Talk:Chick-fil-A and LGBT people/Archive 2

Wondering whether this article should still exist...
Since it's been about a year since the controversy and the no consensus RfC, it might be time to revisit whether this article should still exist. Instaurare (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to this you are topic banned from LGBT-related articles. Is there some legitimate reason why you are editing this one? - MrX 02:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit this article but as a followup in the financial impact, it might be worth updating it to include the observation made in an article: A few months after the statement, earnings reports from the privately owned Chick-fil-A (which is under no obligation to report its earnings) just sort of…stopped. Go ahead…Google “Chick-fil-a earnings history.” Everything goes strangely silent later in the 2012 financial year. http://aattp.org/after-prayin-on-it-chik-fil-a-ceo-regrets-being-a-homophobic-bigoted-a-hole/ It's a biased source but the statement is accurate, CfA has not restated their earnings since the push. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.121.155 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

1 Charitable organization left?
What is the last remaining organization that they donated to? Isn't it a Christian Student Athletes group that speaks I'll of homosexuality still? National Christian Foundation and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, the one they apparently still support, supports DOMA and anti-gay sex Ed. Sources needed, but I thought I'd bring attention to this piece of missing information in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.60.179 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Language
It's non-neutral to describe Chik-fil-A as opposed to LGBT rights. The language of rights begs the question by endorsing one side of the debate. That is, and I realize there are more than two voices in any debate and that this is a simplification, progressives hold marriage to be a commitment of love that can be made to any other human being, and thus that the right to marry is being restrained by traditionalists. On the other hand, traditionalists hold marriage to be a commitment of fidelity and family to someone of the opposite sex, and thus that the efforts of progressives do not expand "rights," since people with same-sex attraction already have the right to marry in this traditional sense, but rather progressive efforts work to change the definition of marriage. While the language of rights thus sides against the traditionalist perspective, I think both sides would find language like causes to be agreeable and neutral. James2c19v (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy
Cyberbot II has detected links on Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20120725040940/http://news.change.org/stories/yes-chick-fil-a-says-we-explicitly-do-not-like-same-sex-couples
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Policy change
just a note about my removal of the statement that Chik-fil-A has had no discrimination claims; my edit was reverted but the reasoning did not support the reversion, so i rolled back the reversion; when i started the rollback the rollback, a modal popup prevented me from looking at other pages to grab the correct URL; i clicked cancel expecting the rollback to be canceled, but instead it rolled back without comment; the rollback reason i was going to provide was 1) the link i provided in the reason for edit was simply lacking an "l" — it's here: and 2) the reverter cited an article that had no mention of discrimination claims or anything similar Garbanzito (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The reverter (me) had some merit in reverting since you provided an inactive link to justify your editing. I am not a shareholder in Chick-fil-A, nor have I ever even eaten in one of its franchises, and likely never will, as a Manhattanite. However, I don't find Huffington Post to be reliable as it is politically biased, and the link to Forbes you provide herein does not, as far as I can tell, mention any LGBT employees who filed complaints. The article mentions 12 suits, and only mentions one plaintiff: "Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston [who] sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn’t participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms." So I would, again, greatly appreciate some credible evidence of anti-LGBT discrimination or any lawsuit(s) to that effect. Yours, Quis separabit?  15:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * i understand that my mistake with the URL was interpreted as a failure to justify my initial change, however the primary reason for that change — "assertion removed is not supported or even mentioned by source " — did not depend on that mistaken link; the point of mentioning the Forbes article was to show that not only was the content removed unsupported, it was quite possibly false; note that the assertion removed reads as any discrimination, not specifically LGBT, but it's not supported either way; …regarding your request for "evidence", since i wasn't adding content about discrimination claims, it wasn't necessary to provide in-depth citations; and by removing material completely unsupported by a Huffington Post citation, i am not making any claims as to the reliability of Huffington Post Garbanzito (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Should the article say sales increased "because of" the controversy
The source this assertion is cited to (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/chick-fil-a-sales-2012_n_2590612.html) never makes any such link, so, per WP policy, it shouldn't. Rwenonah (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not asking for synthetic text to be added. My point of contention was @Rwenonah's entire removal of the reference to the increase in sales in a prior edit. That's all. Quis separabit?  21:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Reaction
Dan Cathy's statements spawned almost immediate reaction from both sides of the controversy.

