Berating A Chick Fil-A Employee On Video Is Not A Good Way To Get Your Point Across

As we’ve mentioned before during this whole Chick fil-A standoff thing, it’s the fast food chain’s employees who have been unfairly drawn into a cultural tug of war. For example, there’s the Tucson, AZ, executive who thought it would be a hilarious idea to post a video of himself berating a Chick fil-A staffer. Not only did he fail to effect any change, he’s the one who is now out of a job.

The clip, which the now-former CFO for an Arizona medical manufacturing firm has taken down off of YouTube (but which lives on, because nothing on the Internet ever dies), features him waiting in his car at the drive-thru, where he had ordered a free cup of water.

He asks the cheery young woman at the video, “You know why I’m getting a free water, right?… Because Chick fil-A is a hateful corporation.”

When the employee, who you can sense has had to defend her job a lot in the last week, tries to explain her point of view, the man talks over her and tells her the “company gives money to hate groups.”

“I have to stay neutral on the subject,” the employee tries to say. “My personal beliefs shouldn’t be in the workplace.”

Shen then tells the man, “I’m really uncomfortable that you’re videotaping me.”

And yet he continues.

As the employee tries to politely hand the man his water, he says, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”

The man then pats himself on the back, saying “I just did something really good. I feel purposeful.”

But, apparently just in case any of the single ladies out there are looking at this video (or maybe if he ran into this young woman at a bar at some later time), he clarifies, “I’m totally heterosexual… there’s not a gay in me. I just can’t stand the hate.”

After the video, which you can enjoy in all its awful awkwardness below, became popular online, it was announced that the man in the clip would be stepping down from his job.

“We obviously found it very disturbing,” said the company’s CEO, who says his business has no stance on the same-sex marriage issue. “We respect everybody’s ability to share their opinions in the public square and we have a very diverse workforce with a diverse set of opinions. We expect employees to behave in a professional manner that’s commensurate with their positions, and discuss their opinions in a civil fashion. … We thought what he did was inappropriate.”

We just don’t see what this man had hoped to gain — outside of becoming infamous on the Internet and losing his job — by chiding a fast food employee who has nothing to do with the choices made by Chick fil-A’s leadership.

Unless things have changed a lot since my fast food days, employees who hand out food at the drive-thru don’t usually have a direct line to the company’s president.

To any Chick fil-A employees out there: We’d love to hear from you (and we promise not to ask you ridiculous questions like “How do you live with yourself?”). Only you can tell the world how customers have been reacting — both positively and negatively — and how it feels to be in the middle of a tense national debate when you’re just trying to make a living.

If anyone wants to share their story, please write us at — We will obviously respect any employee’s requests to remain anonymous.


Edit Your Comment

  1. xspimpin says:

    Now he can go back to chick-fil-a and ask for a job..

    • Oh_No84 says:

      Im a little confused to why his company would fire him for this.
      He was not mean or rude or angry.
      He was calm, said his mind to a face of the company in a nice way, took his water, and left.

      What the hell is the big deal???
      He even told the lady she deserves better.

      • Miss Malevolent says:

        Wow, are you a sociopath that you think that wasn’t rude? He was highly condescending…and that wasn’t his place.

        You know what would’ve made more sense? Writing a letter to the CEO of Chick-Fil-A as HE was the one that made the statements this guy didn’t agree with .

        And his company fired him because they didn’t want to be tainted with this A-HOLE behavior.

        • Oh_No84 says:

          He was speaking to her like an equal.
          No harm was done and chickfila execs and the world are now talking about the anti gay issue. This CFO hit a home run with his goal.
          I really don’t see why his company would fire him for actually having a very successful protest that now everyone is talking about.

          • Applekid says:

            But what did the girl at the drive through window have to do with any of it, other than trying to just do her job?

            • Guppy06 says:

              “Her job” involves wearing the uniform of the company and being the public face of the company to customers.

              You can try to say “but not in that way,” but I can all but guarantee you that the very open-ended agreement to take the job doesn’t allow any such exemptions.

              • agardner791 says:

                If you are saying that she represents her company then you can say that he was doing the same for the company that he works for as well. Therefore, if his company disagrees with his actions they have every right to fire him for it.

                The way he talked to her seemed pretty condescending to me. He never even gave her the chance to speak. He talked over everything she tried to say. He acted as if he cared not what she thought. He just wanted to talk and have HIS opinion heard.

                • Guppy06 says:

                  She’s in uniform and on the clock, while neither statement is true for him; there’s no comparison.

                • Oh_No84 says:

                  Because he was recording a shock value protest video to get more awareness against chickfila.

                  We are all talking about it, so he was wildly successful in his goal.
                  Most protests never get any kind of news coverage.

              • Peggee has pearls and will clutch them when cashiers ask "YOU GOT A WIC CHECK MA'AM?" says:

                If she quit and needed welfare to help her eat, you wouldn’t have one mean word to say about that, right?

                • Guppy06 says:

                  You’re assuming too much.

                  However, when we as a society and a culture both permit and insist upon such dramatically lopsided employer/employee relationships, what you suggest is the only viable alternative.

        • pyster says:

          I would consider it less rude than lending material support to an organization that sponsors the idea that sexual activity between consenting adults should result in imprisonment. By working for chick-fil-a, or buying their product, you contribute to the ability of others to do very rude things to others.

          When something actively seeks the undoing of others it is not sociopathic to take some kinda action, even if it is only speech, against the source and its tributaries. Hatred based on those things that do not detract from society and where there has been no trespass against anyone on the other hand is sociopathic in the dictionary definition of the word. Actions towards those hate filled ends are likewise sociopathic.

      • nickmoss says:

        Because he is employed as an “at will” worker. The CEO did not like what he did, for whatever reason, and fired him. None of our business.

        • Golfer Bob says:

          There are no protections in place in 30 US states for gay employees, meaning that Chick Fil A (and any other company) can fire you for no other reason than simply being gay. But that’s none of our business.

          • BigDuke says:

            How does that differ from working in any “at will” state? My employer does not need any reason to fire me. In fact in those states, what you are talking about is making gays a protected class above and beyond the average worker. Don’t misunderstand me, I think all workers should have better rights. That’s just not the lay of the land currently.

        • Press1forDialTone says:

          This is an excellent point! For example, when I worked (am now retired)
          for a public university meaning I am paid with taxpayer money to do my
          job, I am actually an ‘at will’ contractual worker for my state and if I do
          anything that is listed in the staff handbook that would be considered by
          Human Resources (after an investigation) to be inappropriate and reflecting
          negatively on the university (and that this guy did would get me booted)
          they bump your ass out the door; in their language, terminated which is
          the nice way of saying ‘fired’.

        • Velvet Jones says:

          Don’t be so sure of that. Unlike average employees, C level executives almost always have employment contracts, meaning they’re not at will. I’d be highly surprised that this does not end up in court. While I disagree with this guy’s tactics, it is his right to be an ass on his own time.

      • anime_runs_my_life says:

        He made a bad representation of the company. *That’s* the big deal. He made an ass of himself and needlessly harassed someone. *That’s* the big deal.

      • bben says:

        Because he was being an ass – and his boss saw it, decided it did not reflect well on the company – The boss was right in firing this idiot.

        The employee has no say in the opinion of the CEO of Chick-Fil-A and is just trying to make a living. She does not deserve to be treated like that by a retard.

        However, the Chick-Fil-A employee handled herself very well.

        BTW, How many fast food places will actually give out FREE water to people in the drive through who don’t order anything else? The last time I got just water at a McDonalds (to take a pill) I was charged 15 cents for the cup. And that was after spending several bucks for a meal.

        • anime_runs_my_life says:

          I agree she did. While I’ve never been put on the spot because my company made national news about their stance on something, I know I would be a wreck. She deserves some time off for having to deal with a jerk like this guy. Or at least a raise.

          • cactus jack says:

            Here in Madison we had over a year of this same nonsense with the Anti-Walker/Pro Union movement. If you didn’t hang signs in solidarity, you were against them. Some shops were threatened by supporters for not taking a side and told they would “regret” their decision. Idiots harassing the opposition, blocking traffic, trying to push their way into banks they opposed, etc and all caught on video so they could put it on youtube!

            And ultimately they lost because of their asshat tactics. I wish more people would screen their youtube videos with friends and family or even better, a leader of whatever movement before deciding to toss their video up. It’d save them a lot of embarrassment.

            • Worstdaysinceyesterday says:

              Those tactics were a major issue with me.

              I was in the capitol and confronted by a protester who declared, “I have been here night and day for a week. I am saving the workers! What have YOU been doing?”

              “Working,” I replied

      • AngryK9 says:

        A lot of corporations do not approve of their executives participating in *ANY* type of public activity that can be construed in a negative manner and/or bring negative publicity to the company itself.

      • Rachacha says:

        The man is the CEO of a company and therefore represents the company that he works for. The company has decided that they do not want to take a stance on this issue, however when the CEO of an organization makes a statement on such a hot topic like this, it can be taken as the official position of the company. The company did not want this, so they fired him.

    • Oh_No84 says:

      Also, I cant believe the guy was fired for expressing his views, breaking no laws, while off the clock from his job.

      His company is ran by jerks to fire their employee for exercising his right to free speech and protest. The CEO of Vante that fired the CFO is wrong.
      You should not lose your job over legal protest while not on the clock or officially representing the company.

  2. missmarymack says:

    Ugh. It’s idiots like this who totally delegitimize social movements. Go on dude, berate the minimum wage worker. Way to create change!

    • Torchwood says:

      +1. What say do they have in corporate decisions?

      • tmitch says:

        What “corporate decisions” are you referring to? The CEO has a personal viewpoint, but as far as I know, no homosexuals have been discriminated against, denied food, denied service, or ANYTHING of the sort by the corporation itself.

        Please explain your comment. I truly don’t understand what the issue here is. The guy has a right to his personal viewpoint. As long as the company isn’t doing anything wrong, wtf? I mean, right?

        • Guppy06 says:

          “The CEO has a personal viewpoint”

          He was speaking in his capacity as a corporate executive. He was stating the corporation’s personal viewpoint (as a “person” in the “Citizens United” sense).

          • Press1forDialTone says:

            According to the RepubliThug(tm) infested US Supreme Court,
            corporations -are- people and -money- is free speech.
            This is a FAIL beyond all comprehension that must be changed
            or we are doomed as a nation.

            • nauip says:

              If you’re referring to Chick-fil-A then you are incorrect. Chick-fil-A is a privately held (not a corporation) company and is therefore not a person.

              • Guppy06 says:

                Simply because their shares aren’t publicly traded doesn’t mean they’re not a corporation.

        • Chuft-Captain says:

          Do a little googling, see where the corporate money goes. I’ve known this for about two years and have refused to eat there as a result.

          • woot says:

            That’s where the real issue is for me. It’s not about Mr. Cathy’s recent comments, it’s that CFA funds hate groups (and I don’t use that term lightly – they are designated that way by the Southern Poverty Law Center).

            Here’s an article with a summary of some of that stuff:

            • infoweasel says:

              That’s not really saying much – the SPLC designates any group that disagrees with their Statist Secular Progressive agenda as being a ‘hate group.’ For example, the Border Patrol – as US Government Agency – is listed as being an ‘anti-immigrant’ hate group. Also listed is the Jewish Defense League, an ‘anti-Arab, Israeli-nationalist’ hate group. Interesting enough, neither CARE nor the American Communist Party are listed as hate groups. Imagine that.

            • aerodawg says:

              The SLPC designates just about every group that’s not on the far left as a hate group. It’s really sad that an organization that did so much good work during the civil rights movement has become some a flipping joke….

            • woot says:

              OK. Go do your own research. See for your own eyes which hate groups that CFA support. But don’t pretend this is a free speech issue, it’s about boycotting an organization that funds discrimination. Very simple.

        • Golfer Bob says:

          If you say “that I know of” then maybe you should do some research and find out the truth.

          • bmcgee says:

            If some one has asked for information, and you don’t have to say “that I know of”, maybe you could consider elaborating on your grand knowledge instead of posting a childish attitude about it.

            To answer the question, like “woot” said, the issue with many people is where the company is putting their money.

        • Torchwood says:

          I was referring to the minimum wage worker.

        • ReasonablePerson says:

          How can you possibly comment on an article where the CFO was fired from a company for something he did/said in his personal life and not understand that corporate spokesperson’s point of views have relevant impact on their employees?

          To answer your “wtf? I mean, right?”, you should be asking that about why the guy in the video got fired right?

        • HalOfBorg says:

          I’ve said it before – the owner stated HIS opinion. The company isn’t doing anything illegal – from all reports they hire/serve gays with no trouble. (Maybe someone can find a problem event out there, but no company policy).

          The company donates money to causes it supports – just like companies all over the place do.

          You don’t support those causes – that’s fine, you are perfectly within YOUR rights to be an asshole (in the owner’s view).

          But this idiot bothering a line worker? I can imagine the worker was quite scared, wondering if this guy has a gun on him.

          And city governments saying they can’t open in our town?? Total BS. If asked, they should say “His opinions are his own, the company breaks no laws, welcome to our city.”

          • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

            I thought the comments made by the owner were stated as the company opinion in addition to his own.

        • SeattleSeven says:

          “corporate decisions” would be giving corporate money to hate groups. Which they have done and we all assume, will continue to do.

          It isn’t just a high level employee saying bigoted things, that is just the catalyst which helped propel the whole thing into the circus it has become.

    • jeffbone says:

      “Ugh. It’s idiots like this who totally delegitimize social movements.”

      Thank you. The louder someone (or a group) screams or makes idiotic statements, the less credence I place in their position.

    • Zelgadis says:


      These workers are innocent! They’re just minimum wage slaves trying to get by in the world and don’t need this. Nobody should punish them for the idiotic antics of their corporate overlords.

    • scooby111 says:

      You may not know, but Chick-fil-a almost always pays more than minimum wage and is the only large fast food company that offers all workers a benefits package including health insurance.

      • HFC says:

        And the Nazis did some pretty good things, too. I guess we should forgive them of the bad things they did.

        • frank64 says:

          Cathy because of his religious beliefs believes a marriage is sacred and between a man and a woman. That is much different than killing millions of people.

          I am not saying you equated the two, but demonizing his beliefs is just as bad as what many are accusing Cathy of. You can believe in the sanctity of marriage and not be hateful.

          • Golfer Bob says:

            Except that it just doesn’t stop at his own personal belief or his one vote at a ballot box. It goes much, much further and where that leads is what many, including myself, consider hate.

        • kanenas says:

          Yes, because Chick-Fil-A are a bunch of Nazis. Way to totally make your point there.

  3. Glioma says:

    As the old saying goes, good riddance to bad rubbish. He should look in the mirror when he talks about being hateful.

  4. Rahnee says:

    This is why I quit working for the public. I would have jumped through the window and choked the stupid out of that asshat.

    • frank64 says:

      The employee he berated handled herself very well. If that is how she handled him, I bet she is great to normal customers and people she deals with everywhere.

  5. CrazyEyed says:

    What a douche. She handled herself very gracefully. While this guy’s getting fired from his job, maybe Chick-Fil-A should give this gal a raise for keeping a good image. I don’t have any CFA’s in WNY but after that exchange, maybe I’ll patronize this business when I run across one. Just to spite this poor excuse for a CFO.

    • Guppy06 says:

      “maybe Chick-Fil-A should give this gal a raise for keeping a good image”

      The “good image” Chick-Fil-A wants is “defending traditional marriage,” which she didn’t do. They’d be well within their rights firing her.

      • Kuri says:

        Over a personal belief?

        • Bladerunner says:

          Welcome to Az, where that is totally ok.

          • Chuft-Captain says:

            IIRC, that would also be fine in at least 48 other states. At-Will Employment, for the lose.

        • Guppy06 says:

          A corporate “person” can demand its “personal” beliefs to be espoused by all public-facing employees. Disagreeing with the corporation, or even not agreeing vehemently enough, sure as hell doesn’t put you in a protected class in any state I’m aware of (while gays at least are a protected class in a slim handful of states).

  6. TuxthePenguin says:

    And pro-gay marriage advocates wonder why the public doesn’t rally to your cause. Rule #1 for gaining public support – don’t be a *&^!@#* jerk.

    • Marlin says:

      Yea cause this is the spokeman for the “pro-gay marriage advocates”


      • TuxthePenguin says:

        He’s not a spokesman, but he obviously has taken up their cause and gone so far to publish his “work”. Honestly, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

        Same point goes, though. If you want people to agree with you, being a douche isn’t going to help.

        • HalOfBorg says:

          And, being a CFO at lunch time he was certainly “on the clock” in a legal if not actual sense. So his company could be held liable for things he does.

          • dobgold says:

            Not if he wasn’t doing company business. By your reasoning, he could be held liable for something he did on the weekend or vacation that has nothing to do with his job.

      • lyontaymer30 says:

        Doesn’t matter, he made himself the face of it with his idiocy. You only have him to blame for that. Whoever argues against his point only have to point to his actions on that date. He’s saying he’s not a hateful person, but then displays hate the whole video and directing at people who don’t even have anything to do with it.

        And look how few people have anything to say, but let a CSR do the to a consumer, it’s WW3 on here.

        • frank64 says:

          But a bad spokesperson has nothing to do with the actual merits of an issue. One thing people love to do is link someone’s views to someone that is often demonized. They think it proves their point, but really it is a diversion tactic.

          • Edhla says:

            A bad spokesperson SHOULDN’T have anything to do with the actual merits of an issue, but people being people, they will always confuse the two. An asshat espousing a good cause isn’t doing the good cause any favours at all.

            • frank64 says:

              Hello Sarah Palin!

              • Edhla says:

                … sorry, what? I’m not saying it’s right, I’m saying that the general public tend to not jump onboard causes that are championed by douchebags.

                • frank64 says:

                  Sorry, I was using Palin as an example of a wacko , but it shouldn’t disqualify anything she espouses as wrong. I wasn’t comparing you to Sarah, that would have been doing exactly what we are talking about here!

          • lyontaymer30 says:

            You’re right and it will work as a diversion tactic. That’s my point, whether it’s right or wrong I won’t argue, because it isn’t fair, but that’s the way it is.

        • MaxH42 needs an edit button says:

          So, you’re saying that because they’re anti-gay and the most in-your-face, obnoxious idiots out there, Westboro Baptist Church is by default the face of the opposition to marriage equality?

    • Golfer Bob says:

      Of course, when the pro marriage side uses the Chick Fil A money to promote the idea that gay people are vile human being beyond contempt, simply because the bible says so, then thats ok according to you?

    • ReasonablePerson says:

      It is my sincerest hope that, in 20 years, your son/daughter/nephew/niece asks you if you really lived in a world where two people who cared about each other, lived and co-habitated together really couldn’t enjoy the legal or emotional benefits of marriage.

      If this question is asked, I will be happy to be able to say, “Yes…yes I did, but I always thought that the issue was insane, and most of my friends did too.”

      Instead of,

      “Yes, it was a very heated cultural issue that myself and others found it difficult to rally to the defense of those being discriminated against”

      The public doesn’t “rally to the cause” for the same reason this guy made this video…the public, like this guy, is ridiculously ignorant.

      • Koebenhavn says:

        How would you feel if this was a minimum-wage employee of a company that supports gay marriage – say, Disney – and some conservative nutcase was beating up on her for decisions she had nothing to do with? And filming her for public ridicule?

        So tired of people whose definition of “tolerance” equals “I tolerate anyone who agrees with me, and anyone else is morally wrong.”

        • Jon Parker says:

          @Koebenhaven: Huh? I’m extremely pro-gay marriage, and I haven’t seen anyone on this thread defending what that asshat did. So to answer your question, I’d think it was despicable. As far as I can tell no one here thinks what he did was right, regardless of where they stand on the issue. I also haven’t seen anyone on this thread using your Pajamas Media definition of “tolerance” either. Methinks you’re reacting to something that hasn’t happened.

          And since I’m posting, I thought the young lady in the video reacted with grace and charm.

        • msbaskx2 says:

          Ironic that he was filming her for public ridicule and the only one being ridiculed is him. What did he think he was doing? Where was his thought process? Let me berate this young girl who has NOTHING to do with any of this and is probably just trying to hold down her $7/hr job? That makes no sense. His protest isn’t with this girl. She is not accountable for the actions of the corporation.

          • Edhla says:

            This is what is truly jaw-dropping for me. Not that he did it, but that he smugly posted it on the internet so everyone could praise him for bullying someone like that, and apparently he was honestly surprised when it bit him on the ass instead.

  7. Torchwood says:

    I wish folks would stop PREACHING tolerance, and start PRACTICING it as well. What got my ire was when the mayors of Boston and Chicago stated that they didn’t want Chick-fil-A in their towns, and some other activists stated they wants to destroy Chick-fil-A’s business. Why is the mentality of some people such that if you disagree with their views, you must be mocked, demonized, and destroyed?

    I am best friends with some folks who, politically, are polar opposites from where I stand. We choose to agree to disagree. However, we are in mutual agreement to show up to the polls and vote in every election.

    Kudos to the girl at the drive-through window. Yesterday must have been a trying day.

    • The Dord says:

      I know it’s wrong for her to get a tip, but I think someone anonymous should give her a little present for facing this bullshit, imo.

      • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

        Most of these minimum wage workers face a lot of bullshit all the time. Why is this one more special? I’l all for rewarding good behavior in bad situations, but seems unfair to just reward her.

        • The Dord says:

          Lol I don’t think every minimum age work becomes a part of a internet viral video that backfires on the douchebag recording it!

    • MaxH42 needs an edit button says:

      By being a decent human being and generally following Wheaton’s Law even regarding people with whom you disagree vigorously, you’re doing more to open those peoples’ minds in one interaction than this asshole could do if he lived in a Chick fil-A the rest of his life.

  8. RogerX says:

    “An executive at a medical manufacturing firm lost his job after a YouTube video of him verbally ambushing a young employee at a Tucson Chick-fil-A went viral.

    Adam Smith, formerly Chief Financial Officer at Vante, stepped down after the video — which Smith shot and uploaded himself —caused embarrassment to the company.”

  9. deathbecomesme says:

    Too bad his moral compass does not allow him to work at places that do bad things or else he could have a job at a fast food place.

    The douche bad needs to go back and apologize to the woman.

  10. frank64 says:

    Seems to be more hate in him.

    • tmitch says:

      No kidding. There’s more hate coming from those who oppose the CEO’s views than from ANYONE else. Jeesh. The guy has an opinion. He’s not forcing it on anybody else. So many preach tolerance, but ONLY if it’s for their point of view. I don’t agree with him either, but he’s entitled to his own beliefs. Get over it already.

      • There's room to move as a fry cook says:

        It’s not just a personal opinion. Chick-Fil-A profits fund anti-gay groups.

      • msbaskx2 says:

        I think you’ve missed the entire point. The profits that Chick-Fil-A make are used to fund anti-gay groups. So no, he’s not forcing his views on anyone, he’s just funneling money to groups that will do it for him. This is America, that is his right. But it’s other people’s right to boycott him for that.

        I do not have to ‘tolerate’ and patronize a company that supports these organizations, any more than a black person would patronize and establishment openly run by the KKK.

      • Farleyboy007 says:

        S Truett Cathy has said on record, that he would fire someone that “was being sinful”, there have been lawsuits for his employment practices. A woman alleges she was fired so she would be a stay at home mom, instead of a working mom. Also, it’s the COO’s (not the CEO’s) comments that started this, but it’s the company’s charity that really has people angry. There’s a link above that is pretty succinct, from the Huffington Post, that details a lot of repugnant stuff the groups have done, that CFA has had a hand in funding. Allegedly, one of them lobbied the US govt to decry legislation in another country that would make killing gays illegal.

        • kanenas says:

          “there have been lawsuits for his employment practices.”

          And as we all know, being sued automatically means you are liable for whatever the suit alleges. We don’t even need to look at who wins or loses, just being sued is good enough to make a point.

          Name one major company with a public presence that hasn’t been sued for unfair labor practices.

    • tmitch says:

      No kidding. There’s more hate coming from those who oppose the CEO’s views than from ANYONE else. Jeesh. The guy has an opinion. He’s not forcing it on anybody else. So many preach tolerance, but ONLY if it’s for their point of view. I don’t agree with him either, but he’s entitled to his own beliefs. Get over it already.

      • The Beer Baron says:

        I say, my good man, when the opposite point of view seems to be “Some people are not as good as us and therefore not deserving of the same rights” then why should it be tolerated? Or rather, why should it go unchallenged? The First Amendment does not insulate one from being told that his ideas are bad and that he should feel bad. It only grants him protection from Government retribution for expressing them.

    • Audiyoda28 says:

      I just don’t see hate in anything Cathy said in the original interview:

      “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

      “We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that.

      “We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

      It’s a simple statement about what his family’s beliefs are and how those beliefs are the foundation of their company.

      But man has there been plenty of hate towards Chick-fil-A – unfounded based on what Cathy said.

      • Overheal says:

        There has also been plenty of hate against the LGBT community. You would be hard pressed to properly quantify which was in greater supply than the other.

        Oh, and those weren’t the comments that actually sparked the controversy, it was when he rebuffed his comments with this:

        “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say ‘we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage’ and I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.”

        • Kuri says:

          I bet he doesn’t realize he’s taking god’s name in vain.

          • Jon Parker says:

            What bothers me way more than what Cathy said was Sarah Palin’s reaction, which was “calling for that boycott has a chilling effect on our First Amendment rights.”

            That this moron who doesn’t understand the first thing about the Bill of Rights was seriously considered for vice-president is what’s chilling.

      • pythonspam says:

        The bulk of the protests against the CFA corporation is not because Dan Cathy’s recent speech, but against the decades of monetary support to organizations which fight against equality.

        The bulk of the support for CFA including wednesday’s wait-in-line day was because of the speech and Mike Huckabee’s event. If they were really supporters of the corporation and its ideals, they would make every wednesday CFA appreciation day.

      • Golfer Bob says:

        Dan Cathy made several tweets after the company’s “were staying out of it” announcement that showed his true colors. The tweets were deleted but were mirrored and saved. All of them had the same statement:

        “Thanks, Ike. BP article really lit up LGBT community!”

        Again, after his company pledged to stay out of it, he calls Rick Warren on “appreciation day” which Warren then tweets (also deleted):

        “@dancathy just called me. #chickfila has already set a world record today, with 7l more hrs to go in the West. #outofchicken.

        Because, that’s Christ like, right? Being the CEO of a billion dollar company then going public with statements that are gleeful and boastful about denigrating a group of people that you find contemptible after you pledged to stay out of it.

        Chick Fil A’s Winshape Foundation (that’s the corporate charitable department) gave money to groups such as these, estimates put the numbers at 2 – 5 million dollars in the last 3 years:

        •Marriage & Family Foundation
        •Fellowship Of Christian Athletes
        •National Christian Foundation
        •New Mexico Christian Foundation
        •Exodus International
        •Family Research Council
        •Georgia Family Council

        In this list are groups that go beyond just expressing their first amendment rights to believe in the Bible. They use scare tactics and false scientific reports equating gay people to pedophiles and bestiality. They advocate “gay reparative therapy” or that the government should put gay people to death or that gays will destroy the world. The FRC lobbied congress not to condemn Uganda’s “kill the gay’s” bill, when our Congress considered a public condemnation of this. Of course, all of this breeds more hatred and we have pastors who advocate building fences to put all the gays in so they eventually die off and other churches that preach beating the gay out of children.

        These aren’t god’s gentle people.

        Please tell me, how many times in the history of our country, do we need to go down this road again? Women, black people, ethnic minorities, religious minorities? The idea that certain groups of people are simply not worthy? In 2012 we have to this conversation? Again?

        This “protect traditional marriage” free speech argument is upsetting to many gay people because it sounds and looks like the same argument used during the racial issues in the 1960s. When people say “I’m not against gay people, I just support the traditional family” it sounds a lot like when people said “Were not against black people, we just support separate facilities.” Of course, those ideals were also supported by Christians promoted in churches and backed up by the Bible.

        Let’s also point out that it isn’t the “gay” side promoting boycotts. Every time a corporation comes out in support of the gay community, there’s a boycott called by NOM, or OMM or an irrelevant politician or Christian pastor. Starbucks, Amazon, JC Penney, Ellen’s network advertisers, Kraft Foods / Oreo Cookies, Home Depot. When the gay community called for a boycott of Chick Fil A, well that was a “chilling affect on our first amendment rights” (Palin), but it’s OK when it’s used against pro gay companies.

        I hope for your sake that you never have to wake up every day in a country protected by a Constitution founded on equality and freedom and find out that your rights, your life, being a parent and raising a family or even if you are worthy of being human has been placed lower on the list of priorities than eating a chicken sandwich. Then you can wonder where the anger is coming from.

        • Golfer Bob says:

          The Warren tweet I referred to above should say “with 7 more” not “7l more”

          • wade says:

            You must be quite butthurt if you take offense to: “@dancathy just called me. #chickfila has already set a world record today, with 7 more hrs to go in the West. #outofchicken.”

            Is it “calling” someone that offends you? Perhaps the concept of “world records?” Or maybe you’re just really afraid that someone might have gone without chicken becacuse they ran out?

            • Golfer Bob says:

              Do you know who Rick Warren is? What would be Dan Cathy’s motivation to call him to gloat about his triumph? Chick Fil A puts out announcements that they are staying out of the culture wars (after they incited them), won’t release sales figures (of the unofficial but certainly appreciated “appreciation day”) to the media citing privacy, then Cathy, who purports to live his life based on Christ like ideals, goes behind the scenes and continues to poke the hornet’s nest by releasing info to the people that have the fucking stick.

      • kanenas says:

        “I just don’t see hate in anything Cathy said in the original interview:”

        One man’s free speech is another person’s hate. The left is trying to act as if it is the ultimate decider of what is hate speech and what isn’t.

        I’d personally say that any elected official who attempts to abuse the powers of his office to deny a private company the right to operate simply because he disagrees with the opinions of the owner is truly a hateful thing. But to the left, the mayors of Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are heroes.

        • Golfer Bob says:

          Neither did anyone else until they looked deeper into the issue and found out what was behind the scenes. This didn’t just start yesterday. I suspect that many of the people lined up the other day think the same thing. Then once their IRS 990 filings were obtained and reviewed, it became apparent that charitable donations were being given to groups that are on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list as active hate groups.

          • kanenas says:

            “it became apparent that charitable donations were being given to groups that are on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list as active hate groups.”

            But one man’s hate group is another man’s advocacy organization. Who died and appointed the SPLC to be the ultimate decider of who is and isn’t a hate group?

            • Golfer Bob says:

              Well, we have federal laws that draw the line between free speech and hate. However, anyone with any common sense can can determine that advocating death, violence and bigotry against a group of people equals hate.

        • msbaskx2 says:

          I think you’re wrong and the vast majority of “the left” think that what these mayors did was absolutely wrong and completely Anti-American.

          If you look in the “KKK wants to sponsor a highway” thread, you’ll see that most people (left/right/center) agreed that unless there was a legal reason to keep them from doing so, the KKK had the legal right to sponsor the darn thing.

  11. Caprica Six says:

    Sweet baby Jesus – a C-level douche too! He apparently does not think ahead of the ramifications of placing a video on You Tube despite his MBA and creds..good luck justifying why you were fired in your quest for a new job!

  12. LionMan says:

    This guy seems to have more problems than just losing his job:

    • frank64 says:

      ….and now he lost his job. With what he was going through how did he have the emotional energy to put into this relatively small issue.

    • braum says:

      that’s a great link. I’m curious how he got or kept a job as a CFO with a credit score that low and not being able to manage his little real estate scheme… I guess that was pretty standard back in 2009 so it probably didn’t bother his employer.

      The icing on the cake is he signs off the post as “Mr. Smith”, who does that? And I loved that NO ONE replied.

  13. Nytngale says:

    To the Chick-Fil-A employee featured in this video (Rachael?) I want to say, I commend your poise, dignity, and grace in handling what must have been an incredibly uncomfortable and hostile situation. You handled the situation respectfully, and you did a commendable job of politely and professionally negotiating the interaction with a rude and disrespectful client. Congratulations on remaining calm in the situation and not loosing your temper. You would make any employer proud to have you as an employee. I pray that you have success in whatever it is that you attempt.

  14. Destron says:

    I am sure I have worked for a few companies that have viewpoints I don’t agree with. But just because I work there does not mean I support their views. I work there because I have a family to support and need to pay my bills. So as longs as they give me a paycheck I could care less what they do with the rest of their money. People that think its funny to take stuff out on employees of a company because of something that company did or a spokesman for that company said are the lowest level of scum. Those employees don’t deserves and you accomplished nothing but probably give someone that already has enough problems a horrible day. Congratulations on being a grade A douche.

    • msbaskx2 says:

      I don’t think anyone thinks it’s funny to take stuff out on employees of a company. Who here is laughing?

    • Guppy06 says:

      If you’re paid to interact with the public, you are a spokesman. If you disagree with business, you shouldn’t take jobs that have you interacting with the public for that business.

  15. Sunrisecarole says:

    I’m not asking this to be controversial….but I’d like to know….what are the views of the Muslim, Jewish, and other major religions of the world on homosexuality?

    Also, aren’t MOST people that are taking sides with CFA defending his RIGHT TO HIS OPINION rather than accepting his views?

    These are sincere questions, not trying to start something….

    • Edhla says:

      There’s no one consensus view on homosexuality for an entire immense, diverse religion. Some denominations and branches of Christianity are more accepting of homosexuality than others, and even within churches there is everything from outright hateful bigotry to Christians like myself who fully support gay marriage. I imagine the range of views is the same for Judaism and Islam.

      • NeverLetMeDown2 says:

        Don’t know about Islam, but there’s certainly the same range of views within Judaism as within Christianity. Reform Judaism has supported gay marriage for years, Conservative Judaism just officially came to support it within the last year, and the Orthodox still oppose it. Kind of in line with the old joke, if you want three opinions, ask two rabbis.

      • msbaskx2 says:

        What you wrote really touched a nerve with me. Can you imagine going through life worrying about who was willing to “accept you”? Knowing every day that half of the country wishes you would just go away? It’s just too sad and pointless.

        • Edhla says:

          I don’t think I can link here, but I read a really awesome article by Matthew Paul Turner about this “Support Chik-fil-a Day” thing and Christianity’s attitude toward gay people in general:

          “How many times do we hear Christians say something like, “I don’t hate gay people. I may not agree with their lifestyle. But I don’t hate them… ”

          If you were gay, would you believe that? Think about it. Would you feel loved by somebody if they included rules, context, and/or explanations about your lifestyle every time they spoke about how much they don’t hate you? Only when talking about gay people do Christians feel the need to preface their “love” or “non-hate” with some variation of “I don’t agree with your lifestyle, but…” Christians don’t talk about any other group of people like that–only gay people.”

          • bben says:

            Once again lumping every person of a very diverse religion into the same bucket. “You are a Christian therefor this is what you believe.” No room for any variation, as it is well known that ALL Christians everywhere no matter what denomination absolutely believe and act the same. Therefor ALL Christians absolutely must be beat down for being Christians.

            This premise shows several logical facilities (look them up, I don’t have room here to explain them)

            There are openly gay Christians (DOH!) Do you really think they believe the same thing as YOU CLAIM all Christians must?

            Now who is spouting hate?

            Yes, there are Christians that openly hate gays. And there are Christians that openly and unconditionally support gay marriage. Most fall somewhere in between in that while they don’t necessarily approve, they are willing to accept them and try to understand them.

            • Edhla says:

              … Uh, dude… I AM a Christian. One in favour of gay marriage. And above I actually said that, and that there is no “Christian” stance on homosexuality. It’s right up there. I think you’re misunderstanding the point of the quote. It’s not disputing that some Christians do love people regardless of their sexuality, it’s questioning the prevalence of “I love you, but…” comments when there could be just “I love you” comments. Here is the article in question, full context: .

  16. legwork says:

    She was very graceful in the face of anger. He was horribly affected. I’d venture his are signs of addiction. He’s lost his job, apparently has serious financial issues, and doesn’t seem in control of his faculties. Let’s hope someone with the assets to obtain the position of CEO in even a small company recovers their senses and mends their ways.

    Obviously every “party” has their fringe elements, and most of us have our fringe moments. Here’s to him recovering from a dark moment at rock bottom.

  17. GitEmSteveDaveHatesChange says:

    This guy had to make sure everyone knew, in the words of Harry Plinkett, that he had a case of the “Not Gay”.

  18. Cream Of Meat says:

    That guy was a squirmy snaky slimy weird fucker with a short neck that reminded me of smug ass prius drivers.

    Poor Rachel, sweetheart little red, she deserves better than that.

  19. Harry Greek says:

    This is ‘Murica!!!

    Wipe yourselves, I can smell your filth through the internet for God’s sake,..

  20. TDJ says:

    “I’m totally heterosexual… there’s not a gay in me. I just can’t stand the hate.”

    What a cowardly douche bag ! What you just did to this young woman was hateful and selfish.

  21. Starfury says:

    What did we learn from this? We learned that there’s a new job opening in Tuscon!

  22. dolemite says:

    Although that guy was a douche, I don’t understand why he was fired for acting like a jerk away from work. Is there something in the employee manual that says you must act like a saint whether you are at work, home, on vacation or anywhere else? That said, there are actually people that think employees of a company have the same values and beliefs as the company heads? That’s quite ignorant, although apparently the Supreme Court thinks that too.

    • cactus jack says:

      I believe he stepped down.

      • bben says:

        Stepped down means his boss asked him to. – Same as fired, but without the social stigma as he can say he left on his own accord on his resume.

        • Peggee has pearls and will clutch them when cashiers ask "YOU GOT A WIC CHECK MA'AM?" says:

          Until someone tries to Google him. Which, at his level, always happens. Although I doubt it will be his level for long.

    • bben says:

      He wasn’t fired for being a jerk. He was fired for videoing himself being an arrogant jerk to a young lady who handled it well. Then putting it on the internet for everyone, including his boss, to see just what a jerk he is. By doing that he was reflecting badly on the company. By firing him, his boss is affecting damage control. Besides now that he has shown the world just what a jerk he is the boss probably doesn’t want a jerk working for him.

      • StarKillerX says:

        It likely even goes beyond that since he was an executive with the company so it becomes a question of his demonstating insanely poor judgement.

    • lyontaymer30 says:

      Most employee contracts include morality and personal conduct clauses evne with stuff away from work. So they gave them the option of walk out or get carried out.

  23. mbd says:

    Short term, the loss of business from the pro same sex crowd will be offset by the increase from the anti same sex crowd. Long term, the people who like Chick-Fil-A’s food will continue to eat there. Those who don’t, still won’t. They must be rolling on the floor laughing in the Chick-Fil-A’s corporate hen house because of all the free publicity and extra business they are getting from people who are opposed to same sex marriage. I am sure some of those people had never eaten at a CFA before, and clearly some will like it enough to become regular customers.

    As the success of the recent “appreciation day” proved, the public is divided on whether same sex preference is is a civil right or a deviant perversion, and insulting people who do not believe it is a civil right is not going to change their minds.

    • Golfer Bob says:

      Laughing in the hen house? Not really, their VP of PR actually died of a massive coronary in the few days after Dan Cathy’s brouhaha. Of course, had nothing to do with stress. Or eating fried chikin.

    • Tranorix says:

      I agree, but what about insulting the low-level employees of those people who don’t believe it’s a civil right? That will effect change, won’t it?

  24. sixsevenco says:

    I was a cashier at an franchised Exxon gas station when the Valdez crashed. Some professor of Latino studies chewed me out because the media pronounced it ‘val-deez’ (rhymes with peas) instead of the proper pronunciation ‘val-dez’ (rhymes with fez).

    I wish that at age 18 I could have come up with something snarky to say back, but alas, I was an idiot back then…

  25. Cerne says:

    It amazes me how well this has played in Chick-fil-A’s favour. Attacks from wankers like this and the mayors of Chicago, Boston and San-Francisco have made bigots into martyrs.

    Also instead of taking Chick-fil-A’s 3 cents with this water stunt, dude could have donated the gas money or his time to a marriage equality group, you know maybe do something that actually might make a difference.

  26. frank64 says:

    I wonder what this will do to the “kiss in” that is being planned? At the very least I hope it alerts the participants to behave and not take it out on the employees. It will probably mean there will be less participants.

    I am not sure what they hope to accomplish anyway. I think it will make Chick Fil-A look to be more of a victim.

  27. AzCatz07 says:

    This is my local Chick Fil A (despite the fact that I don’t eat there). Anyway, if this guy were a friend of mine and told me ahead of time he was going to do this, I’d have encouraged him not to. There are so many better ways to stand up for your beliefs than berating the drive-through worker. And that’s coming from someone who has been out and fighting this battle for marriage equality for many years.

    That was stupid and pointless. I’m not surprised he lost his job.

  28. dush says:

    he clarifies, “I’m totally heterosexual… there’s not a gay in me at the moment. I just can’t stand the hate.”

    • Edhla says:

      Bit odd that he thought his own sexuality was so relevant to the situation that he felt the need to reassure us all that he’s “totally heterosexual.” Dude, nobody cares.

      • StarKillerX says:

        Yeah sort of a “I support gay people, but of course I wouldn’t want to be mistaken for one, even by some girl I’ll never see again.”

  29. Golfer Bob says:

    Here’s a video by someone from the protect traditional marriage camp. Same scenario. Expressing his views to the Chick Fil A employee. Spoiler alert: @2:24 he goes into a wonderful, non hateful discussion about “purging the filth” and “making my family safer” all while his toddler daughter is there tugging at his shirt tails.

    • msbaskx2 says:

      I’m sooooooo sick of the “protect traditional marriage” crap.

      How “traditional” do they want to be? Do they want to have hundreds of wives and concubines

      It is “traditional” for many cultures to force arranged marriages on their children. Is that “traditional” enough for you.

      How about we just go back to “traditional” marriage before 1967 when interracial marriage was illegal in our very own country? How’s that for “traditional”?

      Tradionally, marriage has kept woman on a leash, not being able to own property, ripe for physical and mental abuse. Traditionally, the husband decided the whens, wheres, hows and whys of every decision to be made. Traditionally, women were there to serve at the beck and call of their husbands. Scrubs their toilets, cook their foods, and spread their legs for them when commanded to. And if you’re Catholic, no birth control for you! And no divorce!

      Which of these is the “traditional marriage” that people are soooooooo wanting to protect?

  30. HogwartsProfessor says:

    I voted with my wallet. I don’t go to CFA. I don’t like their chicken either, so I wouldn’t go there anyway, but the funding anti-LGBT groups means they won’t get one dime of my money, even if I’m starving.

  31. CheritaChen says:

    Am I the only one wondering if this guy was acting on behalf of CFA to taint the anti-CFA viewpoint with his nastiness?

  32. aen says:

    She deserves a big fat bonus for the way she handled herself.

  33. sherrasama says:

    Uhg, I can’t stand this crap. Don’t pick on the poor bottom rung employees for your personal views. I got this when I worked at [big evil cable company], some guy asked me how I could live with myself, asked me if I was religious, did I realize I was going to hell for working for [big evil cable company], “I don’t know how you can sleep at night” etc and just went on and on. Wasn’t allowed to hang up, just had to take it.

  34. Golfer Bob says:
    • Oh_No84 says:

      Why? the guy did a peaceful protest and was not angry or threatening to the chickfila employee. He talked to her like an equal and said she deserved better.
      He video tapped it and put it online.
      Now everyone is talking about the issue again, so he was ultra successful in his goal for his peaceful protest.

      • Kitty with attitude says:

        He didn’t talk to her like an equal. He talked over her. He bullied her! Badgered her until he felt like he was finished with the lecture. She had no choice in the “conversation”.
        That wasn’t a peaceful protest in my opinion. That was an older man bullying a teenage girl about something she has NO control over.

    • Edhla says:

      WOW, that’s a bit over the line. He’s an utter douchebag, but he doesn’t deserve to die.

      • cactus jack says:

        “I’m a fa**ot, I’m so glad you got fired, it’s so funny, I hope you’re slitting your wrists, your kids have a horrible example of a father, ya know, all kinds of real tolerant stuff…. Ya know, they have free speech so great… they can do whatever they want… they can do it.”

        Considering his example, I’m not too impressed. It sounds like the usual, “Wait, but now I’m the REAL victim here” tactic to deflect some of the hate.

  35. RvLeshrac says:

    Glad to see that Stormfront contributes to Consumerist as well. There weren’t nearly enough Nazi-sponsored news items here.

    • JustJayce says:

      Ah yes… a comment from one of the folks who espouse tolerance. But you can’t tolerate any story about the other side of this debate … of which the other side is half of the country.
      And for you to say that anything this put on this board is Nazi sponsored is totally ludicrous and offensive to those who really understand what it meant for their people to be under the jackboot of those scum. You do a disservice to those people and I what I assume is your cause by saying something like that. I suggest you read a little history before you throw around the word “Nazi” to describe half of this country.

      • CheritaChen says:

        There you go with your idea of “tolerance” again. I do not think it means what you think it means.

        And while I agree that likening the CFA business to the Holocaust is extremist and potentially offensive, I’m also able to see the link between the two. Just because today, in this country, they know they couldn’t get away with publicly advocating extermination of homosexuals doesn’t prove they are any safer than a madman who would exterminate anyone not of the “master race” (including those of the pink triangle, or did you forget that part?).

        Can you state your position as “the other side of this debate” without referencing religion? Can you logically explain what actual direct physical or emotional harm comes to others when two consenting adults of the same gender marry? No? Then shut up.

        • JustJayce says:

          You should read history as well. It wasn’t just extermination – it was national push to close and burn their businesses, stealing their possessions, making them a national scapegoat for all of Germany’s problems. This allowed Hitler to try and shut them up permanently and torture them in concentration camps. I see nothing of that happening here… so your linkage is extremely faulty.
          You can’t see any separation between tradition and religion. I’m sorry for you. Its a shame that you can only draw one conclusion that anyone on the other side must be uber religious. And finally I will never shut up. You wish the world would just bow to your views and the best you can do when someone doesn’t is tell them to “shut up” like a teenager who was just scolded by their parents. I bet you think i have no respect for your view. I would never tell you to shut up. But it sure seems that you have no tolerance for my view when you tell me to shut up.

          • CheritaChen says:

            You really need to get a grasp of this: I do not tolerate your view, nor am I intolerant of your view, because your view, when that is all it is, does not affect me, so there is nothing for me to tolerate. Likewise, when someone does something that harms no one but happens to be something with which you disagree, you don’t have to be “tolerant” because there’s nothing to tolerate.

            If you don’t see the connection between genocide and promotion of bigoted laws (or in other countries, support of execution)–which is merely a matter of degrees–that’s just symptomatic of your “traditional” views. You still haven’t provided a single scrap of evidence explaining why you or anyone you say is on your side is harmed in any way by a same-gender marriage. You haven’t contributed anything that can be debated. You already expressed that you are pro-CFA, but since the rest of your remarks are repetitious and tangential, yes, I asked that you cease repeating them and offer something new. Now I give up.

            • JustJayce says:

              Its obviously more that just about marriage. Just by you using the term “bigoted” its obvious you are looking for more – like being a protected class. That is an insult to those who really needed affirmative action and its no wonder many who needed the protection of affirmative action have come out against this.

