Good Guy Chick-Fil-A. Gotta admit, they treat their customers with good service.. Gets protested and told he is a bigot ) protestors don' t get dehydrated. Lol let's interview the president of a Christian company and ask his opinion on gay marriage then lets try to ban his restaraunts from certain cities. yea we're ChickfilA herp derp
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (644)
[ 644 comments ]
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
User avatar #22 - dustyshane
Reply +235 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Lol let's interview the president of a Christian company and ask his opinion on gay marriage then lets try to ban his restaraunts from certain cities.

yea we're helping equality guize

EQUALITY
#24 to #22 - anon id: 4d999526
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
yeah banning goes to far this is America he can spend his money however he wants but like in the Oreo incident people have the right to boycott chick-fil-a. I on the other hand am far to fat to give up either
User avatar #28 to #24 - dustyshane
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
While they do have the right to Boycott Chic-fil-a, the basis for it is stupid and wrong.
#30 to #28 - darman
-22 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#198 to #22 - pineappleninja
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #565 to #22 - GoodGood
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
i thought it was because they wouldn't hire gay people? I'm just asking here, cus i don't know what the **** is going on.
User avatar #571 to #565 - dustyshane
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
No, there are defiantly gay people that work there.

The President of Chic-Fil-A, which is a Christian Company and everyone knows it, was asked during an interview his stance on gay marriage, and he said a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman, so they asked ,"so, you don't support gay marriage?" he said "Guilty as charged".

So everyone started boycotting and wanting to get the restaurant out of Boston and a few other cities, just because the president gave his opinion on that. Everyone uses the excuse that he funds anti-gay organizations, but it's his money and they didn't seem to care about that before, whether they knew it or not. Either way, it all started because he himself, one man, doesn't support gay marriage.
#152 to #22 - jakols
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
EQUALITY
EQUALITY
#199 to #22 - pineappleninja
Reply +79 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
EQUALITY
#235 to #199 - EdwardNigma
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
I was just about to make an Amon joke.
Scrolled down and saw yours.
******* ****.
#325 to #199 - dalgaard
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
#619 to #199 - drlemniscate
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
#173 - skrillskrill
Reply +154 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
**skrillskrill rolled a random image posted in comment #18 at The Truth **
User avatar #317 to #173 - skrillskrill
Reply -21 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
lol
User avatar #723 to #173 - skrillskrill
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
OMG top 40 comments on all of funnyjunk!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar #744 to #173 - skrillskrill
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(08/10/2012) [-]
holy s**t seriously one of the top 15?!?!? how far can this roll go...
User avatar #207 to #173 - AcidFlux
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
******* epic roll!
#46 - ugu
Reply +126 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
I don't understand why this guy is getting so much ****. He was ASKED for his opinion on gay marriage, and he gave it. He isn't going out and telling every gay person they're wrong. He isn't even preventing gay people from entering his restaurants or from the same type of service he would give to a straight person. Is he just getting **** for not having the same opinion as others or what?
User avatar #50 to #46 - kubrick
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Nah, the big deal is he was donating money to anti-homosexual organizations, whose agenda is to mitigate gay culture and marginalize the homosexual community.

Most people don't give a **** about his personal opinion. But they give a **** about corporate money and resources (I read somewhere Chick-Fil-A catered an event for said anti-gay associations) that are used to support inequality.


I still respect Truett and Dan Cathy for sticking to their guns but I can't look past the financial support they're giving to organizations that make it their mission to assure that friends of mine--good people--can't pursue their own happiness, that homosexuals are considered second class and, inherently, inhuman.
User avatar #53 to #50 - ghettojelly
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
I'm not against gays or anything, I just don't understand why people are freaking out. he's donating money to support what he believes in and getting a lot of **** for it, but I don't see the people protesting and complaining donating to organizations that support it..
User avatar #192 to #53 - approval
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
It's cause people in general need something to bitch about. If he supports it he's going to get criticism and if he's against it he's going to get criticism. it's a double ******* stanard when it comes to issues like this. You can't do anything in this country without pissing someone off cause everything has to be so PC these days.
#662 to #53 - anon id: 872085ee
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
I believe all white christians should die, and I donate to hate groups? Should people not care?
User avatar #52 to #50 - ugu
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
But is attacking his entire career really necessary because of one wrong choice? You'd be overlooking the fact he is a genuinely kind person. If anything the people protesting are wasting their time and should be protesting the anti-homosexual organizations, not someone who donates to them.
#260 to #52 - spacelubber
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Well it's not about attacking his career. It's about stopping the crusade against homosexuality. Dan Cathy can believe and say whatever the **** he wants, but when he uses his business to achieve his social agenda, he puts that business into the firing line for all those opposed to his philosophies.
User avatar #56 to #52 - kubrick
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Oh, I agree. But, what if McDonalds was giving money to an organization whose mission it was to censor the internet? I mean, there isn't an immediate connection, but in both instances the pursuit of happiness is hindered by an organization that is funded by a corporation. Would it make sense to boycott both as a corporation and an organization, and not the heads of either? I would think so, right?



I'm asking for opinions (compiling a essay for a writing sample).
User avatar #58 to #56 - ugu
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
In all honesty, yeah I would stop eating there, but I wouldn't make a huge deal about it. Instead I would spend 100% of my energy toward protesting/helping stop the main organization responsible for the mission to censor the internet. In other words, if it's that serious, I wouldn't waste my time with anything else other than the main cause of the problem.
User avatar #62 to #58 - kubrick
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
But, one of the problems is, those organizations are funded by other entities and aren't really effected by a waning customer base. I mean, there's an extended cost to those organizations if CFA loses customers, but organizations like these are supported by churches and other businesses. And, because they're an organization, are they even subject to the tenets of corporate social responsibility? Probably not, so boycotting them wouldn't be as effective as boycotting a contributor who has to rely on some sort of positive PR.
User avatar #67 to #62 - ugu
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Not to sound like a jerk, and just clearing things up.. Are you saying that it would be better to go after every single supporter of an anti-homosexual organization rather than protest the organization itself and all its efforts, or even just support opposing organizations?
User avatar #376 to #67 - kubrick
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
No, what I'm saying is, said organizations are not held accountable for a lot of their actions because they're not a corporation. This is why there are still white supremacist organizations, Neo-Nazi's, NAMBLA and other groups that are doing ethically questionable things. But, because they are an "organization" they are not culpable under the tenets of CSR, and instead utilize their first amendment rights--as if they were a person, similar to how corporations define themselves as a person--to limit the freedoms of other people. A corporation cannot do that because they are a money generating entity that relies on the public for funds and when your company is doing morally questionable things, the public can respond by not buying your product, thusly hurting your bottom line. An organization's source of income comes from entities that, at some level, rely on a consumer base. So, boycotting an entity that is funneling money from supporting corporations will do little to nothing since their cause is protected under the first amendment. It becomes more effective to boycott the companies from where a questionable organization is receiving support, because, unlike an organization, their business model is depends on a customer base and their customer base relies on positive PR.
User avatar #54 to #50 - epicCUBONE
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
so why does it matter what he does with his money?
#183 - Krinkles
Reply +63 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
LITTLE DID THEY KNOW, IT WAS POISON LEMONADE.
User avatar #194 to #183 - newprinny
Reply -12 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Poisonade, dood?
#477 - tonysangiorgio
Reply +55 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
User avatar #490 to #477 - presidentkupo
Reply +7 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
I never thought about it like that. ****. I'm going back to count potatoes.
You have a good day!
#93 - toksik
Reply +52 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
The truth.
#96 to #93 - whargarbler
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Thank you for the beverage, sir.
#124 to #93 - dbanks
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
#676 - rainbowsgoboomtwo **User deleted account**
+35 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#695 to #676 - paesani
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Make me lol as hard as a rock. <- Reward
#382 - yunablade
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Manager's face when
#355 - OoJesusoO
Reply +31 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
its not the employees who are anti gay but the head of the chick-fil-a blame him not the ones that are just doing their job
its not the employees who are anti gay but the head of the chick-fil-a blame him not the ones that are just doing their job
User avatar #442 to #355 - lazypaul
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Blame him for what?
#452 to #442 - itsmypenis **User deleted account**
+4 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #117 - rattara
Reply +30 123456789123345869
(08/09/2012) [-]
Maybe he just doesn't like the idea of gay marriage...And stay with me here...He still...he still acts like a decent human, there is a possibility of this being genuine