Local government reactions
After these interviews, Thomas Menino, the Mayor of Boston, stated that he would not allow the company to open franchises in the city "unless they open up their policies.” Menino subsequently wrote a letter to Dan Cathy, citing Cathy's earlier statement on The Ken Coleman Show and responded: "We are indeed full of pride for our support of same sex marriage and our work to expand freedom for all people." In Chicago, alderman Proco "Joe" Moreno announced his determination to block Chick-fil-A's bid to build a second store in the city: "They'd have to do a complete 180", Moreno said in outlining conditions under which he would retract the block. "They'd have to work with LGBT groups in terms of hiring, and there would have to be a public apology from [Cathy]."

Moreno received backing from Chicago's Mayor, Rahm Emanuel: "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values", Emanuel said in a statement. "They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty." San Francisco soon followed suit on July 26 when mayor Edwin M. Lee tweeted, "Very disappointed #ChickFilA doesn't share San Francisco's values & strong commitment to equality for everyone." Lee followed that tweet with "Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer."

The proposed bans in Boston and Chicago drew criticism from liberal pundits, legal experts and the American Civil Liberties Union. Kevin Drum of Mother Jones magazine said "[T]here's really no excuse for Emanuel's and Menino's actions... you don't hand out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political views of the executives. Not in America, anyway." UCLA law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh observed, "[D]enying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation." Echoing those views were Glenn Greenwald of Salon, professor John Turley of George Washington University, Adam Schwartz, a senior attorney with the ACLU and Michael C. Dorf, the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School.

Boycott, petitions and protests
Students at several colleges and universities launched grassroots efforts to ban or remove the company's restaurants from their campuses. On November 3, 2011, the New York University Student Senators Council voted 19 to 4 to retain the Chick-fil-A franchise on campus. This vote came before a petition with over 11,000 signatures opposing its presence on campus was sent to the student council. On February 28, 2012, the Northeastern University (NU) student senate passed a resolution to cancel plans for a Chick-fil-A franchise on campus, stating that "the student body does not support bringing CFA [Chick-fil-A] to campus", and "Student concerns reflected CFA's history of donating to anti-gay organizations." The vote was 31 to 5, with 8 abstaining. The restaurant chain was finalizing a contract to bring it to NU when students protested. Davidson College in North Carolina announced on August 13, 2011 that, in response to a petition which received 500 signatures, the school will stop serving Chick-fil-A on campus at the monthly After Midnight events.

Other forms of protest occurred. Gay rights activists organized a "Kiss Off" to occur on August 3, an event where LGBT individuals would show affection in public, however it attracted smaller than hoped for crowds.

Chick-fil-A partner's reactions
In response to the July 2 interview, the Jim Henson Company, which had entered its Pajanimals in a kids' meal toy licensing arrangement in 2011, said that it would cease its business relationship with Chick-fil-A, and donate payment for the brand to Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Citing safety concerns, Chick-fil-A stopped distributing the toys. A spokeswoman stated the decision had been made July 19 and was unrelated to the controversy.

In August 2012, progressive groups delivered petitions with over 80,000 signatures to publisher HarperCollins demanding that the publisher cut plans to include Berenstain Bears titles as part of a kids' meal promotion. Upon being presented with petitions demanding that Berenstain Bears be pulled from a Chick-fil-A promotion, HarperCollins issued a statement saying "We have a long history of diversity and inclusiveness and work tirelessly to protect the freedom of expression. It is not our practice to cancel a contract with an author, or any other party, for exercising their first amendment rights."

Chick-fil-A appreciation day
In response to the controversy, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee initiated a Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day movement to counter a boycott of Chick-fil-A launched by gay marriage activists. More than 600,000 people RSVPed on Facebook for Huckabee's appreciation event.

On August 1, Chick-fil-A restaurants experienced a large show of public support across the nation with the company reporting record-breaking sales. A consulting firm projected that the average Chick-fil-A restaurant increased sales by 29.9 percent and had 367 more customers than a typical Wednesday.

Other reactions
Other notable public figures have came to Chick-fil-A's defense including former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, former US Senator Rick Santorum, and Ann Coulter; while others, such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have not condoned Dan Cathy's views on marriage but have defended his right to express them.

History
This reads like a regurgitated Press Release, down to the quotes, "We are not engaging. Chick-fil-A is about food, and that's it."

