public Service Ethics, published by Institute for Local Government, page 6, reasons for an official disqualifying themselves from decision-making
Personal Bias.■■
People. An example would be a • •strong animosity about a permit applicant based on conduct that occurred outside the hearing. Conversely, a strong personal loyalty toward a party could bias an official as well.7
Belief/Ideology. An example • •would be a strong ideological reaction to a proposed Planned Parenthood clinic or community center for a particular ethnic or religious group.

Gary Mosel stated his reason as political, but it was really a personal objection to Cathy's political beliefs. Bias and discrimination and misrepresentation of laws and the personal consequences of their decision-making, even a civil tort against Jerry Brown, AG (a fabricated comment opposite to Brown's written by staff Danny Kato in a mmj dispensary ordinance proposed as a city charter amendment and given to the Grand Jury by Francisco as the basis of its report), lobbying by
org.'s contracting with SB city who are banned from lobbying by their public non-profit status, discrimination against physically disabled and mentally disabled residents and long-term care residents by violating their legal rights, character assassination of interested parties in cc decisions (dispensary owners, mmj patients), failing to enforce the SB records retention statute against SBPD in Beutel's cases, concealing this from the public by hiding the ordinance, then repealing it, Francisco's delusional duping (fabrications to manipulate public opinion) an additional tort, Rowse's self-representation, etc, are routine, and Schneider's objection to ABR members' actions re Chick Fil-A is blatantly discriminatory in context. Neither Schneider nor any other representative of the city of SB is going to acknowledge that no-one with pockets deeper than the city of SB is going to have their project delayed due to anyone's ethical conflicts.

14noscams (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Fiddledeedee - Mosel stated his reason was political, not a conflict of interest.

It's not Mosel's or any other member of the ABR's duties or functions to determine if Chick-Fil-A's policies are discriminatory. That authority belongs to a judge or a jury. Discrimination is a crime. If Chik-Fil-A has discriminatory practices, take them to court, that's where it belongs. We can't have every public servant with an attitude appointing himself judge, jury and executioner.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now at 64%.
It shouldn't be surprising that people are so passionate on the subject; not to mention that Democrats and liberals are in the majority in this region when you have the County head of the GOP Gregory Gandrud publicly stating that the party "hates leftist legislators and their sympathizers ". Doesn't hate "leftist" ideas, policies, etc but the people themselves. And I guess "their sympathizers" would be the majority of us who vote Democrat over the party that publicly advocates hatred of people. And so given the divisive nature of the corporation Carol Ruiz has brought with her into the community; where exactly does she stand on the issues that make her business partners notorious.
Understandably some are perplexed about much ado about a chicken sandwich. But if Carol Ruiz plans to support the very ideas CFA fans/supporters here have publicly disavowed.. don't you want to at least make an INFORMED decision?

https://www.facebook.com/gregorygandr...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 18, 2013 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

64%, yes. Of an admittedly leftist publication with undeniably loaded questions as well.

Certainly not representative of the population of .Santa Barbara. One only needs to go to Chik-Fil-A at lunch or dinner time to verify that.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 5:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here in Virginia that totes that, "Virginia is for Lovers", has banned Gay Marriage and Domestic Partners from having the same rights as Str8 married couples. This is Not a surprise that "Chik-Fil-A", is selling its product at an alarmingly high rate and the store is very popular here on the East Coast.

dou4now (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well Botany did you go check IDs for those supposed lines at the counter? If the Indy were so unrepresentative of Sb why do the other more Conservative weeklies fold?

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 12:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Iy you'll recall in the article about the opening there were several people who self-identified as "Fans" of the restaurant who travel far and wide to attend openings.
Hey I got wind of an A&W up North, makes me wanna go on a road trip. It's not uncommon. Until then I'll stick with the Habit's club chicken.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gee Ken, do you think if Fox News and MSNBC polled their viewers on their opinions, would be any difference in the results?

