Talk:Chick-fil-A and LGBT people

Edits to the lead which wrongly interpret sources
Some of the recent edits to the lead seem intend to change the article subject to fit a rewritten history. We need to adhere to what sources actually say. For example, there was no "relationship" between LGBT people and Chick-fil-a. CFA donated to anti-gay charities and its CEO overtly spoke out against LGBT rights. - MrX 🖋 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry, but where in any of my edits or the initial edits by the IP was there any "relationship" between LGBT people and CFA written about? (The "initial outcomes" part in the third paragraph, however, is subtly, but certainly original research; my mistake to restore that) Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I also don't agree that "relationship" constitutes a rewritten history. This article is about "Chick-fil-A and LGBT people" and, (sorry to break out a definition, I really don't mean it as an aggressive move, just so you're understanding my intent) "the way in which two or more concepts, objects, or people are connected, or the state of being connected." It's not necessarily a back-and-forth dialogue, it's just how the two are related, which is the subject of the article. The Chick-fil-A CEO commenting on same-sex marriage and the resulting controversy describes how the concept are related, or their relationship. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This is my suggested lede, based off of my final edit before this discussion was started:"The international fast food restaurant Chik-fil-A and LGBT people have had a contentious relationship, largely starting after a series of public comments made in June 2012 by Chick-fil-A's chief operating officer Dan T. Cathy opposing same-sex marriage. Further issues followed reports that Chick-fil-A's charitable endeavor, the S. Truett Cathy-operated WinShape Foundation, had donated millions of dollars to organizations seen by LGBT activists as hostile to LGBT rights. Activists called for protests and boycotts, while supporters of the restaurant chain and opponents of same-sex marriage ate there in support of the restaurant. National political figures both for and against the actions spoke out and some business partners severed ties with the chain."

This gets the title into it without strange wordsmithing and maintains the initial incident (June 2012 comments) description. "Contentious relationship" is used in many articles to describe the interaction between Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, such as in this article, which I added as a citation in the lede to make sure there isn't any WP:NOR. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This article is about CFA donating to anti-gay organizations and its principal speaking out against LGBT rights. An organizations cannot have a relationship with an undefined quantity of LGBT people. It is improper to shoehorn the awkward title of the article into the well-established subject of the articleCFA's stance on LGBT rights. In fact, it's unnecessary to repeat the article title in the lead at all, which seems to be the driver of this particular edit. It is very wrong to recast this subject as some failing on the part of LGBT people, because that is certainly not how the bulk of reliable sources treat the subject. We can certainly talk about the extent to which CFA's stance evolved, but let's not pretend this is a disagreement between peers. - MrX 🖋 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is about CFA’s ongoing anti-LGBTQ activities towards consumers and employees broadly including: its funding anti-LGBTQ organizations, and its denying worker rights that other corporations of comparable stature do to LGBTQ employees. I agree the title may be still a problem. But the underlying issue remains CFA corporate stance of supporting homophobic values. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This article is still a wiki article and it should always be edited in a neutral point of view ~ no matter how you feel about CFA or any group or corporation. ~mitch~ (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised about the above move and this is also part of the issue. One doesn't need to be LGBT to have an opinion about this and the topic is actually about religious political activism, not "this and that"... — Paleo Neonate  – 13:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate title and inordinate attention to the actual topic
The content of this page appears to primarily concern the 2012 protests and boycott of Chik-fil-a due to the founders/corporate support of traditional Christian marriage practices. The headline says it concerns all LGBT people in relation to Chik-fil-a, which is hardly supported by the article or by reality. It also has an extraordinary amount of exposition, down to fine details, about the controversy that is unnecessary and sometimes duplicative of the main Chik-fil-a Wikipedia page, such as the airports controversy. In short, this page is uncalled for and polemical, and appears to violate NPOV and numerous parts of WWIN.

At a bare minimum the title needs to be changed; strong consideration should be given as to how to pare it down to a reasonable size and (the best course of action) merging it with the corresponding section on the main Chik-fil-a page, and deleting this page.--108.49.153.17 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Title Change
To better fit with other Wikipedia articles of the same type, the title should be at least changed to “Chik-Fil-A controversy with the LGBTQ community” 192.0.159.15 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Title
Could the title be changed? Since i dont think the title is the same as somme other similar Wikipedia pages. can it be changed to something like "LGBTQ controversy of Chik-Fil-A"? Babysharkboss2 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)