There's no mention of Chick-fil-A's continued funding of anti-lgbt associations and terrible record on inclusive policies. https://thinkprogress.org/chick-fil-a-still-anti-gay-970f079bf85/

Chick-fil-A got a big fat 0 from the Human Rights Campaign, yet anyone reading this would think they suddenly turned over a new leaf. http://www.hrc.org/apps/buyersguide/profile.php?orgid=61530 81.101.32.116 (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel like this page has been astroturfed honestly. Needs protection and some good editing. 81.101.32.116 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Article fails to mention and downplays Chick-fil-a's phenomenal growth rate, in spite of repeatedly being a victim of anti-christian hate crimes by Democratic party mayors and leftist college campuses. That it is currently the third largest fast food restaurant in USA, and by end of 2019 will replace Wendys as #2, while only being open 6 days a week, and paying its employees more than the most generous currently offered minimum wage expansions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.204.248 (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing in March 2019


This article frames the situation as a 2012 event when there seems to be ongoing news about this ever since then. This article and main fast food article each cover parts of the narrative. The long version should be here, and the fast food article should cover it as a long term story.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

There is vandalism in the page title for the Wikipedia app. There we can read "I hate *n-word*" with a "3" in the place of the "e". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornornoston (talk • contribs) 16:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"Operators' involvement in their communities is a critical part of what has helped Chick-fil-A attract a passionate following."

^^^ Obvious, unnecessary, and blatant marketing speak. This is a Wiki page, not a press-release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.131.229 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Update to policy changes section
I updated that section with these two recent sources - Chick-fil-A no longer donates to controversial Christian charities after LGBTQ protests and Chick-fil-A To Stop Donations To Charities With Anti-LGBT Views. But I didn't update the lead, personally, I think this information should be in the lead, it's noteworthy and relevant to this article, thought other editors may want to weigh in with their thoughts on inclusion in the lead? Isaidnoway (talk)  18:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - added by another editor. Isaidnoway (talk)  15:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to "Chick-fil-A and LGBT people". (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy → Chick-fil-A position on LGBT people – (Suggested title-only) Although the original controversy sparked back in 2012 with the Prop 8 in California, the situation (including the article itself) has leaned to what are the views and the position of the restaurant chain. In the article, half of the section "Policy changes", the whole section "United States government", the last paragraph of "Local government", half of the section "Backlash" and the section October 2019 closure of UK location, all, are not related to the original controversy, but to subsequent event that are not necessarily affected by the 2012 criticism of Dan T. Cathy, but the views of the company. A Google test suggest that "same-sex marriage" is less common than "LGBT". © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 05:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as more broad. Accesscrawl (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TITLE. The current title describes the contemporaneous reporting on the subject. The proposed title appears to be an attempt to recast the history of the subject in a more favorable light, and is not based on Wikipedia policy at all. Chick-fil-A's position on LGBT people, assuming it exists, is not a notable subject and is not the subject of this article.- MrX 🖋 21:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet, half of the article is not focused on its tilte, which you don't deny. And well, it is pretty obvious that you merely went to oppose, not even reading the "(Suggested title-only)" line, because yes, it is just a suggestion. It doesn't make any sense to split this article into "Chick-fil-A same-sex marriage controversy" (2012) and "Chick-fil-A-LGBT controversy" (2014-2019)—or whatever title suits it—. Instead, an article including both topics (which already does) and a title that reflects it make more sense per WP:BROADCONCEPT than believing that "October 2019 closure of UK location" is somehow related to Dan T. Cathy's 2012 opposition of same-sex marriage. © Tb hotch ™ (en-3). 00:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to delete or WP:SPINOFF the content unrelated to the 2012 controversy. I didn't add it so I won't defend it. This article should not be a WP:COATRACK. I'm don't think that the more recent mini-controversies merit coverage in an encyclopedia anyway. - MrX 🖋 00:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename/refocus, possibly to Chick-fil-A anti-LGBTQ activities or something all inclusive of their corporate and private funding of anti-LGBTQ causes, and corporate non-inclusion of LGBTQ employee protections, etc. Especially as their actions/inaction counters many top companies of their size and influence. Chick-fil-A and Cathy et al, are historically anti-LGBTQ supporting hate groups and funding conversion therapy supporters even after gay marriage has become law, and conversion therapy has been discredited and even outlawed in many U.S. states. A robust article giving details of these various funding efforts would be preferable with detailed telling of how they funded these efforts, even at arms length, and even after assuring publicly that they had stopped. The anti-gay marriage material is merely the tip of the iceberg. If gays in the military was still a national news item they likely would have been funding that. As this, and the main article’s corresponding section are the only place for the material, they should be expanded and put in proper context that this was not a sole issue but a pattern of discrimination that has continued despite public outcry and denials. Maybe ask at WP:NPOVN for help if needed. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to incorrect grammar for proposed title. Perhaps Chick-fil-A LGBT rights controversy would work better.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposed new title is not great, but it does seem like this needs to be retitled in some way, perhaps to what Gleeanon409 or Zxcvbnm suggests. (To have separate, overlapping articles on Chick-fil-A opposition to same-sex marriage and Chick-fil-A opposition to other gay rights, as suggested above by the user who would simply move the later content out of this article, seems like the worse approach.) Possibly it would be advisable to temporarily withdraw this RM and workshop what the new title should be. -sche (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If this discussion does not find consensus for a particular name, I would suggest a second discussion in which people would be asked to list all the names they would support in order of preference... -sche (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Chick-fil-A and LGBT people" (or "...and LGBT issues"), as another editor proposed, would be a fine title IMO. -sche (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support – The suggested title takes a longer term view and broadens the discussion. Hopefully it will be supplemented with or at least lead to adjustments in the article. Thus said, the controversy was real and the title was probably good at that time. Now is the time to consider if this article has long term value and how to foster such value! gidonb (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also open to a minor tweak in the target name. Specifically, I would like to see the term "LGBT rights" included. Maybe Chick-fil-A position on LGBT rights or Chick-fil-A and LGBT rights? gidonb (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe that adding the Q to LGBT should be discussed at the category root and, after agreed, added to all subcategories. That said, it can already be added to a subcategory where specifically relevant. gidonb (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support, in principle. Suggest "Chick-fil-A position on LGBT issues". The ongoing focus on the company's LGBT stance is real, and not coatracking. William Avery (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This and Chick-fil-A anti-LGBTQ activities gets us closer to the mark. I think “controversies” isn’t helping as people will argue everything has to specifically be a controversy. “LGBT rights” has a similar issue in that then becomes the argument, what is/isn’t a right and who gets to decide. I think the title needs to encompass how their animosity towards LGBTQ people also extends to their lack of LGBTQ employee protections seen at similar companies of their workforce size. If the company makes a miraculous turnaround the name can change from “anti-LGBTQ activities” to “LGBTQ activities”. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support changing the name. My suggestion is Chick-fil-A and LGBT people. This is similar to Catholic Church and gay marriage and other articles that focus on the relationship of two entities (United States and state-sponsored terrorism, LGBT and rurality, Evo Morales and the Roman Catholic Church etc.) It leaves it open ended enough to also include any developments in the future, whether positive or negative. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support only Chick-fil-A and LGBT people, which allows for a natural topic, as opposed to restricting things to marriage or giving POV perspectives in the title. Red   Slash  00:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