Gimme a break.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 7:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll give you a break on dodging the point this time, but if you keep dodging people less familiar with you are gonna think you're an idiot.
Obviously FOX and MSNBC are national news organizations of which the SB Indy is not. It is a regional news publication, I don't even think they syndicate. With the added factor of being cost free to readers, they are compelled to be more in tune with the community as a whole. Sometimes they hit, sometimes they miss but overall i think they do a good job reflecting the concerns of a mostly liberal/progressive/Democrat region.
If you really need further proof look at the party affiliation (Notice it's singular) of the majority of our regionally elected leaders, Democrat which at least attempts to care .
In addition I'd have to question if you ever actually left your house if you do not think this is a predominantly liberal/progressive community.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK then. The Indy and the News-Press then. Clearly many readers here avoid the News-Press, and generally speaking, most of those aren't conservatives.

The Indy is to liberal, they can't even pose the choices in this poll without adding their slant to it.

Botany (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do chickens have opposible thumbs?

billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think this will only be settled by a thumb fight.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 19, 2013 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

@nobody123,

It is obvious you are not "Gay Enough", get thee to a re-education camp, LOL. Some the best and brightest Attorneys and Activists in the movement to protect the 2nd Amendment are members of the LGBT community. It is obvious you treasure Civil Liberties and Rights for all, not just the ones the Utopian Nanny State is willing to give you. I salute You.

"As a gay man, I find the question stupid and just wrong.
First, it's not a question of whether or not I agree
with their politics (I do not) - as the question is framed.
It's about their right to have their opinion (even when I do not agree with it).
I see no "right" that any one has, to steal that way.
Otherwise you are just a thief.
I cannot see any good reason why ANY gay man
would not hate the liberal left with every fiber of his being.
You are just but pawns in an evil game.
To be used for a political purpose.
I cannot understand why ANY gay man, would support gay marriage.
The federal government, by law, has neither the right to
grant, nor take away the right for same sex couples to marry.
Religion stole it first.
Then the "States", stole if from religion.
Now the fed, wants to steal it from the states.
Why would you support theft?
You certainly have the right to not support Chick-fil-A as a business.
They in turn have a right to their views.
It's called tolerance.
For all of the talk about tolerance from the left,
their actions never seem to show it.
It's called reverse-hatred, and it never works.
A nice gay man, will be respected and accepted for who he is.
An angry liberal gay man will be hated, because he is forcing
freedom to be up rooted, at the heavy hand of the federal gun.
You do realize don't you, that you are harming gay people
in the long run, right?
They do not have to like me for being gay, and
I do not have to like them for their religious right views.
Would I patronize Chick-fil-a? Perhaps.
Not because I agree with their homophobic crap,
but because I support freedom, peace, and not promoting hate.
Hate is never an answer to hate.
All you have done, is created Hate 2.0, that is twice as strong.
Do you feel ashamed for your actions? You should.
Stop it. And stop it now.
Gay people face enough problems, with out you pouring
gasoline on the fires of stupidity.
Gay people are more accepted now, than thay have ever
been in American History. That is a good thing.
May be you should spend a little more time being
grateful for that fact, and a little less time
advocating for liberal hatred.
Go ahead, and not patronize a Chick-fil-a if you wish.
Maybe it makes you feel better (its all about you anyway right?).
But it won't stop some gay teenager from committing suicide,
because the fires of homophobia were stoked by you creating
a divisive stance.
The left loves gays for their vote.
But once you have voted, you will be thrown away
like a worthless piece of trash.
Don't fall for the lie."

howgreenwasmyvalley (anonymous profile)
February 20, 2013 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A Chick Fill-A in conservative Rancho Cucamonga is feeding marriage equality activists, and Carol Ruiz can't even offer a few words?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03...

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Gosh Ken, that must not be consistent with your image of them as hate-filled intolerant extremists.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who is them?
If you've been paying any attention at all as you imply with your statement, I've all along pointed out other franchisees who've made similar gestures.So I am quite specific when I point out our local franchisee has remained silent on the entire issue/scandal which is associated with her parent corporation.

Gosh Botany, I guess that sinks your implication that I'm somehow the uneducated and intolerant one here.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And as of these postings local CF-A owner Carol Ruiz still does not have the courage of her convictions either way to publicly state them. Nice brand management job there Carol.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 6:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What convictions are those?

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Who knows? She's apparently too ashamed of them to say.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess most of us are then.

Botany (anonymous profile)
March 29, 2013 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Santa Barbara Fair & Expo

Santa Barbara Fair and Expo celebrates “25 Years of Magic”, ... Read More