              Plus it really makes it easier for a business owner to get run out of town, which is much of this debate, because of the viewpoint of the owner on the issue. Which in itself is fascism. But by enacting laws around this topic and going further like having a protected class you enable this to happen.

              In addition it provides a “me-too” platform for any kind of marriage. The polygamists and others want this because it would legitimize their case.

              Then you force the will of the minority on the majority state by state. That is not what this republic was built on. And despite you thinking these laws are bigoted… they are not.

              I have no problem with people loving each other. There is no harm in that. There are civil union statutes already in many states that give similar protections. But just like the CFA case (where the people used their wallets in an incredible show of support) the people have the right to vote these choices up or down and elect officials to do the same. I’m entitled to my opinion just like you are entitled to yours…. but to try and force an ideological cram down on half of society because you think something is bigoted is wrong.

              • CheritaChen says:

                “but to try and force an ideological cram down on half of society because you think something is bigoted is wrong”

                You are such a hypocrite that you don’t even see the irony in your statement.

                It’s okay for those who don’t think same gender couples should be allowed to marry to get LAWS PASSED PROHIBITING IT, but if someone who believes that people should be allowed to maintain their personal freedoms as long as they infringe on no one protests these laws, or the efforts to pass them, then that person is trying to cram their ideology down the other side’s throats. Yeah, that’s about the level of logic I expect from someone with your (STILL unsupported) views.

                BTW, I am a straight woman. My only vested interest here is in people respecting each other and government actually allowing that liberty they promised. And you must have missed my comment elsewhere that I have no objection to polygamy, either. It hurts no one. There should be no need for “protected classes.” Do you know who they’re being protected from? People like you.

                • JustJayce says:

                  “It’s okay for those who don’t think same gender couples should be allowed to marry to get LAWS PASSED PROHIBITING IT”

                  If you don’t like the laws you have the freedom to have the laws changed. Its a government of the people and the majority of who votes makes or breaks the law. So yes it is OK. If its not OK then its up to the courts to decide.

                  ““but to try and force an ideological cram down on half of society because you think something is bigoted is wrong”

                  You are such a hypocrite that you don’t even see the irony in your statement.”

                  When you and others use terms like racist, bigoted, Nazi and others I have seen its meant to intimidate. That is a moral and ideological cram down by making people feel unnaturally uncomfortable about their stand on a matter. Well it doesn’t work on me and I find it offensive that anyone would resort to such terms over this matter.

                  And I could care less if you are straight, gay, man, woman or martian. I know I will never change your mind, just like you won’t change mine. But it is offensive that people who are against CFA and for gay marriage would ever use the term Nazi. Which is why I commented in the first place and it shows the true intolerance of those who wish to use those terms in any debate.

                  • CheritaChen says:

                    You’ve admitted you’d make laws against things that harm no one, based on your personal beliefs. I don’t think there’s anything left to be said.

  36. human_shield says:

    It takes a special kind of person to put yourself on YouTube basically saying, “Hey, I’m a total dick!”

  37. energynotsaved says:

    Had I employed the man in the video, I would have fired him for his poor judgement. What was he thinking? Businesses are struggling to survive. One does not need employees who film their rudeness and then posts it! One must wonder, “how is he treating our clients? Is a on the verge of snapping?” Nope. I don’t care what he does or does not believe. Poor judgement = leave the company.

  38. shayden says:

    Wow, this guy is something else. Even if the company did do something wrong, which they didn’t, isn’t he smart enough to know that drive through attendant has nothing to do with it. What a douche bag!

  39. ShelbyCobra says:

    When in America the land of the free and the brave did a statement of a CEO of a privately owned company who expressed his belief that God knows better about a subject than does any man translate to a company being a heteful company???
    It is a sad day in America when anyone who states his belief in God’s word become a controversary? Only if the standard belief in America is that God’s word doesn’t matter cound this be considered a controversary. It is ,indeed, a sad day in America.

    • jiubreyn says:

      The issue isn’t that he stated his belief in marriage being between a man and woman. There is nothing wrong with that at all.

      The issue stems from his donations to Anti-Gay organizations that promote hate and inequality. Big difference.

  40. ShelbyCobra says:

    When in America the land of the free and the brave did a statement of a CEO of a privately owned company who expressed his belief that God knows better about a subject than does any man translate to a company being a heteful company???
    It is a sad day in America when anyone who states his belief in God’s word become a controversary? Only if the standard belief in America is that God’s word doesn’t matter cound this be considered a controversary. It is ,indeed, a sad day in America.

    • theirtherethenthan says:

      ControversARies are very bad.

    • longfeltwant says:

      “When did a statement of a CEO of a privately owned company who expressed his belief translate to a company being a hateful company?”

      The statement was merely a reminder that the company financially sponsors policies of discrimination. Some people equate support for discrimination with hate, although I think that’s an unfair equivalence. It is clear that the company itself, as a corporate organization, supports discrimination against homosexuals. That’s a perfectly fair political position, espoused by a large majority of Americans until very recently, and still fervently supported by just about half of voters. Nevertheless, if you want to round up those policies to “hate”, then yes, it is true that Chick Fil A promotes hate.

      But again, I don’t round up in that way. I still think Chick Fil A is in the wrong, but I think it is incorrect to call it hate in this case. For some people and groups it is definitely hate, but for most of them including Chick Fil A it’s ignorance and a mistaken sense of moral superiority.

  41. Uncle Don says:

    It’s a good thing he didn’t try this with a 300 pound black woman working at the 7-11. She’d come across the counter and beat his “not gay” butt into next week.

    By the way Mr. Out of Work, you are sooooooo gay!

  42. B says:

    This young lady handled this situation beautifully. She may not realize it but she is getting some amazing experience in public relations and this will serve her well in her future. Good for her!

  43. pyster says:

    The clerks deathstar arguement goes here. The reality is there people have made a conscience decision to work with hate mongers.

    • longfeltwant says:

      Indeed, I’m sympathetic to that point of view. The girl in the video, who became an impromptu spokeswoman for Chick Fil A, did quite an eloquent job of saying that Chick Fil A does not discriminate against any of their customers. And she is right! I hardly think Chick Fil A would refuse service to a gay person.

      On the other hand, Chick Fil A does directly pay money so that other groups can do the discriminating for them. If I pay a hit man to kill someone, then I’m technically not a murderer, but my hands are hardly clean. If I work for the mob, I might not be a hit man, but I still have some ethical responsibility. The individual employee’s nexus to the discrimination is distant, but it’s still there.

      Still, it is distant enough that I think it would be wrong to read too much into any single employee’s willingness to work there. Lots and lots of people work for companies that do terrible things.

  44. nathaniel.edwards94 says:

    In general, you don’t have to throw everything out just because there is one thing you don’t agree with.

  45. ray4jc says:

    am i the only one who glanced at the title and assumed it said ‘beating’ instead of ‘berating’ come on where’s the action folks