No actual citations support this claim
"As of April 2018, Chick-fil-A reportedly continues to donate to anti-LGBT groups.[3][4][5][6]"

There are superficially four sources. The first one is an opinion editorial for the New Yorker. The author does not cite any source behind what he says. The second one does not cite any donations made since 2012 except to the Salvation Army, which has no reasons given as to why it should be considered "anti-LBGT". The third comes from Think Progress, which is a self-proclaimed left-wing website (not by any means a WP:RS) which says that the Fellowship of Christian Athletes is anti-LGBT because it is Christian and dares to "spread Christian teachings", including things "the Bible is clear on", like sex being reserved for heterosexual marriage. Summarizing such a viewpoint is described non-neutrally by a non-neutral source as "anti-LGBT"; that does not pass muster for our article. The fourth source is from a Toronto blog that uses the New Yorker opinion piece for its data.

Unless someone cares to opine, I'll be updating it to say that Chick-Fil-A donates to Christian organizations because we have no neutral sources that describe, with evidence, that the groups that CFA donates to are anti-LGBT. WP:NPOV still controls here. I'm waiting for a response. Red  Slash  05:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The first one is not an opinion editorial; it's an analysis. Reliable sources are not required to cite their sources. There is no mention of the Salvation Army in the second source (and that source is useless for the material anyway), but The Salvation Army. For this material, Think Porgress is a usable source because we are simply using facts that they report. The CFA's view is that "Any homosexual act constitute an alternative lifestyle acceptable to God.” Obviously, that is an unambiguously anti-LGBT position. The RestoBiz article support the New Yorker article (see WP:USEBYOTHERS. Also, there is consensus that the New Yorker article is reliable for this material: Talk:Chick-fil-A NPOV is exactly why this material is in the article. Here are some other supporting sources: - MrX 🖋 11:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Poor form to have your Talk topic be entirely about the four sources but then have them in flat, plain text not as hyperlinks. Any way you can back trace to what the four cite refs were and edit your original Topic?? "..donate to anti-LGBT groups.[3][4][5][6]" .." ' Thanks. From Peter a.k.a. Vid2vid (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC).