Writer X: Chick-Fil-A, Idiots, and Reverse Bigotry

People of the Republic,

Has the whole world gone fucking nuts?

A few weeks ago, Chick-Fil-A announced that they are opposed to gay marriage. Or to put it more simply, they don’t support gay marriage. Or to put it even more simply, they don’t think two gay people should be allowed to get married. They said it’s because of their “Christian values” and then said a bunch of bullshit about a “culture of arrogance” or something along those lines.

That’s right, Chick-Fil-A doesn’t support gay marriage. A lot of people discovered this fact and then proceeded to follow these simple instructions:

1) Bend over

2) Insert head into own ass

3) Try to come off as a logical human being, despite the fact that you have your head so far up your own ass you could eat twice (try to figure that one out).

People absolutely, 100% lost their shit over Chick-Fil-A, a chicken sandwich company, announcing that they don’t support two gay people marrying each other. Quick FYI to those of you scoring at home: Only 7 states have legalized gay marriage. But people ignored this simple fact. Chick-Fil-A came out (heheheehe) and made their opinion known, which gave every entitled dumbass with a Twitter and a Facebook the excuse to spew nonsense about the terrible, wicked Chicken machine. People are acting as though Chick-Fil-A came forward and said that they don’t like gay people. Or that they think gay people are going to hell. Or, worse yet, that gay people AREN’T allowed in their “restaurants”. Again, for those of you scoring at home: Chik-Fil-A has around 1,600 locations. OH MY, what a presence! People are treating this like the most astonishing, unbelievable thing in the world. Almost like if fast food conglomerate McDonald’s were to come forward and say that they think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed on airplanes. Oh, wait…it’s nothing like that. Chick-Fil-A simply came forward and publicly announced that they don’t agree with something that some people agree with. We’re all doomed.

Guess what happened next? Chick-Fil-A got called a bunch of bigots. People took to social media (where all logical discussion goes to kill itself and become one-sided rhetoric) and started a REVOLUTION! “Let’s ban this small meaningless chicken restaurant” said every liberal person on Facebook. Ironically, using tolerance as their reasoning, a WHOLE LOT of people became pretty intolerant towards Chick-Fil-A and their fresh served ideologies. I would go so far as to say if Chick-Fil-A could assume the form of a human, people (again: preaching tolerance) would find him, break into his home, and lynch him in the streets. All in the name of acceptance, my friends!

Lynch Mob: Kill the Chick-Fil-A they don’t support gay marriage!

Onlooker: So he just thought that, that’s it?

Lynch Mob: Well, yeah…but I don’t agree with those thoughts.

Onlooker: So even though they didn’t perpetrate some bizarre or bigoted business decision, you’re just this pissed about what they think? “They” being a small chain of chicken restaurants from the South?

Lynch Mob: Well, yeah…I guess so. But the Muppets don’t agree with Chik-Fil-A either!

Onlooker: That’s good, they’re real and everything.

Let me make this point again: Chick-Fil-A is from THE SOUTH! And yet, somehow, people are still surprised by this announcement.

The ironic thing here is that when a group of people disagree with a group’s intolerance, they become wildly intolerant. “They don’t agree with ME? They’re out!” How does this make sense? I often see people give the “well you don’t have to…” response in arguments.

“You don’t agree with abortions? Well you don’t have to get one!”

“You don’t agree with tattoos? Well you don’t have to get one!”

Listen up you dullards, if you don’t like Chick-Fil-A…then don’t fucking eat there. But wanting to set fire to a Chick-Fil-A because they don’t agree with you, strikes me as a bit intolerant. And trust me, not eating Chick-Fil-A will probably be better for you in the long run.

But amidst so much controversy these less than tolerant individuals want Chick-Fil-A’s head on a stick. I have read about three separate college campuses that have gone through the effort to start petitions all in the name of removing Chick-Fil-A from their campuses. An example: The University of Kansas, alma mater of Michael Gallo. Citing an environment that is meant to stress acceptance, tolerance, and belonging, some KU students want Chick-Fil-A out of their student union. Get it? They want Chick-Fil-A to come out. I’ve stressed this point a lot, but really, really think about it: A group of individuals discover that Chick-Fil-A doesn’t SHARE their beliefs, so they want them out (in the name of tolerance). Guess who else doesn’t agree with gay marriage? The state of Kansas. You guys should start a petition to remove Kansas from the University of…Kansas. Good luck doing that at your state school. I went to a progressive and liberal private school in the Northeast, and we weren’t even this stupid.

And finally, there’s Thomas M. Menino, the Mayor of Boston. Tommy, defender of all that is gay, went so far as to say that a Chick-Fil-A should not be allowed to open in Boston. Shame on you, you pompous asshole. You made this announcement as a self-proclaimed and selfish attempt to get votes. Shame on you for attempting to stunt the progress of a company who is able to succeed in these trying times. When other businesses are closing down locations, Chick-Fil-A is expanding. “But NO,” says Tommy “Backdoor” Menino, “we don’t want Chick-Fil-A’s business. We don’t want the jobs that the new locations would provide.” I’m pretty sure hundreds of THOUSANDS of people died for this country so that a Mayor couldn’t speak for an entire city. I would expect nothing less from the mayor of the shittiest city on Earth. Mayor Thomas M. Menino hates Amercica.

This is all eerily similar to the Oreo cookie fiasco. Except reversed. For the love of God, it’s FOOD! You chew it, it turns into mush, your body extracts essential nutrients and then shoves it out of your anus. Sorry to be so forward, but I think people should remember this next time they’re worried about their food “making a statement”. I know people run the companies and corporations, but their product, especially if it’s food, is typically independent of their beliefs. God fearing Christians probably make chicken sandwiches in a very similar manner to atheist chicken sandwich makers. Now if Trojan announced that they don’t agree with homosexuality (in its totality, not just marriage) but then made a he-pleasure condom, I would be a lot more confused. But again, it’s a chick sandwich restaurant commenting on gay marriage. Not homosexuality, just gay marriage.

Just remind yourself: it’s only food. You can either eat it, or not eat it. Don’t use a chicken sandwich to force your beliefs on other people. Force your beliefs on other people because you’re an asshole. Embrace it.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Writer X: Chick-Fil-A, Idiots, and Reverse Bigotry

  1. I get that this is a humor site and that you’re trying to inject some humorous common sense (or whatever you perceive that to be) in the debate about Chick-fil-A. But humor like this relies on an incisive, perceptive argument and you don’t really have one, just some confused bullshit.

    So let’s start off with your opening bit: “A few weeks ago, Chick-Fil-A announced that they are opposed to gay marriage. Or to put it more simply, they don’t support gay marriage.” You’re already off to a confused start: there’s a big difference between actively opposing something and just not doing anything to support it. Suppose you’re walking down the street to go have yourself some delicious Chick-fil-A, and suppose that I jump in your path and start screaming at you like a maniac, blocking you from going any further–in that case, I’m actively opposing you getting your Chick-fil-A. But suppose I’m just sitting on some park bench, hanging out with the pigeons, and not giving a shit whether or not you get some Chick-fil-A: then I just don’t support you getting Chick-fil-A… I just don’t care. See the difference? Now, does Chick-fil-A actively oppose gay marriage? Yes, it donates *millions* of dollars to anti-gay organizations with the expressed purpose of stopping gay marriage–pretty sure that amounts to active opposition, not just “doesn’t support.” So already your first point is obviously bullshit and hence not that funny.

    Alright, so let’s move on. Next big bit is downplaying the importance of Chick-fil-A’s opposition. I mean, sure, it’s not the biggest goddamn deal in the world, but you’re position here seems to be premised on the idea that it’s unreasonable for folks to be upset about it. And, sure, only a few states have legalized gay marriage (apparently your evidence that not many people support same-sex marriage), but have you looked at the recent opinion polls? Most people do support gay marriage–not to mention huge numbers of young people supporting gay marriage (who are undoubtedly your twitter/facebook crowd). So what we’ve got is just a case of legislative lag, and any reasonably informed reader would know that. Now suppose, just for a moment, that two people marrying each other regardless of their sex is a fundamental right–just suppose it is (I don’t know if you believe it is or not–I suspect not). So you’ve got a pretty big company with a lot of locations (and 1,600 is a fucking ton) actively donating to oppose people from exercising a fundamental right–a right that the majority of Americans support and that a huge majority of young Americans support. Seems a little more reasonable to be upset about it now, doesn’t it? Or let’s look at it a different way. Suppose that Chick-fil-A comes out against interracial marriage–you’d probably be pretty up in arms about that. Now a lot of people think that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are parallel cases. On that basis, it seems pretty reasonable for people to vehemently oppose Chick-fil-A, doesn’t it? Maybe you think not, but, well, I guess you’re being argument then.

    So next you try to skewer liberals more for overreacting. Maybe some did–I don’t know. But I haven’t seen hordes of people calling for Chick-fil-A to be *banned* like you suggest. Most people think it’s an abhorrent moral position and just call on other people not to eat there, to protest their views, and so on. That seems pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? Seems like some shit sane people would do in a free society. Haven’t really seen any serious calls for it to be burned to the ground or whatever–though there’s always some hyperbole and exaggeration on the internet (no one should know that better than a humor site). And later you talk about Menino’s letter, about how Chick-fil-A should “not be allowed to open in Boston.” Did you read the letter? …Like, at all? It just encouraged Chick-fil-A not to open in Boston… it didn’t say anything about whether or not they should be *prohibited by law* from doing so. And I would guess that most Boston residents are pretty okay with telling Chick-fil-A to stay out of the region–’cause their values are a bit different. And it’s not that Menino isn’t an asshole, but he’s not an asshole for this.

    Next we get the standard canard: oh no, people who disagree with intolerance are themselves being intolerant! Well, extraordinarily penetrating insight there, I guess. It’s not like people are trying to remove Chick-fil-A’s right to voice their opinion or have the government shut down their restaurants or whatever–just that people shouldn’t support them by eating there and should support other establishments who agree with their views instead. I fail to see how that’s really all that awful. I mean, I’m guessing you’re conservative, so let’s suppose that some giant restaurant actively supports abortions (not just pro-choice positions–but affirmatively thinks that abortions are good): now if you post about how people shouldn’t eat their food or should protest store openings or whatever, are you being intolerant? Doesn’t seem to me that you are, and I’m not sure what the difference would be in this case.

    But alright. Now we get to the KU bit, which is really just weird. Not sure why it’s so offensive to want Chick-fil-A out and replaced with an organization that doesn’t actively oppose gay marriage. Again, let’s return to the interracial marriage analogy: suppose that there were a restaurant in the KU student union that actively opposed interracial marriage (to up the stakes, suppose that this is still a live political issue and that they could influence whether or not it was legal in some places or not). Would you support them being there? Do you think they have a right to be there? Most people wouldn’t think that, and I think rightly so. So, if interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are analogous, it doesn’t seem too crazy. KU and the students there are under no obligation to supply a business location to a group they disagree with, and I fail to see what’s wrong with them exercising their right to oppose it. So, again, not the most incisive argument here, and the humor falls flat. Then the weirdest line comes up: apparently opposing Chick-fil-A in the student union also means that, on pain of consistency, students must also want the entire state of Kansas out of the university of Kansas. What? Really? This makes no sense–and so it’s not all that funny. It seems pretty easy to say: (1) yeah, we’d like Chick-fil-A replaced by a group that doesn’t oppose same-sex marriage, and (2) oh, it would also be good if Kansas supported same-sex marriage and stopped being a bunch of backwards idiots. Seems pretty easy, pretty reasonable.

    And, yeah, okay: food is food. No shit. But it matters who I give money to to make my food because they can do different things with the profits. Suppose I have two options to buy a chicken sandwich: a nice dude who will donate the money to some orphanage and an asshole who’s saving up for a gun to attack his neighbor. A chicken sandwich is a chicken sandwich, but the choice is pretty clear who I should buy my sandwich from–isn’t it?

    So that was a lot of unfunny goddamn text. More than was probably necessary. But the point is that your article isn’t that funny because it’s premised on some obviously confused bullshit. Maybe it’s funny to dumb people–whatever, I guess you gotta have a target audience–but aim higher. It feels like listening to a high schooler argue with someone based on shit he heard from South Park the previous night: pretty fuckin’ un-hilarious, about as deep as a puddle, and, really, just kinda embarrassing. I guess I might get a big ol’ “hey shut up you humorless liberal why don’t you go burn down a chick-fil-a” response but whatever.

    1. Sorry, you lost me when you rambled on like a boring dumbass. You lost me when your meaningless comment took up 6 paragraphs of text. Be concise next time. For every “fuck up” you point out, you commit an equally offensive error. “Tons of young people” is really a statistic that I believe in. For the love of God, keep it to a sentence or two next time, no one has time to read your meaningless drivel. I certainly didn’t, Take care, and squat on something sharp.

  2. Yeah, not sure that you’re really one to complain about long, rambling writing. The only reason it’s as long as it was is because I had to explain why all the bullshit in your desultory weirdness was bullshit–complete with examples and analogies so you’d at least have a chance of understanding. At least I had the courtesy to read your piece all the way through–as tough as that was–before saying it was non-sense. So apparently my “tons of young people” stat wasn’t convincing to you. Alright, just check out the specifics from the Pew Forum here: http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/slide2.php. Good enough? And the James Peron column? So let me get this straight: your big evidence that the insane villagers are out with torches and pitchforks is a column by a leader of a liberal thinktank on the HuffPo (of all places!) asking that people NOT try to use zoning laws to prohibit Chick-fil-A from setting up shop? Yeah, those libz are really going nuts and just clearly incapable of reasoned debate. Big support for the premise of your article there. But what about Peron’s remarks about Menino? Well, Menino now recognizes that he can’t prohibit Chick-fil-A from setting up shop: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1061148712&srvc=rss. And that leaves some alderman in Chicago who wants to hold up the process, which he’s apparently legally allowed to do. Yeah, that definitely merits a giant, weird, crazily written article.

    1. Charles De Gaulle, you seem like an interesting character. Repulsive and boring, but interesting. And judging by the timing of your comment, and the extent to which you dissected my post, I’d also guess you’re a little lonely. That’s fine. I’ll be your friend. So, it would seem you’re not a fan of my “long, rambling writing”. Congrats, perfectly acceptable. I invite you to refrain from reading it. “The power is yours” as Captain Planet once said. You were effective in proving that Writer X’s post could not be published in a major publication. I applaud you. My recreational blog lacks the research and fact finding that makes Charles De Gaulle stiff in the pants. For something more your style may I suggest the following links?
      http://www.nytimes.com/
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/
      http://www.bbc.com/news/
      http://www.latimes.com/

      Enjoy Charles. Maybe one day we can both find love.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s